U.S. Bartering Arms for Soldiers for Iraq War

[DUreader]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0731-01.htm


UNITED NATIONS -- Faced with a rising death toll among its soldiers in Iraq, the United States is
trying to "buy" foreign troops for a proposed 30,000-troop multinational force in Baghdad.

''When they were seeking U.N. support for a war on Iraq, they were twisting arms,'' one Asian
diplomat told IPS. ''Now they are offering carrots in exchange for our troops.''

The inducements--including weapons and increased military aid--have
apparently been offered to at least three countries whose troops Washington
desperately needs to bolster the fledgling multinational force in Iraq and
relieve the pressure on U.S. forces.

The administration of President George W. Bush has intensified efforts to
seek troops from India, Pakistan and Turkey in order to bolster a multinational
force that now includes troops mostly from former Soviet republics and Latin
American nations.

The Indian government, which withdrew its offer of 17,000 troops under heavy
domestic political pressure, is being lobbied once again with an offer of
sophisticated military equipment.

[saigon68]

1. MERCENARIES

What else do you expect from this WORTHLESS bunch of CHICKEN HAWKS.

Like their Awol leader the Neo-Cons are now purchasing DRAFT- SUBSTITUTES--- ala the U.S. Civil War.

[blondeatlast]

2. How to create another Afghanistan; Lesson 1:

(snip)
"General Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, is now in New Delhi to try to convince the government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to change its stance on troops for Iraq.

The London Financial Times said Tuesday that the Bush administration has also pledged to further relax the sale of dual-use technology to India in return for that country sending troops to Iraq.

France, Germany, India, Pakistan and several other nations have declined to provide troops unless there is a new U.N. resolution authorizing the proposed multinational peacekeeping force in Iraq.

But India could change its position, according to Professor Stephen Cohen, director of the South Asia programme at the Brookings Institution.

''For all we know, they are still talking about terms under which India might come,'' he said in an interview. ''That's part of the bargaining game that's going on.'' "
(snip)

I'm not slagging India, it's my husband's native country, but Vajpayee may jump on this to cause problems for Pakistan, whose neck is under the boot of Al-Qaeda.

We helped out Iraq, too . . .

[fishnfla]

3. The Irony. The Hubris

Flashback to the build-up to war. Rumsfelds blustering, the arrogant posturing.
Now comes the begging, the bribes. Our former allies are so "I told you so!"

[Dhalgren]

4. Someone, or some "body" of our government

should put a stop to this. Gods, I guess it is what happens when you have a one party state. There are no checks and balances. The US should not be in the business of hiring mercs to do our dirty work. And what happens when large groups of Indians or Turks or Ukranians get killed? Is that o.k. because they aren't Amerikan? If they are our hired soldiers what difference does it make whether they come from New Dheli or New Haven? Jesus, this government blows!

[salin]

5. If this is done to "lower" US costs

which is what one of them said on the Sunday talk show circuits - then how much will this cost compared to using US troops?

When this invasion and post invasion is critically compared to the first Gulf War, or the actions in Kosovo - sometimes the numbers and dollars are reported as in the percent of US troops to international troops and the US expense compared to the international expense. The numbers do not add up favorably for this current war. This is not surprising given the way the US attempted to manhandle the UN, and the US while claiming this was an unprecedented action of preemption due to the dire concerns about WMD - while simultaneously working to defeat the efforts of the UN Weapons inspectors even before the inspectors went in to Iraq. (With US media complicitness. Side note: does anyone remember Will Pitt's experience with one of the national news departments the week the inspectors went in? I believe they wanted to know if he could speak to how the inspections/inspectors were failing - NOT about how they were doing - but searching for "experts" who would validate the Administration claims that it was, already in week one, an abject failure).

Then add that not only have no WMD been found, but the now public admissions that the "evidence" (more than just the Niger info) was trumped up and cooked.

So what are they trying to do now to expand the international presence? Is it - a) to compare more favorably in complexion and cost of the troops (occupiers? peace keepers?) in Iraq? or b) to deal with the very REAL problem of US troops being spread to thin.

It must be b. Becuase if we are paying out the nose to get troops from other countries on the ground - it is not about sharing War costs. Indeed it would be interesting to know if this keeps the projected costs static (the same) or further drives up the cost to the US taxpayers?

And if it is point b - doesn't that reinforce the reality of the poor planning done by the ideologues who just KNEW all Iraqis would throw roses to the liberators and would be willing to do whatever the new liberators wanted (re: no resistance and no need for sustained large troops) - and thus who engaged in NO contingency planning, and who invaded prematurely (re: before the contingencies were prepared).

Consider this - lets say the invasion was warrented (I, personally, do not think so given the more serious threat of NK and the ongoing challenge of Al Queada that was suddenly undermanned in order to carry out the Neocons fantasy in Iraq). Would it not have been better to play the whole UN thing out? To let the inspections work. And if there were problems with the inspection have the UN Security Council behind the invasion - and have a true multinational force (thus lower US troop commitment) which would share man power and costs both for the invasion and for the post invasion period?

All in all, even if this were warrented, these administration has been a disaster.

All of that said - I would love to see a $ analysis of costs related to each country's troops that we entice to now take part. (I thought I read yesterday that we were paying the transportation, meals and other needs of Polish troops to a tune of about $100,000 per soldier - that would add up to a pretty penny for US tax payer. If each country that participates gets this kind of deal - with a goal of having 50,000 international troops - that alone adds $5,000,000,000 to the cost. Pretty powerful statement about poor planning - don't you think?)

[htuttle]

6. The financial cost for 'mercenaries' is much, much higher

But the political cost is much lower, since it's someone else's kids getting killed, not American ones. And THAT is the only equation Botch is interested in -- the political one.

[Robb]

7. Ding ding ding!! We have a winner!

You are exactly right, htuttle!

Mercenaries. Great. Hey, it always worked out great historically, right? :eyes:

[Nancy Waterman]

8. The benefits to Bush in this policy

He doesn't have to go to the UN with his tail between his legs;

He can pretend we have allies;

Politically he will benefit when less US soldiers are killed.


What he needs to do and what a Democratic administration will do, is immediately give it over to the UN for administration, etc. But then he won't have the puppet he has been planning on.

[yellowcanine]

9. Tony Blair's idea?

My guess this was Tony Blair's idea. Tony told Georgie that the Brits were able to get some cheap hired guns from Hesse to fight some pesky guerrillas back in the late 1700's. Georgie was so excited by the idea that he forgot to ask Tony how it worked out.

[Karenina]

11. Then at the end of the week

when all these "allies" we've armed to the teeth get into it with each other... :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

[blondeatlast]

13. Yeppers. India and Pakistan are both named as

being given the offer. Both hate each other. We KNOW that both have NUKES.

[jpak]

10. Privatizing the entire occupation

KBR gets the logistics contracts

Rummy hires the mercenaries

and Cheney laughs all the way to the bank

How exquisitely Bushie...

[salin]

15. Looks like a win-win for all of Bush's cronies

maybe we need to keep harping on a) the added expense to the tax payers; compared to b) the added profits to KBR, Bechtel, etc.

[Bandit]

16. The only problem here is unlike Haliburton and Betchel I pay taxes

And it's my damn tax money that is being used to kill all these people on both sides. I'm pissed about it too. Thanks Teamsters. They cost far more votes than Nader ever thought of costing us.

[TacticalPeek]

12. And always remember to Follow the Money.

"Military Aid" - where does it go? See: RNC contributer list.

[Umbram]

14. If only there were a:

Giant Billboard somewhere that said:

XXXXXXXX killed.
Your taxes at work.

It could tally every corpse created via US military aid.

Turkey+Isreal+Colombia, on and on and on.




;(

[Gloria]

17. Posted earlier in the WMW ...along with an article abou how the US ARMY

supervising a railway that just went into operation between Iraq and Syria....yes, the Syria we want sanctions on because they are "terrorists"....and guess what this choo choo is carrying......OIL

LBN forum and www.zianet.com/insightanalytical