by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 3, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

acing growing fallout in Iraq, the White House looks to mend fences with the U.N., hoping to shed political liabilities heading into the ‘04 elections. With the economy showing a pulse, Iraq represents Bush's Achilles heel, especially the mounting death toll and astronomical price tag. Toppling Saddam was easy enough but few expected such fierce resistance to winning the peace. Blowing up the Jordanian embassy and U.N headquarters signaled Iraq's infiltration by Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists now sabotaging the reconstruction. By internationalizing Iraq, the U.S. hopes to spread its risk, robbing terrorists of the incentive to lash out at foreign occupiers. Yet the recent bombings suggests that terrorists make little distinction between the U.S. and prestigious world body. With key U.N. nations bitterly opposing the war in Iraq, the U.S. will have to offer a lot more than glory to get real international support.

      Performing an abrupt U-turn, White House now praises the same institution it trashed as ineffectual, especially the daunting task of searching for weapons of mass destruction. Last January, the U.S. failed to get a Security Council resolution authorizing force. Now Secretary of State Colin A. Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice circulate a proposal asking the U.N. to contribute both military and humanitarian manpower to the rebuilding effort, without challenging U.S authority. Before and after the war, the U.N. was seen as meddling in U.S. foreign policy, inadvertently hamstringing national security. With terrorists now causing death and destruction, the White House has no choice other than seeking international support. Mounting casualties and exploding costs make U.N. involvement both desirable and inevitable.

      Winning over recalcitrant nations like France, Germany and Russia won't be easy without giving away a piece of the action, including Iraq's mineral wealth. These countries won't play ball unless there's a substantial quid pro quo—something U.S. oil companies won't be too happy about. Creating a multinational peacekeeping force won't satisfy countries with longstanding economic ties to Iraq. The Pentagon will have to pony up, not just promise participation in military and humanitarian operations. Under Powell's plan, the U.S. would invite foreign troops to wear their own uniforms. “Regarding the possibility of participating of international forces in Iraq under U.S command, we don't see anything wrong with this,” said Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, acknowledging the obvious but not admitting under-the-table deals needed to win support from foreign countries.

      Offering the U.N. a “vital role” in Iraq's reconstruction plays well with domestic public opinion, growing increasingly impatient with the current snail's pace of progress. Inviting foreign troops doesn't translate into power sharing or economic windfalls connected with Iraq. Before France, Germany or Russia sign onto any plan, they will demand that the U.S. relinquish military and civilian control to the U.N.—something that goes far beyond the White House's current plans. Bush's new proposal calls for assigning foreign troops to specific “hot zones,” much like British troops control Basra and some Shiite towns in the south. Yet key Security Council members will be reluctant to simply add troops without definitive power sharing, especially given Al Qaeda's lethal infiltration. Secretary General Kofi Annan got the message after last month's bombing of U.N. headquarters.

      Establishing stability requires more than beefing up U.S. or foreign troops. Regular troops become sitting ducks in the low intensity warfare now being waged by foreign and domestic terrorists. Beyond good public relations, inviting the U.N. to suddenly offer troops exposes member countries to the same dangers now faced by U.S. and British forces. "We should search for a natural role for the U.N." said Danillo Turk, assistant secretary general for political affairs, reluctant to jump into the fray. "We can find a role in organizing elections, we can be helpful in expediting a constitution," mirroring the exact role envisaged by the White House, after formal military operations ended on May 1. Judging by the problems U.S. troops face in Iraq, the Pentagon didn't anticipate the terrorist hornet's nest now unleashed. Expecting the Security Council to jump at the White House's current offer seems unrealistic.

      Offering up a new proposal, the White House can claim they've done their level best to internationalize the Iraq crisis. But before the Security Council bites, the U.S. will have to sweeten the pot, offering to share power and potential wealth with participating states. Moscow, Beijing and their client states are busy selling explosives, Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenades to terrorists fighting U.S. occupation. With bitterness lingering, France and Germany will interpret the latest U.S. move as a cynical manipulation of the U.N. “Such a perspective can only develop if the United Nations takes over responsibility for the political process and if an Iraqi administration is installed,” said German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, throwing cold water on the current U.S. proposal. Inviting in more foreign troops won't stop Islamic terrorists from turning Iraq into the next Afghanistan.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.