Chicago Tribune August 14, 2003
Russia and U.S. cheer cooperation on missile sting
Despite taxed military, coalition will maintain authority
By Mike Dorning
Despite mounting American casualties in Iraq and the increasingly complex occupation there, the Bush administration is balking at granting the United Nations a greater security role, a condition set out by several countries before they will contribute troops to help.
Fearing a dilution of Pentagon authority over security matters in Iraq, the White House has decided that it will accept military help only from nations that are willing to serve under the command of the joint U.S.-British coalition that is administering the country, administration officials said Wednesday.
"There's no movement on this," said one administration official, who declined to be named.
"The battle cry in the administration has been consistent since this began," said another State Department official. "UN role, but not UN control. International role, but not international control."
The decision likely means that the 18,000 foreign troops--the figure includes the British force--now serving alongside 148,000 Americans are unlikely to grow by much.
Governments such as Turkey and India that are prepared to offer significant numbers of troops are wary of participating in a U.S.-led occupation and insist that their forces will serve only under a UN-run operation.
The Bush administration did decide Wednesday to seek UN Security Council endorsement of Iraq's interim Governing Council, submitting a resolution for approval that would give the 25-member U.S.-selected body firmer international footing and would authorize a new UN assistance mission for Iraq.
But that largely symbolic resolution avoids any mention of a UN peacekeeping force that might have enticed other countries to contribute troops to help police Iraq.
The differences over the extent of a UN role in Iraq are playing out along lines similar to the bitter diplomatic feuds that erupted between the White House and key European allies over the Bush administration's determination to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
As guerrilla attacks pick off U.S. troops nearly every day--two more Americans were killed Tuesday and Wednesday--lawmakers from both political parties in Congress are pressing the White House to solicit other nations to share the security burden in Iraq. Military families, meanwhile, are complaining about extended deployments in Iraq that now are expected to stretch a year and beyond for most American troops there.
Despite the White House refusal to broaden the UN role, the Pentagon is still counting on foreign units that are not yet committed to fill its troop rotation schedule.
The continuing insurgency in Iraq already had forced the Pentagon to discard plans to draw down its forces rapidly after the war. And last week's car-bomb attack against the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad raises the possibility of a new terrorist threat on top of the existing security problems plaguing the country.
The size of the occupation force in Iraq, however, is much smaller as a proportion of the local population than the peacekeeping forces that were sent to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. In the Balkans, there was one soldier on the ground for every 50 locals, versus one per 150 locals in Iraq, according to the RAND institute. In postwar Germany, the United States had one soldier deployed for every 10 locals in its occupation zone.
Even so, the 148,000-member force that the Pentagon has stationed in Iraq is stretching the U.S. military, which also has major commitments in Afghanistan and Kosovo.
Twenty-one of the Army's 33 active-duty brigades are stationed overseas. In addition, 189,000 members of the National Guard and military reserves have been called up for active duty, with 28,000 of the "weekend warriors" on mobilizations that have lasted longer than a year, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
Skepticism on staying power
"You just don't have the ability to sustain this with the current military," said Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon. "People will quit. They will say, 'I joined the military to fight and win wars. I didn't join to keep the peace, get sniped at and spend two out of every three years in the Arabian desert.'"
The new troop rotation plan for Iraq--it maintains the current military strength there without augmenting it--relies on two National Guard brigades that haven't yet been trained for the mission, a division that just returned from Iraq and two newly organized brigades that haven't been certified combat-ready. The plan also assumes that more foreign troops will be available than are currently committed.
'Full-court press' for allies
Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in recent congressional testimony that the participation of foreign troops "needs to be higher" and that U.S. officials are applying "a full-court press" to obtain more commitments.
At the moment, however, there are only about 18,000 foreign soldiers from 18 countries assisting in Iraq. Britain, which fought alongside U.S. forces during the war, is the largest contributor, with 10,000 soldiers, followed by Italy, with 3,000; Poland, with 2,300, and the Netherlands and Australia, with about 1,000 each, according to figures compiled by GlobalSecurity.org, a Web site that specializes in military affairs. Other allies in the coalition have contributed fewer than 1,000 soldiers.
Washington has looked to Turkey to contribute 10,000 soldiers, and Indian government officials have discussed a potential contribution of 17,000.
But leaders in both nations have said those deployments are contingent on a new UN mandate. France, Germany and the Arab League also are demanding a resolution that would provide more international control.
Domestic opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in Turkey, India and other countries has made it difficult for their governments to contribute troops to a U.S.-led occupation. Their participation would be more politically palatable if their troops served under UN command, several diplomats said.
Diplomats say the problem could be solved if the UN were to take over all military operations in Iraq. But they acknowledge that a more likely compromise would create a UN peacekeeping force that would serve alongside the U.S. contingent, with the two forces dividing responsibilities.
Such an arrangement would mirror what is being done in Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are hunting down Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters alongside an international peacekeeping force under NATO command.
Agnes Vondermuhll, a spokeswoman for the French Embassy in Washington, said her government believes troops operating under UN auspices are more likely to be seen as neutral peacekeepers.
"Each day there are attacks against U.S. and British troops because some Iraqis see them as occupiers pursuing U.S. interests or, even worse in the region, pursuing Israeli interests," Vondermuhll said. "A UN umbrella gives you a neutral umbrella."
In recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said the Bush administration would "certainly like to see" a UN resolution that would bring in more foreign troops, but only if "it doesn't put limitations on what [U.S. administrator] Ambassador [Paul] Bremer and our people can do in Iraq."
Administration officials contend that granting international institutions a share of authority over Iraq would add inefficiencies at a time when decisiveness is essential and would slow the transition to self-government. They also note that other countries do not necessarily share the Bush administration's goals in Iraq.
Influential neo-conservatives within the administration have long argued that the transformation of Iraq into a democracy offers a rare opportunity to move the Middle East toward a democratic, market-oriented community that would favor U.S. interests and, in the long run, reduce support for anti-American terrorism.
Danielle Pletka, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that the goals of such a strategy conflict with the interests of many Arab regimes. International control of the occupation would make it easier for them to undercut the strategy, she said.
"The last thing one wants is whoever happens to be the French officer in charge picking up the phone and checking in with [the Syrian government in] Damascus to see what they think," Pletka said.
GRAPHIC: GRAPHICGRAPHIC: U.S. combat deaths in Iraq; A U.S. soldier was killed Wednesday when the personnel carrier he was riding in hit an explosive device near the northern Iraqi town of Ad Dwar. It was the 59th combat-related death suffered by U.S. forces in Iraq since President Bush declared an end to major fighting May 1.; LOCATIONS OF U.S. COMBAT DEATHS SINCE MAY 1; Mosul (4 killed): Includes a July 24 convoy ambush that killed three soldiers.; Baghdad (22 killed): Iraqi capital has been the most frequent site of anti-U.S. attacks.; Ba'qubah (5 killed): Includes a July 26 grenade attack in which three soldiers guarding a children's hospital were killed.; Al Majar al-Kabir ( British troops killed): British soldiers die in a clash with protesters, June 24.; Note: Locations of seven combat deaths not available.; Sources: U.S. Department of Defense, news reports.; Chicago Tribune.
© Copyright 2003, Chicago Tribune Company
