Hellloooo cornerstone of Ws plan for transition in Iraq ... just ate

[salin]

the ghost over the weekend and noone is aksing W about what it means for our "plans".

NATO is backing away from involvement in Iraq.

Bush's plan - as he announced in his big speech/press conference - relies on transitioning from US led "coalition" (of the bought) to "Polish led NATO multinational force" - sometime after the IRaqi elections. He said this over and over again.

But - since then Poland has only agreed to stay as long as their current commitment allows (end of summer?end of year?) - doesn't sound like any "Polish led" forces are going to take primary control...

AND - over the weekend NATO made noises that they will NOT be likely to get active in Iraq let alone take over the command.

So here bush is asking for more money... BUT noone is about his actual plans - and what the moves by NATO and Poland mean (eg that we are going to remain the primary force for as long as we are there...)

One news item over the weekend and the NATO story disappeared. The lynchpin of the president's current strategy for transitioning just fell out and noone mentions it...

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Repport to room 101 for some reeducation citizen

Obviously you are connecting way too many dots here

;-)

[LittleApple81]

2. Good question. Besides naming a criminal as "ambassador" I

haven't heard anything. Relying on Brahimi (sp) to fix the situation for him?

[pinto]

3. it is and always has been a US/UK op. and I agree, our "handover"

farce has turned an ugly - and PREVENTABLE - corner.

[Ganja Ninja]

4. Someone might want to clue Kerry in to the fact that ....

NATO and the UN aren't coming to our rescue.

[Bandit]

5. Under real Adult American leadership they very well may be willing to help

I would venture a bet that most countries in the world would love to be back in the good graces of America but not under Fascism. If America restores it's national sanity and elects a real leader who also cares about the rest of the world then things very well may change for the better every where. The world is standing by to await our return to sanity.

[salin]

6. I think there is truth to this perspective

the world does not want to see the level of ongoing instability that is current and is being spawned by current policies. However under current US leadership (which has continuously rejected real multilateralism - as that would require giving up some control and access to resources) - especially after the latest scandal - it keeps getting less and less likely. But this doesn't mitigate the broader desire to ease the problem that overwhelms the sense that this is the US's mess - and let 'em clean it up - sentiment. I think that a change at the top, including plans to move forward, could change the current stand by NATO.

[thecrow]

10. duh

I wonder why...?
Could it be Smirky's unilateral gung ho approach?
Maybe when he called the UN irrelevant they *gasp* heard him?

[sangh0]

7. It ate the ghost before the torture pics

The ghost got eaten when the Iraqi Defense Forces dissolved under attack (or joined the attackers) in Falluja, and Najaf.

Remember? The "plan" was to train an Iraqi force so our troops wouldn't have to do all of the patrols.

[salin]

9. you may be correct... I first read about specific backward NATO moves

(eg backing away from the situation) this weekend. Either way... no news... no discussion... seems that it is an EXTREME vulnerability for bush.

[Cleita]

8. After snubbing the UN and NATO initially, neither will lift a

collective finger to help Prez Boosh. If Kerry wins in November, then I think you will see a change of policy, especially if the USA does sufficient groveling to get them to change their minds.