US Grapples with Allies' Reluctance on Iraq Troops

[Khephra]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon says it has "firm commitments" for 30,000 international troops for Iraq and it is not disappointed that some allies have declined to help, but analysts say that reluctance is a predictable byproduct of America's go-it-alone approach.

The United States has sought to convince other nations to contribute soldiers for an Iraq stabilization force amid guerrilla attacks on weary American troops by an increasingly sophisticated resistance. Thirty-seven U.S. soldiers have been killed since May 1, when President Bush declared major hostilities over.

But many countries have balked, including some that the United States had counted on. For example, India declined a U.S. request for more than 15,000 troops, saying it would not participate without a U.N. mandate.

France and Germany, who were outspoken in their opposition to the war that toppled President Saddam Hussein, also have made clear their objections to sending troops. Both have troops in other peacekeeping operations.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3121728

[Sagan]

1. and that, my friends, is Karma...

So all you whackjob conservatives can just sit in your barcaloungers eating your freedom fries and asking the wife to make freedom toast for breakfast and watch American troops die on telly because there is a special place in Hell reserved for the lot of you.

[caledesi]

6. Good one Sagan!

[Frances]

2. Do Americans know that Bush

had promised to pay the Indian troops if India would just send them? And India still turned him down.

How many troops are in Iraq other than those from the U.S., Britain, and Australia? And who is paying for them?

How are we going to pay for this war?

[ninkasi]

3. We pay with blood...

and the pain and anguish of both soldiers, their families, and Iraquis. The tragedy is that none of the payment will be made by the ones who lied to get the war.

They leave that price for others, just as they do for everything else they have in their vile, useless lives.

[Rose Siding]

4. Have these guys talked with the 3rd Infantry at all?

"I mean, we'd always be happy if there are more and if everything were easier. But I don't think I'd characterize it as a difficulty," said Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy.

[sam sarrha]

5. its fear of association .........

it is like not wanting to stand too close to the rude sexist bigot at a party that is dominating the conversation with stories of sexual conqiest, racest slurs, homophobic jokes... he isnt getting invited next time. the other countries all know it will fall apart soon. they want to be associated with the solution, not the problem..........about time. too bad for our troops untill then. they might revolt and refuse to go on patrol unless something is done, thats the problem with and informed society... that is why the neocons want to destroy it.

[teryang]

7. Er, US dead since May 1 is 91

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

The keeping of two different books of casualties, the first, lesser, and most frequently published of which ignores the deaths not directly caused by enemy fire is a marketing ploy. Nor do they even bother to mention the maimed and wounded. Nor the Iraqi dead and disabled.

If I did the math right, the international force sans Great Britain amounts to 3,000 troops. One wonders if the additional difficulties of integrating such small numbers of foreign troops in the "effort" really "helps."