Bush: Muslims? We Don't Need No Stinking Muslims....

[Prodigal Son]

...in OUR Coalition of the willing!

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/stor ... wire_story


Report: Bush Blocked Plan for Muslim Iraq Force

Monday, October 18, 2004 3:12 p.m. ET

By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States rejected a Saudi plan for an all-Muslim force to protect U.N. election staff in Iraq because the force would not have been under U.S. command, New York daily Newsday reported Monday.

Saudi Arabia announced it hoped to organize such a force last July during a visit by Secretary of State Colin Powell but several Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Egypt and Pakistan also were cool to the idea because they would serve under U.S. command, and because of the increasing violence in Iraq.

The United Nations also was uncertain whether it wanted its staff protected by a force of all one religious group rather than its usual multilateral approach, U.N. sources said.

But Newsday said Crown Prince Abdullah personally lobbied President Bush to agree to deploy a unit of several hundred troops from Muslim nations to help prepare for January elections.

Washington, the newspaper said, turned down the proposal because the troops would have been under U.N. control under the Saudi plan rather than the U.S. commanders who lead the multinational force now intended to ensure security in Iraq.

The question of control "was a serious issue for the commanders of the multinational force," Newsday quoted an unnamed White House spokesman as saying.

A senior U.S. administration official in Washington blamed the Iraqi government for the plan's failure, saying it did not want troops from neighboring countries deployed inside Iraq.

In addition, the plan contained no real commitment by other Arab nations to contribute troops to the force, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

But Iraqi officials said they had already worked out a deal with the Saudis ruling out the involvement of any Iraqi neighbor, Newsday said.

"This was a missed opportunity for the United States to have other nations share the burden in Iraq," Newsday quoted one unnamed Saudi official as saying.

The Saudi crown prince discussed the plan with the U.S. president by telephone on July 28, the newspaper said.

In Riyadh, a Saudi government official said he was unaware the plan had been blocked. His government's role had been confined to making the proposal in July, the official said.

"We're just putting it on the table. We put the plan out and it's for the parties to go ahead or not," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The world body is under heavy pressure from the United States, Iraq and other countries to send senior staff into Iraq quickly to help conduct the elections, due by Jan. 30.

Both the Bush administration and Iraq's current leaders believe that sticking to the timetable for the first democratic elections in decades is crucial to quelling an insurgency that has killed thousands since last year's U.S.-led invasion.

But because of the precarious security situation, U.N. help is hampered by a ceiling of 35 imposed on all international staff in Iraq, including political and humanitarian workers.

Annan pulled all international staff out of Iraq last year after two bomb attacks on U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. The first, in August 2003, killed 22 people and injured 150.

Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited.

[patriot]

How about an all-Scientologists force?

[rickshaw92]

Send in the hari krishnas!

[Penta]

Convinced as so many Americans are that their armed forces are the best in the world, I wonder if it ever occurs to them that there might be reasons (other than not being too closely associated with the wicked imperialists) why some other countries don't want to put their forces under US command.

It's undoubtedly true of the British military. They know US forces are infinitely better equipped than any others, but they do not want to be led by the US, particularly because of the rules of engagement, which they consider encourage counter-productive, trigger-happy behaviour, putting men and women on the ground in far more danger than necessary. And fuelling the cycle of violence, thereby making everyone's jobs more difficult.

As Captain Donald Francis, a spokesman for the Multinational Division (South-East), said in a recent briefing: "Every time we kill an Iraqi we will create a nationalist." The mission is not to kill but to neutralise the so-called anti-Iraqi forces (who of course are nearly all Iraqis).

Here's a quote from a journalist who spent time with British forces between Basra and Amara:

One evening I drove with British soldiers through downtown Basra, escorting a couple of American National Guards to the Basra Palace compound. Traffic was heavy, and the larger American sat twitching in the back. He wished he had taken the "chopper" the few miles up the road. An ambulance approached, its blue lights cutting through the darkness. A soldier up on top of our Land Rover waved the ambulance on. Peering out of the window on the back door, the American panicked: "Whoa," he said, "they should have shot that guy." No vehicle, ambulance or otherwise, can drive past a US convoy for fear of suicide bombers.

Back in the camp at Basra Air Base, I described the scene to a senior British officer, who sighed: "Don't they see it's a chicken-and-egg situation".

[Aegis]

Convinced as so many Americans are that their armed forces are the best in the world, I wonder if it ever occurs to them that there might be reasons (other than not being too closely associated with the wicked imperialists) why some other countries don't want to put their forces under US command.

It's undoubtedly true of the British military. They know US forces are infinitely better equipped than any others, but they do not want to be led by the US, particularly because of the rules of engagement, which they consider encourage counter-productive, trigger-happy behaviour, putting men and women on the ground in far more danger than necessary. And fuelling the cycle of violence, thereby making everyone's jobs more difficult.

As Captain Donald Francis, a spokesman for the Multinational Division (South-East), said in a recent briefing: "Every time we kill an Iraqi we will create a nationalist." The mission is not to kill but to neutralise the so-called anti-Iraqi forces (who of course are nearly all Iraqis).

Here's a quote from a journalist who spent time with British forces between Basra and Amara:

One evening I drove with British soldiers through downtown Basra, escorting a couple of American National Guards to the Basra Palace compound. Traffic was heavy, and the larger American sat twitching in the back. He wished he had taken the "chopper" the few miles up the road. An ambulance approached, its blue lights cutting through the darkness. A soldier up on top of our Land Rover waved the ambulance on. Peering out of the window on the back door, the American panicked: "Whoa," he said, "they should have shot that guy." No vehicle, ambulance or otherwise, can drive past a US convoy for fear of suicide bombers.

Back in the camp at Basra Air Base, I described the scene to a senior British officer, who sighed: "Don't they see it's a chicken-and-egg situation".

Nobody wants to put their troops under foriegn command.

I mean, this is nothing new. During the first World War both the Brits and the French wanted US troops as replacements under the command of British officers. The resultant stink over the US refusal to go along with the plan resulted in the Brits refusing to licence the "Lewis Gun" (which was invented by an American, but purchased by the British government) to US arms producers.

Anyways, it sounds like the Saudis where the only ones who thought this was a good idea.

[mach1]

sounds like a good idea to me...find something wrong with it first..

whats it to yuh'?

[Aegis]

sounds like a good idea to me...find something wrong with it first..

whats it to yuh'?

I mean, on an international scale. The UN poo-pooed it, as did most Muslim countries (who would be expected to furnish the troops), and ultimately the US.

Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a good idea on paper, but in terms of the practicalities, not so much.