France and Germany reject US Iraq plans

[Grammatron]

Frorm the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3080094.stm) :French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder have said a US draft resolution seeking greater international help in Iraq does not go far enough. Speaking after talks in Germany, Mr Chirac said the US proposals "seem quite far from what appears to us the primary objective, namely the transfer of political responsibility to an Iraqi government as soon as possible".

Regardless of how you feel on was the war justified or not, I want to know your views on the current resolution and the changes France and Germany are seeking.

My personal opinion on this is it's too soon to be giving all the control to Iraqi government right now. The country has to be rebuilt and secured first.

[Violet_Flame]

My personal opinion is that the French and Germans want to make the Americans squirm, jump though a few hoops and listen to quite a few "I told you so"s before they will agree to anything.

[Pyrian]

And, speaking as an American here, I don't blame them...

[Mr Manifesto]

Although I note the quote about giving control back to Iraq ASAP, I believe the main issue is that the US has to cede her control over Iraq. Kofi Annan has said as much himself, stating that he can't see UN support unless the US cede control. So far, the US will do no such thing. Maybe the US wants to recoup some of her losses in the way of reconstruction contracts, who knows.

Meanwhile, the US still thinks that the best diplomatic policy is; when in doubt resort to arrogance (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1410833,00.html).

(It might seem a bit off-topic, but the issue was raised as a result of the war in Iraq)

[Violet_Flame]

I have also been hearing that the main issue is the US ceding some degree of control over to the United Nations and have to confess that I am enjoying the show of the Bush Administration waking up to the fact that they are going to have to do an about turn on some things if they want any other troops in Iraq. They may find that hell will freeze over before the arrival of French troops. The Germans are being more diplomatic, pointing out other areas of world - for example Afghanistan where troops are still needed and that the Germans are taking up the shortfall due to the decreasing numbers of troops from other countries. French diplomats have said publically to BBC Radio 4 that the Americans are on 'cloud cuckoo land' if they think they will get more troops without any loss of control.
Are Americans beginning to feel that they have bitten off more than they can chew? I ask out of interest as a non-American.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Violet_Flame
I have also been hearing that the main issue is the US ceding some degree of control over to the United Nations and have to confess that I am enjoying the show of the Bush Administration waking up to the fact that they are going to have to do an about turn on some things if they want any other troops in Iraq. They may find that hell will freeze over before the arrival of French troops. The Germans are being more diplomatic, pointing out other areas of world - for example Afghanistan where troops are still needed and that the Germans are taking up the shortfall due to the decreasing numbers of troops from other countries. French diplomats have said publically to BBC Radio 4 that the Americans are on 'cloud cuckoo land' if they think they will get more troops without any loss of control.

It is possible that the US will cede some (but definately not all) control to the UN. It is also possible that they will walk out in a fit of pique saying "see if YOU can do better". The only certain thing is that they will criticize everyone else for not helping.

Originally posted by Violet_Flame
Are Americans beginning to feel that they have bitten off more than they can chew? I ask out of interest as a non-American.
A fair number of Americans, like myself, believed this to be the case long before the invasion. This is one case where I would have preferred to be wrong.

[a_unique_person]

The US wants others to help, but it still wants to run everything. Doesn't sound like much of a deal to me.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/04/1062548962669.html



Powell seeks help, but on US terms

The United States has reinforced its stand that it will not give up significant political or military control in Iraq to secure more troops from other UN nations.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has sent to Russia, Britain, France and Germany a draft resolution to go to the UN Security Council that includes a provision that all military forces in Iraq would remain under US command.

"The US will remain the commander," Mr Powell said in a briefing on the proposed US resolution. But he said that in exchange for a resolution making the occupation army a UN-authorised multinational force, the US commander would report regularly to the Security Council.

However, on the critical issue of the postwar political administration, Mr Powell said US ambassador Paul Bremer would remain firmly in control of the process through the Coalition Provisional Authority, which would continue to work with the Iraqi Governing Council.

"The United States will continue to play a dominant political role through the work of ambassador Bremer and his coalition colleagues and a dominant role because of the size of the US force that is there and the leadership we are providing to the effort," Mr Powell said. "But a dominant role doesn't mean the only role."

[Rayn]

I thought the whole point of "post-war Iraq" was to provide some infrastructure to the country before a newly elected government would take control?

As far as for ceding control, I highly doubt the US will do any such thing until the domestic situation begins to loom large. We are still spending an absurd amount of money every day to fund operations there, and it is unfortunate that compromise is still so difficult to reach.

Personally, I find all governments involved acting rather deplorably. As they probably will continue to do well into the future.

*sigh*

[KelvinG]

I was going to comment, but I read this on MSNBC's website and it said it so much better:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp?0cv=CB20

Good for France and Germany. If the Bush administration wants to be bailed out by the very nations upon which it heaped contempt and the institutions it sought to destroy, well then let it show it understands the magnitude of the catastrophe it has caused first. Why should the rest of the world pay for Bush’s folly when they did everything they could to prevent it and he did nothing but heap scorn on them for failing to follow his disastrous lead? Why, moreover, should they contribute to a policy that is clearly a failure and will clearly continue to fail when we are refusing to allow them to do what’s necessary to give it a reasonable chance for success?

[a_unique_person]

And that contains an interesting link to this, Richard Perle in a moment of hubris predicting the end of the UN. As usual, it will battle on as best it can, given all it's contradictions and failings. Dubya (or rather, his minders), however, now has to acknowledge it does indeed still have some worth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918812,00.html



God for the death of the UN

Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order

Richard Perle
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.

[Skeptic]

To paraphrase Tom Lehrer, that's what the US gets for building a military coalition with its current friends--like France--and its historical friends, like Germany.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And that contains an interesting link to this, Richard Perle in a moment of hubris predicting the end of the UN. As usual, it will battle on as best it can, given all it's contradictions and failings. Dubya (or rather, his minders), however, now has to acknowledge it does indeed still have some worth.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918812,00.html



Meanwhile, what's Richard Perle's job now? Oh, that's right...

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Violet_Flame

Are Americans beginning to feel that they have bitten off more than they can chew? I ask out of interest as a non-American.

I don't feel we have bitten off more than we can chew. We may have bitten off more than we can digest.

From a purely military standpoint, we could simply stomp the region flat and be done with it. However, we are trying to do the humanitarian thing. We also owe it to the Iraqi people not to let another wacked out regime take power, or not to let Iraq slip into a civil war. An objective like that will take time, resolve and unfortunately, loss of life and limb.

I believe the average age in Iraq is around 18, with something equivalent to a fourth grade education (with a lot of religious mumbo-jumbo thrown into that education). It is going to be kind of like the "tough love" needed to straighten out an unruly teenager to regain security in Iraq.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by KelvinG
I was going to comment, but I read this on MSNBC's website and it said it so much better:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp?0cv=CB20



Yeah, and there is no liberal media bias either :p

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Skeptic
To paraphrase Tom Lehrer, that's what the US gets for building a military coalition with its current friends--like France--and its historical friends, like Germany.

We had a military coalition with them? I thought the coaltion of the willing was the U.S. and U.K., Poland and Spain?

And sorry to be pedantic, but we were friends with France (and have had unbroken ties with them) long before Germany even existed.

[Jon_in_london]

From a military point of view:

I somewhat doubt that the US and UK generals would want shiteloads of German conscripts running about the place in any case.

The French have the foreign legion, which is a top quality force of proffesional career soldiers, in addition, the French have been doing lots of stuff with us and UK and French forces can integrate very well.

So really, we would want some frogs legs but hold the saurkraut.

[Violet_Flame]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

So really, we would want some frogs legs but hold the saurkraut.

mmm I don't fancy your chances of getting the French anyway.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


We had a military coalition with them? I thought the coaltion of the willing was the U.S. and U.K., Poland and Spain?

And sorry to be pedantic, but we were friends with France (and have had unbroken ties with them) long before Germany even existed.

ARE YOU LISTENING, JOHN HOWARD? DIDN'T WE TELL YOU THE AMERICANS WOULDN'T NOTICE WE WERE HELPING OUT AND IT WOULD JUST BE A WASTE OF MONEY?

[Violet_Flame]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I believe the average age in Iraq is around 18, with something equivalent to a fourth grade education (with a lot of religious mumbo-jumbo thrown into that education). It is going to be kind of like the "tough love" needed to straighten out an unruly teenager to regain security in Iraq.

Actually their education is a lot better than you would like to believe and the mumbo jumbo generally consists of pledging allegience to Saddam or the Iraqi flag or some other such thing. Education has gone down the hill since the last war but that was due to lack of facilities and increasing ideaology (if you could call Saddam's ideas an ology) entering into the cirriculum.

[armageddonman]

No help from France unless french fries are named french fries again. :D

Speaking as a german I'd like to see all those a-holes who bashed those who opposed the war come crawling on their bellies.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Violet_Flame
My personal opinion is that the French and Germans want to make the Americans squirm, jump though a few hoops and listen to quite a few "I told you so"s before they will agree to anything.

Good call Violet_Flame!

That is about what I expect them to do as well.

F&G: See! We told you so!
USA: Mmmm, OK, I see your point now. By the way, can you add some of your money to this effort before the 2004 voters start thinking this entire show is going to have to be paid for the by USA?
F&G: Of course George! However, if you would have done a better job of working with us back then instead of renaming food products, then you would have not have to ask us for money now.
USA: Thanks so much and I guess you were right all. By the way, can you send in some of your troops now because many of them have been in theater for months now (while I was on vacation) and some of mine would like to go home.
F&G: Of course Mr. President, we are always happy to work with our friends, but just remember we told you so!
USA: Good! Thanks again!
F&G: Oh yeah, we would like some assurance that previous contracts and loans made with Saddam will be kept now.
USA: Yes of course. I will take care of that!
F&G: Good! Now that our differences are settled, just remember, we told you so!
USA: #### French! **** Germans!
F&G: What was that?
USA: Oh nothing! Thanks for the money and the men!
F&G: We told you so!

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Yeah, and there is no liberal media bias either :p

Bias or no bias, I feel the author of that article hit the nail right on the head.
I think that most folks (myself included) scream bias when they read an article they don't agree with.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
From a military point of view:

I somewhat doubt that the US and UK generals would want shiteloads of German conscripts running about the place in any case.

The French have the foreign legion, which is a top quality force of proffesional career soldiers, in addition, the French have been doing lots of stuff with us and UK and French forces can integrate very well.

So really, we would want some frogs legs but hold the saurkraut.

It's been 20 years since I've been around the German Army and that was as a dependant teenager of an Air Force guy on an Army base, but from what I saw, while the Bundeswehr might not be the Wehrmacht, they certainly aren't a bunch of slouches.

I agree with you completely about the Foreign Legion. I can just shake my head, roll my eyes and say "whatever" about the cowardace or lack therof of your average French soldier, but the Esprit de Guerre that the nation of France instills within the members of the Legion cannot ever be discounted.