Wednesday, September 3, 2003
U.S. Wants Larger U.N. Role in Iraq (washingtonpost.com) (Hat tip: Billmon)
The decision marks a major shift for Bush after months in which the administration had strongly resisted granting any significant military or political authority to the United Nations. It reflects a recognition within the administration that a stronger U.N. mandate is essential to winning greater foreign military and economic help in stabilizing Iraq.
Central to that effort is winning more pledges from other governments to send troops to Iraq to ease the burden on U.S. forces, who have come under daily attacks for weeks and are struggling to contain a recent outbreak of bombings against institutions supporting the U.S. effort. "We need the forces," a senior administration official said.
Turkey, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are among the countries that could supply substantial peacekeeping forces, but have held back because of the absence of a resolution conferring greater U.N. legitimacy on the U.S.-led occupation...
The idea of seeking a U.N. mandate was first broached publicly last week by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, who told reporters the United States would consider supporting a multinational military force under U.N. mandate, but still subordinate to U.S. commanders. One official said the idea was "a multinational force under a unified command," with a role for the United Nations in Iraq's political, economic and security operations.
"What remains key is that the U.S. remain in charge of the operation," a senior defense official said.
Security Council members reacted coolly to Armitage's proposal last week, saying it did not grant the United Nations a big enough say...
Impression: They want the forces. They want to free up US troops for missions elsewhere and not have to keep them in sitting in Iraq doing drudge work forever. If the UN can actually make itself useful, so much the better. People like me who have been dissing the UN and the UN's abilities will just have to suck it up. As long as the Administration sticks to its guns and derives a compromise where US troops aren't sacrificing themselves while UN bureaucrats sit around and debate how best to set up a welfare state, so much the better. Job one is getting Iraq back on its feet. This also disarms the Bush critics who, a year from now, will have little to moan about regarding US "unilateralism." Success is its own reward, and getting a functioning pluralist Iraqi government up and running will be success.
