Ret. Adm Shanahan: Give the UN control of Iraq (Op/Ed)

"Finally there's a presidential candidate brave enough to tell the truth about Iraq. Congratulations to Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) for his courage to publish a workable and much-needed plan intended to get the United States out of its unilateral role in Iraq.

<snip>

Instead of internationalizing the rebuilding effort in Iraq after the president declared victory, as proposed by Kucinich, the administration has been forced to adopt a day-by-day, play-it-by-ear strategy as we sink deeper into the Iraqi morass.

<snip>


Now news that Russia, France, and Germany, which opposed the war, will be prohibited by the United States from entering into lucrative oil contracts with Iraq underscores the unfortunate fact that President Bush still has no real intention of internationalizing the reconstruction process there.

<snip>


For the sake of future generations of Americans, we must put a stop to this insanity. The last time I checked, we the governed accepted our governed status, but only with our consent. So, for the future security of our nation, on the issue of Iraq, the people must insist on our immediate giving of political control over that country to the United Nations."


Full text at http://www.cjonline.com/stories/121803/opi_shanahan.shtml

how DUers can in good conscience support candidates who want to leave our soldiers over there to kill, maim, be killed, and be maimed. What do those DUers think they're getting out of it?

We know what Rummy and the rest of the psychopaths are getting out of it--money and power. So no matter how despicable we think their motives are, at least they have motives.

But what the hell are those DUers' motives?

If not all. I don't know why this General picks Kucinch out in particular. The only difference between Kucinch and the rest is he keeps talking about these UN troops who are going to take over Iraq. There are no UN troops. We'll still have to be there. I just don't understand that part of Kucinich's plan.

And as long as there are US troops in Iraq, they'll be under US command. Even if it's a shared command of some sort. We don't put our troops under the command of the UN or other nations. That's just a truth. The General knows this as well as anybody.

These kinds of things are what makes supporting Kucinch as my #1 difficult.

On edit: Admiral, jeez, more coffee please.

But it's member countries do. What Kucinich supports is bringing in a peacekeeping force comprised of troops from UN member states.


Read Dennis' full proposal here; http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

That's my point. Our troops would not be able to come home. Again, I think every candidate supports getting more UN troops into Iraq to internationalize the occupation, secure the country quicker, take the target off our troops and eventually bring some of them home. But it's not going to be accomplished as quickly as Dennis would like to believe, even if we did it according to his plan tomorrow. And I like Dennis alot, I'm just trying to be realistic here. It's these little things that causes Dennis not to be a viable candidate. His ideas just don't quite pass muster completely. At least in my mind.

They couldn't be more different to Kucinich's or more similar to one anothers. All of them want to keep our kids over there and in charge. Will other countries go for that? No, of course not. Why not? Because there's nothing in it for them. As long as the US is in charge, the forces would be seen as foreign occupiers and fair game for guerilla resistance. Why should anyone want to send their kids to be sacrificed for US profits?

Read Uri Avnery's essay on the Israeli experience in the Lebanon: once the Lebanese Arabs realised that the IDF were not merely liberators but occupiers, they started killing them. And they didn't stop. They were grateful for being liberated, but they refused to pay for it with their freedom.

The number of people needed to maintain public order during a transitional period is much smaller than the number needed as an army of occupation. The UN could deliver far more than enough for the public-order role.

The only thing Kerry wants to keep the US in control of is our troops, because that's just what we do. The rest he wants to turn over to UN control and has since May, at least. He's been pushing Bush on his unilateral rhetoric since last July really. But he is not for any sort of unilateral US control over Iraq.

"Mostly ours"?!

Are you suggsting that UN peacekeepers are mostly US troops, or that UN peacekeepers in Iraq would likely be mostly US troops. The first suggestion is factually wrong. The second purely speculative and not consistent with past practice.

Check out info on UN peacekeeping . . .

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/

Here in breakdown of UN peacekeepers as of October 31, 2003. The current force total is 43,531. Countries with the most significant contribution.

5,343 Pakistan
4,274 Bangladesh
3,342 Nigeria
2,945 India
2,297 Ghana
2,178 Nepal
1,880 Uruguay
1,812 Kenya
1,417 South Africa
1,217 Jordan
1,062 Ukraine

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/November2003Countrysummary.pdf

Please note that many of these peacekeepers come are non-western!
That would be a huge asset is trying to stabilize Iraq.

Continued US occupation is not consistent with stability or security.

Then there's Afghansitan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and wherever else the UN has peacekeepers, Africa, etc. There's not enough for the UN to make a sizeable contribution to Iraq. And most people said we need more than 135,000 troops in Iraq. We couldn't leave. Your numbers support that.

(My first reply disappeared on me when thread was locked and moved, here is abbreviated version. Not certain why this thread had to leave P&C since it was pro-DK but looks like changes are ongoing.)

Obviously the number of UN peacekeepers would need to increased.
US forces would certainly be in the mix but UN peacekeepers would not "mostly" be US. Western troops are counterproductvive to security and stabilization. Once UN takes control US troop presence can be cycled down substantially.

There are no UN peacekeepers in Afghanistan or currently any in Bosnia. There are peacekeepers in Kosovo.
For list of current and past operations see
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home.shtml

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/121803/opi_shanahan.shtml

<snip>

Now news that Russia, France, and Germany, which opposed the war, will be prohibited by the United States from entering into lucrative oil contracts with Iraq underscores the unfortunate fact that President Bush still has no real intention of internationalizing the reconstruction process there.

This means we can expect more of the same as months of U.S. occupation of Iraq turn into years: Our troops continue to die as they try to bring order and security out of never-ending chaos. Contrary to what the generals and ranking politicians tell us about the high levels of troop morale, try telling that to the troops who aren't sure what they are doing in Iraq.

In addition to the loss of American lives, the administration is putting the future financial well being of the nation in jeopardy. For the year ending this past September, we rang up an eye-popping $374 plus billion deficit and the forecast for the current fiscal year is $500 billion.

For the sake of future generations of Americans, we must put a stop to this insanity. The last time I checked, we the governed accepted our governed status, but only with our consent. So, for the future security of our nation, on the issue of Iraq, the people must insist on our immediate giving of political control over that country to the United Nations.

Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan (US Navy, Ret.) commanded the U.S. Second Fleet and heads the Military Advisory Committee of www.Truemajority.org, a project of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities.

for any other countries to put troops in...

Dennis is so right when he says US out and UN in...

you need many fewer troops to keep peace/supervise than to occupy...
Its the whole difference between helping and controling.....a BIG difference....
don't know why people can't get this...

and I realized too when a thread is moved-locked...it sinks... so how can anyone find it?? kinda sucky...

Peace
DR