USA Today September 14, 2003
Some may not want to send troops
By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
Even if the Bush administration gets a new United Nations resolution authorizing an international force, many world leaders face formidable problems in trying to convince their people of the wisdom of sending troops to a country where U.S. soldiers are attacked almost daily.
"Think of the domestic politics for those who are considering sending troops," says Ellen Laipson, president of the Stimson Center, a Washington think tank specializing in national security. "Even if there is a U.N. mandate, they're facing a much more dangerous security environment."
Bush shifted course last week when he proposed to cede some control over postwar Iraq to the United Nations in hopes of persuading allies to send more peacekeeping troops.
Public opinion polls in France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey, some of the nations the Pentagon hopes will supply troops, show that people remain strongly opposed to the Iraq operation.
Pentagon planners are counting on a second multinational force, besides one led by Poland, to replace the Army's 101st Airborne in February, but no country has emerged to lead that division, and no forces have been identified as replacements.
The most prized troops are from nations that have trained with U.S. forces, have modern weapons and are well-funded.
"You need pretty capable troops, like northern Europeans, who are well-trained for this," says Nancy Soderberg, a former U.N. ambassador and President Clinton's director of the National Security Council. "This is a war, and the Third World countries who are good at peacekeeping when there is peace to keep will not work here."
Even if the U.N. Security Council authorizes a force, that won't solve the other problems that stand in the way of finding and getting more troops to Iraq:
. Political opposition. Parliaments in Turkey and India have rejected sending troops, and a U.N. resolution might not sway or overcome their opposition. India said Friday that it wouldn't send troops even with a resolution.
. Lack of available, well-trained troops. There are 15 U.N. peacekeeping missions underway around the world, plus non-U.N. multinational forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Those deployments have drained troops from countries with well-trained forces.
. Transportation. Because most military forces are designed to defend the homeland, few have the capability to transport forces any substantial distance.
For example, a U.N. force for Congo, largely from Uruguay, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Nepal, took nearly four months to arrive.
. Open-ended mission. Defense analysts say a nation generally needs three times the number of troops it will send on a foreign mission to ensure a rotation of fresh soldiers. Under that guideline, a nation would need 15,000 available troops to send 5,000 to Iraq. Few countries have that kind of flexibility for an Iraq mission with an unknown end date.
. Ineffective forces and Iraqi political opposition to troops from certain nations. For example, "Pakistani troops have proven incapable of policing their own border with Afghanistan, and the image of (Hindu) Indian troops effectively stabilizing a Muslim population is difficult to sustain," says Andrew Krepinevich, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "The Russian experience against Muslims in Chechnya could render them most unwelcome in Iraq."
NATO members such as Denmark and the Netherlands that backed the U.S. effort have few additional troops to spare but are trying to increase their commitment. The Danish parliament is considering increasing its 422-troop deployment in Iraq by a few hundred.
"Clearly, this is not the time to say it is horrible down there and let's pull out and not send any more. This is the time for the opposite, namely to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States and the Iraqi people," said Karen Eva Abrahamsen with the Danish Embassy.
All that could leave the Pentagon to cobble a force with troops from less advanced militaries, something experts say wouldn't work.
Eastern European nations in line to join NATO and others looking to win favor with the United States are making contributions but are already facing problems in Iraq.
The Bulgarians, for example, have found their older weapons and communication systems breaking down in the harsh elements.
"Some of these nations want to help, but their military and equipment is obsolete for a desert environment," says Patrick Garrett, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va., defense study group. "They cannot handle the rigors of the climate as well as the rigors of an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade)."
Some participating countries would want to negotiate memorandums of understanding with the United States specifying the duties their troops would perform. That leaves open the possibility that some nations would insist on staying out of high-risk areas or would refuse to participate in policing and anti-terrorist activities that have caused serious problems for the U.S.-led coalition.
© Copyright 2003 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
