Another 10,000 troops for Iraq are not enough for Bush

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/27/1061663853839.html

In a relatively modest but welcome bit of relief for United States forces, troops from 21 countries, including Spain, Poland and four Central American nations, will begin taking over duties from marines in south-central Iraq this week.

The changeover, involving about 10,000 fresh troops, comes as President George Bush renews efforts to enlist the help of more foreign countries in Iraq, hoping that last week's bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad will motivate reluctant countries to take part in shoring up security.

But the soldiers taking over are not an immediate response to Mr Bush's call. They are fulfilling promises their nations made months ago to contribute forces to the "coalition of the willing" assembled by the US and Britain. Nor will their arrival augment the military presence in Iraq, where attacks on coalition forces and other violence are showing no signs of easing.

The foreign forces will simply replace troops that have been in Iraq for months.

more

[ChompySnack]

1. Sounds like the troops that are going to "safer" areas

This is probably just semi-positive spin on the movement of foreign troops out of the real hotspots. They just say, see look 10,000 new troops are coming to this area, while not saying that they are a replacement for troops in dangerous areas. This is a bad thing for our troops.

[alcuno]

2. Yesterday they reported on the Poles taking over Karbala and

how quiet it had been. Later in the day, I heard that one of their convoys was attacked using small arms. We'll see how long they last.

[David__77]

3. If insurgents attack junior partners' troops...

they will pull out. It's one thing for the Poles and Co. to posture for aid, it's another to face widespread domestic turmoil because of shed national blood.