The real reason Bush is asking the UN for help....

[kentuck]

We simply do not have the troops to police Iraq unless we rotate the troops that have just spent a year over there. It is a political calculation - as are all of Bush's decisions. Many of the troops over there right now are about ready to rotate out. Who will replace them? He could request that those that have already done their tour of duty go back for another tour?

But, the one thing he doesn't want to do in an election year is to piss off the military, any moreso than they are already. So they have weighed the consequences and have made the decision that it would be better to eat a little crow and crawl back to the UN than to turn the military against them in this election year.

[politick]

1. But watch how they do it

Because they'll find a way, still, to BLAME the UN for the situation, to rib France, Germany, Russia for not cooperating, for castizing the international body for not taking action earlier, and avoiding the mess the UN created...or somesuch. I've already heard peeps about how the UN has really abandoned its responsibility, how Iraq is somehow the UN's catastrophe, and they need to do some dirty work. It's really amazing...

J

[OldEuropean]

2. I think

as soon UN troops are in Iraq and Bush can withdraw the US troops he will start another military adventure. Best placed shortly before Nov'04 - because in war, Americans stick together and don't question the President, right? ...

[bpilgrim]

3. the other thing is we don't have ANY troops for ANYTHING else

not even a BLACK OUT when we are at our MOST vulnerable and lets not forget the REST of the access of evil, or the rest of the hot spots in the world.

that Congress Report that just came out COOKED his gooes...

" But the report concluded that the least expensive option would force the United States to drastically reduce its current force of 180,000 troops in and around Iraq assuming the United States maintained its military operations elsewhere in the world."

more...
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/246/wash/Congress_report_Iraq_occupatio:.shtml

he REALLY doesn't have a CHOICE.

peace

[sangh0]

4. We run out of troops in March 2004

according to that report:

"To retain adequate levels of readiness worldwide, that policy would force the United States to begin reducing its troop strength in Iraq below current levels by next March, the study said.

Under that scenario, the 180,000 American troops now in and around Iraq would have to be drawn down to 38,000 to 64,000 by the winter of 2004-2005, the analysis said. "

[kentuck]

5. That's over 100,000 troops....?

Where will they be needed to retain "readiness", I wonder?

[ewagner]

11. Good question, no easy answer

Two points:

First, getting the UN involved is not an act of contrition
The neocons do not see Iraq as a failure because the oil fields are still controlled by US companies. Involvement of the UN is simply a way of freing up resources for the second point.

The neocons have an agenda and they are sticking with it come hell or high water. Remember how Bush "played" the international community in the run-up to the war? The whole act of going to the UN for a resolution was simply pro-forma. (maybe viewed as a minor inconvenience) This trip to the UN is only to get the UN to do their bidding so they can get on with the next item on the agenda.

What is that next step?

They have a lot of options to choose from. My suspicion is that it won't be Iran or N. Korea, they'll try for a cheaper more "shock and awe" type of victory; something accomplished with air power and special ops that won't require a committment of ground troops. I think the Baaka Valley is a likely candidate.

However, if they win in 2004 all bets are off!

[Kbowe]

6. Think what the Repugs would be calling Clinton now...

Coward, loser, waffle-belly, liar, draftdodger, AWOLer, un-American, sell-out, UN-lover, indecisive, unprepared, arrogant,
They would be having a fit!

The real reason Bush wants the UN now is to be able to blame the failure on therm instead of his own arrogantly stupid policies.

[kentuck]

9. longrange, I think you are right.

But, I think they operate mostly from what is advantageous to them in the shortrange. I don't think they give a damn about the future.

[Skittles]

7. HE DOESN'T GIVE A FLYING F*** ABOUT THE MILITARY

any more than he cares about anything else. All his little f***ing pinhead knows is that to be reinstalled those soldiers have GOT to stop DYING.

[marshmellow]

8. With a war planned every two years.

A re-election strategy calls for another war campaign against another evil doer. With troops tied up in IRAQ, who would support it? It would be perceived as an election strategy without the proper ability to deploy troops to another part of the world.

[Cujo]

10. Whats he going to do?

of course the troops that are ready to rotate out are going to have to go back. they'll eventually start turning on their officers once they realize they're sitting ducks and nobody really gives a crap. Bush was in such a hurry to invade Iraq, notice you never hear him mention Saddam anymore (more magical thinking, if Saddams not mentioned he must be irrelevant, dead or whatever, much like Usama), and now we're screwed. Also I don't believe the UN should help us. Bush was so high and mighty, full of arrogance when we "conquered" Iraq against world opinion now he's whimpering for the World to save us. There's a lesson to be learned here, a hard one and one that sucks but a lesson none the less. Let's hope the AMerican public learns it by 2004 and rids the nation of this cancer thats currently plauging us.

[kentuck]

12. But they are so good with their prop/ag....

I have doubts that America will see the cancer until it is too late...

[pansypoo53219]

13. when does he ever

clean up his OWN mess???
or for that matter PAY for it. that's the 'help's' job.

[Starpass]

14. kentuck--agree he' shooting for the short term (in order to launch in

the far term - technically called "after he gets re-elected". He and the repukes who have to run for office in '04 want this mess swept under the carpet. After re-election, this fucker will have us in another mess hell hole and the Amurekans will say "gosh, there he goes again"!!!! As Truman said (I'm paraphrasing) "how many times do the people need to be hit over the head before they know who is hitting them over the head"!!!! So true, Harry, so true.

[Solomon]

15. I don't think he's going to get re-selected.

Stick a fork in him, he's done. He can't engage us in another war before '04, he would lose by a landslide.

More than the deaths of the soldiers, the money we're spending, his plea to the UN is going to kill him with his base. Not because it makes him look stupid - they don't care about that. It's because it makes THEM look stupid.

[ewagner]

17. Overlooking

I think you're overlooking the principle these guys seem to be operating under that no one would DARE VOTE AGAINST A WARTIME PRESIDENT.

I'm just cynical enough to believe they have something of that nature planned.

[realFedUp]

16. where are the armchair generals now?

no big graphics for "mess in Iraq", no advice for
dealing with civil war, no outrage for soldier's conditions?

[joanski01]

18. Yeah, where the frick are they?

Why aren't they standing on their big floor maps pointing out where every soldier got killed. Did the fun wear off now that the poop has hit the fan?

I don't believe the UN will go along with shrub's* request, because the US wants to retain command no matter what. The French and Germans are going to send their soldiers to Iraq to die for bush*?? I think not.