US: The US cannot afford its current Iraq role, writes Conor O'Clery, North America Editor
One reason why the Bush administration is swallowing its pride and turning to the United Nations for help in Iraq can be found in the almost nightly arrival of giant C-17 transport jets at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington. They are carrying carrying body bags and wounded and sick American service personnel.
Since the military operation against Iraq began, some 6,000 soldiers have been medically evacuated from Iraq. They include 1,141 wounded - 591 since President Bush announced the end to major military operations on May 1st - and troops hurt in accidents or who have succumbed to physical or mental illness. Ten soldiers a day are being injured in action and two to three killed.
Add to this the disclosure in a Congressional report yesterday that the US will not be able to sustain its current occupation force of almost 150,000 troops in Iraq without a major shake-up in the armed forces, involving new recruitment, longer tours or big cuts in troop levels in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sinai and Japan. The report by the Congressional Budget Office warned that the US army could not sustain its present Iraq contingent for more than six or seven months without the biggest military reform since the end of the Cold War.
It will be able to keep only between 38,000 and 64,000 troops indefinitely in Iraq if it continues to rely on professional troops and reserve units. The permanent occupation force level could be raised to 106,000 if the Pentagon recruited the Marine Corps and the National Guard, but that would increase costs by $19 billion a year. The "coalition of the willing" has provided 21,000 extra troops but Senator Joseph Biden says that up to 60,000 foreign soldiers are needed.
The cost of the US military occupation has already escalated to $3.9 billion a month. All this has created a sense of urgency in Washington to get more countries involved in the reconstruction effort. And that means eating some humble pie, according to commentators.
The administration first floated the idea last week of a multinational military force under UN mandate, but still subordinate to US commanders and with a role for the UN in Iraq's political, economic and security operations. "We can no longer afford to deliberate on whether to put a formal request for peacekeepers before NATO and the United Nations Security Council," said Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.
For months, the hawks in the administration have resisted going to the UN, which Mr Bush last autumn predicted would go the way of the League of Nations if it did not back the US. The international community has been operating what has amounted to a diplomatic boycott of the US operation, with France, Germany, India and two key Muslim countries, Pakistan and Turkey, refusing to send troops in the absence of a greater UN role.
The shift in White House strategy was confirmed when the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr Jan Peter Balkenende, emerged from an Oval Office meeting with Mr Bush on Tuesday to disclose that the President was willing "to follow the UN track, \ a larger responsibility for the UN, and that is very good." The devil, as always, will be in the details. Mr Balkenende noted that while military support was needed, "we have to work on democracy and a new structure of policy-making in Iraq." In other words, to get a UN mandate for continued American and British military control, the US must agree to a considerable degree of UN involvement in the political course for Iraq.
Mr Bush agreed the wording of a draft resolution the same day with Secretary of State Mr Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Dr Condoleezza Rice. It envisages an American-led UN force under a UN flag but not wearing blue helmets - that would be too much for US commanders to stomach. It could be months before this becomes a reality.
The resolution comes at a time when the UN is least prepared to take on a major role in Iraq. Only 50 of the 300 UN staff in Baghdad before last month's explosion at UN headquarters there remain.