Lingering resentment over the prewar dispute at the United Nations is keeping the White House from seeking adequate international help in Iraq.
Published August 18, 2003
India, France, Germany and several other governments are willing to send troops to relieve our undermanned and overburdened forces in Iraq. These countries have valuable experience in nation-building and peacekeeping operations for which the U.S. military is ill-suited. All they ask is that their involvement in Iraq be carried out under the authority of the United Nations. But the Bush administration is still unhappy with the United Nations, and it isn't interested in any international help that might compromise its control over the political and economic future of postwar Iraq. Stubbornness and greed are poor excuses for refusing help that could save American lives and billions of American dollars.
U.S. officials living in the real world know that they need all the help they can get in Iraq. L. Paul Bremer III, the top American administrator in Iraq, generally gives upbeat assessments that please his political bosses. But this month, Bremer acknowledged that the money required for the long-term reconstruction of Iraq will be "staggering." At the same time, some military experts say occupation forces need to double their current troop strength of 160,000 to re-establish order, and they estimate that a force of at least 100,000 troops will be needed for years to come.
The United States can't afford to bear that burden virtually alone. And, despite President Bush's talk of a "coalition of the willing," the United States has been virtually alone up to now. About 140,000 U.S. troops are on the ground in Iraq. About 11,000 British troops have done vital work, primarily in southern Iraq, but they, too, have seen conditions deteriorate recently in areas under their control. Otherwise, only about 10,000 international troops, handling mostly peripheral tasks, are part of the lopsided "coalition."
Countries such as Mongolia, Bulgaria and Honduras may be willing to help in Iraq, but they aren't able to help much. Meanwhile, several countries that could provide immediate, meaningful assistance in Iraq are being kept out because of lingering disputes over the United Nations' proper role.
By welcoming aid from governments such as India, France and Russia, the Bush administration could help to move the international community beyond the Security Council dispute that preceded the war in Iraq. Instead, some ideologues in the administration question the motives of other governments and resist giving up even an inch of control over the Iraq occupation. Their concerns are unwarranted. A broader international force could be built in ways that protect U.S. control over major military operations. And as for White House concerns that countries such as France and Russia are only interested in maneuvering for contracts and other economic benefits in Iraq, Halliburton and other well-connected American corporations already have locked up more business than they can handle.
For now, American troops are doing almost all the suffering and dying in Iraq, and American taxpayers are footing almost the entire tab. Bush administration officials say they will make new efforts to bring individual countries into the Iraq coalition, but that strategy hasn't worked so far. For our country's sake, President Bush and the Iraq hawks who got us into this situation should swallow their pride and seek the international help they need to get us out of it.
