US exploring UN command of Iraq force with American in charge: Armitage

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030827/pl_afp/iraq_us_un&cid=1521&ncid=1480

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States may be willing to accept UN leadership of the international force in Iraq if a US general is in command, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said.

The proposal is one of several being considered by diplomats at the United Nations as the United States attempts to enhance participation in the force by expanding the UN mandate for Iraqi stabilization and reconstruction, he said.

"One (idea) is a multinational force under UN leadership, but the American would be the UN commander," Armitage said in an interview with three regional US news syndicates on Tuesday.

"That's one idea that's being explored, and others just started talking about widening decision-making," he said, according to a transcript released by the State Department on Wednesday.

more

[hadrons]

1. so Bush will accept UN leadership as long as the U.S. is in charge ...

:eyes:

[Oilwellian]

2. Oh, aren't they clever

The United States may be willing to accept UN leadership of the international force in Iraq if a US general is in command

So we'll let the UN lead the international force as long as a US general is in command. Doesn't that mean we would still control an international force? What country is going to allow their young men and women to be controlled by this country's military? We can't even take care of our own kids over there and provide them with basic necessities. Not to mention the shit jobs our "leader" would delegate to foreign troops.

[sujan]

4. with money

[atreides1]

9. It's Not A Bad Idea

Because the US General in charge would be reporting to the UN Security
Council not to the DoD.
Anything orders that come to the general will come form the Security Council and not Dumsfeld and his crew of cowards and convicted felons.

Also, while capturing Saddam is a US priority, it is not a UN priority
the UN will concentrate on re-construction, and setting up a system
for Iraqi rule.

[Rose Siding]

3. This is a huge departure isn't it?

Hasn't the US headed other UN commands? Not the best, and the economic arrangements are a remaining obstacle, but could this work?

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Fat Chance, Pugsley

Boy, they ARE getting desperate, aren't they?

Of course we can't relinquish control, it just wouldn't be manly. I wonder if he can bench press a barrel of crude?

[prolesunited]

6. Kofi Annan

has made it quite clear that if the UN is to intervene, they want a major say in decision-making and authority -- just as it should be.

I think this is just an attempt to make the UN appear uncooperative. Many Americans are seeing the need for UN intervention. This allows them to say they asked but the UN simply refused.

[NNN0LHI]

7. I see this situation your way. There will be no UN presence in Iraq

This is just for the benefit of those gullible enough to believe that AWOL really tried to get the UN involved, but them "surrender monkeys" from France just won't go along with us. And we will even have DUers who fall for it too. We actually had someone here think he was being all patriotic when he went to the Eiffel Tower and stuck a little American flag (probably made in China) somewhere on the tower because the French were smart enough not to get involved in this quagmire. Unbelievable.

Don

[MidwestTransplant]

8. Can't wait to see this posted on Free Republic....

they will stroke out. They usually blame Powell and the State Dept. not realizing I guess that the State Dept. is part of the executive branch.

[David__77]

10. Eventually they'll come hat in hand...

they'll ask for a new resolution, and one that shares authority. They'll have little choice.

[young_at_heart]

11. Didn't Perle say the UN was irrelevant?

I remember him (and others) dismissing the UN with utter disdain!

[bahrbearian]

16. A debating society !

What do they know about governing by the GUN.

[w4rma]

12. Bush is an inept diplomat.

They should have been "exploring" this long before now. At this point, Bush will have to do alot more than this to talk the UN into helping us, IMHO.

[Spazito]

13. sniff, sniff, do I smell desparation here?

For the US to even hint they might strengthen the UN's authority in Iraq tells me things are VERY bad there and they are desparate to shift the responsibility to anyone but them!

[sickofit2]

14. It is either two things...

Either they are desperate and creating a plan B that the idiots should have had when they planned this in the 90's or they want to free up our soldiers for the next attack. I mean I think they want to hit Syria or N Korea but realistically they can not because of the shortage of troops so they are going to give a little in Iraq for the bigger picture... their empire must be complete!!! Just a thought but they are calculating their next move... Please vote these people OUT!!!

[newyawker99]

19. Hi sickofit2!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AP]

15. Hasn't UN already implied they have no interest in military control

and are only interested in getting elections going, and making sure any profit from this war is made by Iraqis and not foreigners? Haven't they said they're more than willing to manage the civil operations, but have no interest in managing military operations?

[FloridaPat]

17. No one is going to get any power in Iraq until Bush & Co

have the oil rights sold for eternity and Halliburton in charge of all the new construction for an eternity. That's what we're there for and no one else is going to get their foot in the door.

[comradebillyboy]

18. this model worked pretty well in the korean war

remember doug macarthur was the un commander in korea till truman fired his ass(and rightly so)

its a step in the right direction for a change

[yellowcanine]

20. Massive Ice Storm Reported in Hell

according to Faux News.