The US needs allies - but is too proud to pay the price

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1000492,00.html

The US is in danger of moving from a unilateralism it freely chose to an isolation it neither desired nor expected. As the costs and difficulties of reconstructing Iraq come home to Washington, it looks as if America is going to be left to bear the burden without the major aid from its friends and allies, other than Britain, that it now desperately wants.

An over-confident administration had at first assumed it would not need much help from others in Iraq. They then concluded they did need it but that it would not be too difficult to drum up. Now they are realising they are unlikely, at least in the near future, to get soldiers and financial help from other countries in anything like the quantities they had hoped.

Nor is it clear that an American agreement to expand the role of the UN in Iraq, if it should be forthcoming, would necessarily open the aid gates. Some of the countries explaining their reluctance to contribute on the grounds that the UN is not sufficiently involved, may be doing so in the expectation that the Bush administration will never go far enough in that direction, and that their UN bluff, as it were, will never be called.

Some opponents of the war and critics of the US presence in Iraq may feel that the motto of this story is "serves them right", but the consequences could be bad for all concerned, including Iraqis. It could increase the chances of America making the wrong choices in Iraq, denying that country the genuine new start it deserves, while adding a new dimension of bitterness to American attitudes to the rest of the world.

(snip)

the Neo Cons are too proud to have allies

They have burned more bridge than there are
in Madisson county, and now they want help?

Also a UN resolution would mean truly the end
to the Neo Con Empire, since I can bet a condition
would include the severe reduction of the American role.

<chuckle>

And yes I would welcome that, but this will not happen
until team bush is properly chastised or
preferably OUT.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

are aware that the FAA went after Democrats who disagreed in Texas.

And today the GOP called the police on Democrats in Congress.

Why would anyone in his/her right mind want to get mixed up with the GOP dominated U.S. government?

want to call all the shots, make all decisions, and the only thing that their "help" would be used for is moving targets for disgruntled "Saddam loyalists". And as far as increasing the chances of America making the wrong choices in Iraq, that's already a done deal. We haven't made of "right" choice yet.

I agree, help is needed. But it will not come until the Bush administration gets it through their collective skulls that they have no divine right to unilaterally make all policy decisions, decide how Iraqi assest will be used and dispersed, or install a puppet government of their own chosing in Iraq.

Putting Iraq back together would require a collaboration of allies that have the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind, not a bunch of thugs with the maps to the locations of all the Iraqi oil fields.

but that is what so much of global politics is about when all said and done.

However, the question that should be asked a bit more at the moment is this

what will be best for the people of Iraq?

Blair & Bush are making a right pigs ear of it, but on the other hand the power vacum we crated in iraq is such that to pull all the troops out now, as the likes of the Stop The War Coalition advocate will make things many times worse and probbably lead to civil war in Iraq. The policy I like the look of most is the replacement of US/UK troops with a UN force and a big aid budget to be used for reconstruction. Here is a good article on those lines.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F06%2F16%2Fdo1601.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=91327

A different approach is needed for the reconstruction of Iraq, based on a UN-led civilian administration supporting the return of sovereignty to Iraq's people.

Reconstruction efforts need to focus on reinstating the administrative systems that were functioning before the war, not setting up new or duplicate structures. However good or bad the standards were before, at least they functioned. Today, there is an almost total vacuum and any humanitarian efforts are severely constrained by this.

What is needed is action and it is needed soon. The opportunity to improve the situation in Iraq, to assist ordinary Iraqis and gain their support in a post-conflict structure, is slipping through the fingers of the coalition.

We know from first-hand experience elsewhere, such as in Afghanistan, of the consequences of a failure to follow up on armed intervention. The parallel is uncomfortable and telling.

I usually find myself in agreement with them...but that last paragragh in your post shows that they're confusing the American Publics' attitudes with those of the right wing fascists that have hijacked our nation.

I think this paragraph deserves an Honorable Mention for Understatement:

<snip> American difficulties in Iraq are not only a consequence of the attacks they are suffering in the central part of the country. They also arise from the fact that elements of the extremely ambitious and radical plan for physical and political reconstruction of Iraq, involving years of full American control - which the administration decided on before the war - co-exist uneasily with the less ambitious but still problematic scheme for a quicker handover to Iraqis that it stumbled into after taking the over country. </snip>

countries to benefit from the billions being spent...why share when they don't have to?

We will send and spend the money even if a soldier a day dies, or the Iraqis have no water or electricity...none of that matters...

"Money Matters" greedy bastards.