US agrees to international control of its troops in Iraq

[kskiska]

The United States accepts that to avoid humiliating failure in Iraq it needs to bring its forces quickly under international control and speed the handover of power, Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, has said. Decisions along these lines will be made in the "coming days", Mr Solana told The Independent.

The comments, signalling a major policy shift by the US, precede President George Bush's state visit this week to London, during which he and Tony Blair will discuss an exit strategy for forces in Iraq.

Mr Solana underlined the change of mood in Washington, saying: "Everybody has moved, including the United States, because the United States has a real problem and when you have a real problem you need help." There is a "growing consensus" that the transfer of power has to be accelerated, he said. "How fast can it be done? I would say the faster the better."

He added: "The more the international community is incorporated under the international organisations . That is the lesson I think everyone is learning. Our American friends are learning that. We will see in the coming days decisions along these lines."

more…
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=464488

[DUreader]

1. WOW!

[GoldenOldie]

19. Bush Administration Scenario

Bush and buddies got their war on - mission accomplished. Bush and his buddies have received billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars with no accountability - mission accomplished. Bush and buddies have acquired control of the Iraqi oilfields - mission accomplished. What is there left to do but quit? Bush has made a mess of everything is has been involved in and then quit when he got enough money, become bored with the new toy, or when it got to hot for him.

The Neocoms will declare him to be victorious and will slander anyone who dares speak against him and his thugs.

[loudnclear]

58. Is FOX publicizing this?

Talk about turn-coat.

[lancdem]

2. Wonder what the freepers will say about this

International control over our troops? "Major policy shift" is right.

[kskiska]

8. They're in denial.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1023067/posts

[0007]

23. The one post that grabbed my attention was the one about.....

"Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."

'Tis a long one. Hard to believe those freepers are still trying to make a connection. They just don't get it, 'eh?

[4dsc]

49. Freepers still believe Iraq is the center of terrorism??

I wonder how many freepers are signing up for their tour of duty in Iraq??

They are all chickenshits!!!

[KansDem]

59. Right! Aren't they the "US out of UN" crowd?

and fervently opposed to any notion of putting US troops under foreign control?

[bemildred]

3. I'm not going to hold my breath just yet.

I want to hear it from the GOUSA, and then they have to
convince the Iraqi resistance to hold their fire, which most
likely will require letting the Iraqis select their own
government.

Still, what's not to like?

[Just Me]

4. Whoah,....

Is this for real? I am flabbergasted!!! I am thinking this has to be some kind of set-up or BS or trick!!! If it is real,...hallelujiah!!!

[Eloriel]

5. Now -- what about all those oil contracts, and other delicious

opportunities to privatize the hell outta Iraq?

Eloriel

[jpgray]

9. With international control, internationalized contracts should follow

Otherwise it makes little sense to set up an unpopular privatized empire that a foreign commander will be less than sanguine about protecting. Diversity in contracts and especially bringing in domestic contractors ought to help as much as an international force.

[burrowowl]

28. Excuse to get out

of responsibilities of being the 'Occupier' under the Geneva Conventions.
But, of course our visiting troops will be protecting U$ Amurikun Corporists' interest. God! Look at HISTORY all!

[Spazito]

6. How do you spell defeat

This is the right thing to do, if they actually do it. Things must be 100 times worse than even we believe it to be for them to even contemplate this.

[lancdem]

16. Good point

Also, has this been picked up by the U.S. media?

[maddezmom]

20. haven't seen a thing yet

but then again I only get CNN International and the BBC.

[0007]

39. tuck tail and scoot

In lock step

[jpgray]

7. About damn time (nt)

[Dems Will Win]

10. It's the shoulder-fied missiles, that's how the Soviets took it in the

chops in Afghanistan and they know that. They lost hundreds of helicopters I believe. In fact the weapons are often the ones we gave Osama to shoot down the Russian choppers.

[Gloria]

11. I DO NOT want to see a lot of fawning Democrats!! I want them to

stick it to Bush if this turns out to be viable....This should not make Iraq go away as an issue, particularly in light of the article on Perle that I am about to post for the World Media Watch....

Trust me.....they plan MORE WAR!!!!

[JailBush]

12. Will the United Nations give the troops permission to criticize Bush?

Will it recognize their illnesses?

[DeathvadeR]

13. Watch my Monkey! Watch him NOW!!!..............

Backpeddle that is.

I'm non too sure if I like The monkey finally coming around. I wonder where he thought all of this up? Dem candidates maybe? This shit just might make him look to good around election time.

Don't get me wrong I want the passing of the torch and the International control but god damn if he's gonna take the credit for it.

[Cush]

14. thats the whole point

take away a talking point. it's all about 2004

[MO_Dem]

18. If the media will tell the truth on this

they won't be able to spin it their way. This is proof (if the story is true) of Duh-bya's and co.'s utter failure--and then there's all the blood and money that this has cost on both sides.

[Blue_Roses]

27. EXACTLY!

You can't believe he would agree he would ever agree to this if it wasn't election year. He's under so much pressure because it's election year, otherwise he wouldn't budge on this.

[Magleetis]

15. Who will be

the first media whore to praise * for making the correct decision. Get ready for the spin.

[wtmusic]

17. Sit back and enjoy the show

This will be a mess for the BFEE anyway you slice it.

Popcorn, anyone?

[dweller]

21. no mention of this by the BBC on NPR

now broadcasting.
:shrug:

dp

[jab105]

22. A toast to the value of "old europe".......

n/t

[Beaker]

24. They're trying to help quell the London protests a bit prior to the fact-

or change the focus by taking the wind out of their sails- that's what it's about, and why decisions will be made "in coming days".

[aquart]

41. Yah, it's for the Brit protesters.

Then, after the visit, intense negotiations will fail when the parties, the US and the rest of the world, are unable to agree.

[lark]

52. Don't believe them

This is just a ploy. The negotiations will break down when the international coalition will demand actual authority and decision making ability, so US can't give in because can't endanger existing contracts to Haliburton, Bechtel, etc.

Until US has installed government of their choice, nothing will change. They're just trying to quiet the ardour of the angry European mobs. Hopefully they're smart enough not to fall for his trickery.

lark

[Rose Siding]

25. Have American troops ever, in NATO ops,

actually been under int'l control? Haven't all the most critical dems been saying to turn political control over to the UN and to invite other troops- NATO or UN- in? Has it been suggested before that CONTROL of US troops be handed over?

If that were to happen before the surrender of ECONIMIC control, now *that* would be ugly.

[burrowowl]

26. I have a hard time believing

this. The U$ has always insisted on being in command/control.
And the World Court? Or how to pass off your war crimes on others ...!?

[Retrograde]

31. SOP: Bailout

Why is this so hard to believe - it's part of Bush's standard operating procedure: take on a task he's unprepared for, screw it up royally, walk away and leave someone else to clean up the mess. Just like Harken and the Astros.

linda

[newyawker99]

50. Hi Retrograde!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Nancy Waterman]

32. I think this article has it wrong

The big shift they made is deciding to get a provisional govt before they have a constitution. Even the Dems don't talk about putting our troops under international control. This isn't accurate.

If Bush was going to forgo so much control it would be all over the news. This is what the Dems have been saying they would do differently than Bush. If Bush really does it, he takes away a big campaign issue.

[aquart]

42. There have been no negotiations about this yet, have there?

The negotiations will fail.

George will have "tried." Just like BushCo. "tried" to avoid this war.

Bring me this news when the handover takes place, before, I don't believe it.

[Solly Mack]

29. teehee

can't wait to hear the spin on this from righties...

[kskiska]

30. This story is in the Guardian, too!!!

Governing body in Baghdad wants to limit American military to patrolling borders and guarding oil installations

Iraq's governing council wants to significantly reduce the role of the US military after the rapidly advanced handover of sovereignty in July next year. The American-appointed governing council signed a groundbreaking agreement with the US civil administration in Baghdad on Saturday, paving the way for a new transitional Iraqi government to take power much faster than originally intended.

US officials, including the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, have insisted that American troops will stay in Iraq. But the governing council wants to limit their presence as much as possible. It envisages a much restricted role for US troops - simply guarding the national border and oil installations - leaving the majority of internal security duties to Iraqi forces.

There has also been a suggestion of inviting a UN-led multinational force to replace the coalition.

Entifadh Qanbar, a senior member of the Iraqi National Congress, the party led by the Pentagon-favoured exile, Ahmad Chalabi, said yesterday that US troops should stop patrolling Iraqi cities and confine their operations to securing the country's long, porous borders once the new government was established.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1086730,00.html

[Nancy Waterman]

The Guardiian article is talking about after June 30

That makes sense. They will throw us out as soon as they can, and all of the neocon dreams of oil and control will go out the window.

[cliss]

33. It sounds good on the surface, but...

don't trust them! There's an old Swedish saying that says, "you can wash a leopard, but the spots don't come out" (something to that effect).

There is no reason to believe that these guys will be gentlemen. We know them as liars, double crossers, they say one thing and do the other.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. How much does anyone want to bet that this "transfer" will be in name only

There is way too much money riding on the control of Iraq, and the oil, for any of the powers-behind-the-scenes to EVER agree with this proposal.

The only reasons for the Bushies to allow this so-called "transfer" of control is:

1) Blame any future failures on the "ones in control";

2) As UN troops move in, U.S. troops will be freed up for the coming assaults on Iran and Syria. Whether that happens before the 2004 elections is the only question on this issue.

Solana may be buying this bill of goods, but I'm not.

[DuctapeFatwa]

35. The people they're bombing right now are not convinced

since this is the idea of the famous "Iraqi Governing Council," I would not postpone any respiratory activity of an urgent nature..

[hang a left]

47. That was a good one, may I borrow that sometime?

"I would not postpone any respiratory activity of an urgent nature.."

[NickB79]

36. Does it really matter who's in control anymore?

Will this allow US troops to come home? No, because most European countries have few troops to offer anyways, and other countries like Japan and India are hesitant to send troops into such an insecure area. US troops will still be doing the brunt of the work, and as long as they are there, they WILL get shot at and blown up by the Iraqi resistance. Even transitioning out US troops probably won't do much good. Look at the attacks on UN headquarters, Red Cross headquarters, and the attacks on British, Polish and Italian soldiers and command centers. It doesn't matter who controls the troops, just that there are foreign troops on Iraqi soil, and many Iraqis will fight until those troops are gone.

[freethought23]

37. INTERNATIONALIZAION WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL

International control (probably via NATO) is just a meaningless shuffle. The current Supreme Commander of NATO is US Marine Corps General James Jones. The Iraqi resistance has served ample notice that it does not want ANY foreigners allied with the US in its country. They have sent this message loud and clear by bombing the Baghdad UN headquarters twice, as well as the Jordanian Embassy, the Red Cross, and Italian troops. All "internationalization" will do is to provide a fig leaf for US control, and get European soldiers killed. The only reason other members of NATO might agree to it is to get a piece of the oil loot. But they will find themselves in the same deepening quagmire as the US.

[TheLastMohican]

44. NATO is strictly a defensive alliance against Soviet Union

NATO is worthless, since Soviet Union is gone. But NATO got itself involved into bombing the hell out of Yugoslavia and now they are policing the streets of Kabul in Afghanistan. Isn't it a bit odd for a strictly defensive North-Atlantic alliance to manage the security and war issues all over the world.
Sorry, but reputation of NATO is bad all over the world, it lacks its purpose and initiative and as far as I know only new entering countries such as Poland and Czech Republic wish to donate their cannon-fodder to fight some overseas wars.

[neverforget]

38. I don't buy it. International control of our troops goes against every

bone in the right wings head. If there is anything to this story, the right will be in a tizzy in no time....oh wait, they always are in a tizzy....:-)

[Jack Rabbit]

40. Five will get you ten

The Bushies don't really care who allows US transnational corporations to loot Iraq. They don't care whose troops guard the docks as Iraq's natural wealth is loaded to ships destined for the USA and the profits to deep American pockets.

Five will get you ten that this isn't the last major policy shift we'll hear about in the next few weeks.

[grasswire]

43. I'll wait for the US press

And maybe for General Clark to weigh in on the NATO aspect.

[Zhade]

45. Found this bit interesting...

Mr Bremer explained that the Americans would work with the Iraqi Governing Council in writing the interim constitution. There would also be a side agreement dealing with security and the presence of American and coalition forces in Iraq, he said.

How easy it must be to form a puppet government when you "help" with writing the country's constitution!

This is the perverse antithesis of democracy. It is utterly repugnant.

[JetJaguar]

46. Bush meet the press.

Was Clark scooping Bush, or has the administration
givin up on the OSP for MTP.




http://www.msnbc.com/news/994273.asp
Transcript for Nov. 16

GUEST: Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.)
MODERATOR: Tim Russert



MR. RUSSERT: If the president of the United States called you in tomorrow and said, “General Clark, I need your help, your guidance. The United Nations is gone from Iraq. The French, the Germans will not allow them to participate. NATO will not participate because they’re now working in Afghanistan, taking the United Nations and NATO off the table, what do I do?” what do you advise him?
GEN. CLARK: I’d say, “Mr. President, the first thing you’ve got to do is you’ve got to surrender exclusive U.S. control over this mission. You cannot build the kind of international support you need if we retain exclusive custody of the mission, and there’s no point in it. Build an international organization like we did in the Balkans. We call it the Peace Implementation Committee there. Call this one the Iraqi reconstruction Development Authority. Bring in every nation that wants to contribute, give them a seat at the table, put a non-American in charge and the responsibilities are to assist the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq, and then go to the Iraqis and there’s no reason to wait until June to give the Iraqis back their country. We should be transferring that authority tomorrow. They’ve already elected local councils. Let each local council send two people to a central location. Let that be a transitional central
government. Give them staff and let them start forming up the kinds of committees they need to have visibility over and make decisions on what’s being done in Iraq. Give the country back to the Iraqis. We’re not there to occupy it; we’re only there to help. So let’s give them their country back.”

[Merlin]

48. Solano is smoking a pipe.

He's been duped by a shrubby promise just like the AIDS plagued nations were, just like NYC was, just like the US has been. These monsters and their neocon handlers in this admin are inveterate liars. Solano has made the mistake of buying in.

[Claire Beth]

51. geez!

Did Dubya and company take heed to General Clark's interview from yesterday on "MEET THE PRESS".? HA

[htuttle]

53. J.A.S.P.E.W!

Just Another Secret Plan to End the War.

You know, there's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, I think it's in Tennessee. it goes,"Fool me once, shame on you.... F-Fool me.....can't get fooled again!"

Did Kissinger cook this one up too?

[Emillereid]

54. This is just a cosmetic change

The more they can put a so-called international and/or Iraqi face on the occupation the better, but the real control will still be still ours. Remember the EU members are too beneficiaries of imperialism, so I'm sure that the Bushits realize that they can gain valuable alliances by cutting them a larger piece of the pie. But until every last US soldier leave Iraq I will not believe that we have in any way given up our objective of geo-political control of Iraq or its oil.

These quotes from the article in the Independent are telling:
"America's chief post-war administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, also suggested that US-led forces would remain on a different basis. "Our presence here will change from an occupation to an invited presence," he said. "I'm sure the Iraqi government is going to want to have coalition forces here for its own security for some time.

There have been no specifics yet about how the international community would control the mainly American and British forces in Iraq. Nato remains the only strong possibility because it would provide international credibility while leaving control with a military organisation which Washington dominates."

Anyone old enough to remember Diem -- always handy to install a friendly government who then asks for your military intervention. Can't imagine for one minute that the Iraqi resistance fighters are going to fooled, but it's probably a ploy to quiet Europeans and Americans.

[bushisanidiot]

55. AWOL, Time To Admit You Were WRONG. Now You Need To RESIGN!

because the world now sees that you LIED about the WMD threat. You took us to war with a nation that could not defend itself which has caused 100's of thousands to DIE!!

RESIGN!

[bushisanidiot]

56. Holy Crap! The WMD Must Be Planted And Ready To Be "Found" By The U.N.

hmmm.. that's got to be it. the neocons don't do anything that doesn't benefit them.

[bushisanidiot]

57. Holy Crap! The WMD Must Be Planted And Ready To Be "Found" By The U.N.

hmmm.. that's got to be it. the neocons don't do anything that doesn't benefit them.