The Asia Times does such a good job with titles- and the rest of the article is pretty good too.
Building the coalition of the unwilling
By Ehsan Ahrari
When US forces swept through Iraq and toppled a tyrannical regime, the Bush administration's self-confidence was boundless. Secretary of State Colin Powell declared with a stern face that France would be punished for opposing the US invasion of Iraq, while refusing to elaborate on the exact nature of that punishment. Foreign-policy pundits on the US side of the Atlantic declared that relations with Germany would never be the same, largely because of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's opposition to the US military actions against Iraq.
Alexander Drabkin, a Russian observer, recently writing in the Moscow Times, described President George W Bush's overall demeanor when he visited Russia immediately after the dismantlement of the Iraqi government as that of "the victor over [Saddam] Hussein, the conqueror of Iraq". At that time, continued Drabkin, Bush, "who generally does not give the impression of a humble person, was showing off arrogance and superiority even more". Be that as it may, even when things are not going well from its strategic perspectives in Iraq, the United States has a peculiar style of attempting to overplay its hand. That process is currently very much in progress. Strange as it may sound, it is really about cobbling together the coalition of the unwilling.
In the wake of the continued deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, incidents of sabotage, and even the blowing up of the United Nations headquarters on August 19 in Baghdad, the US has decided to go for a new UN resolution. This strategy ostensibly has three underlying objectives. First, US officials have gone to some lengths in establishing a linkage between the explosion of the UN headquarters and the need for other nations to commit troops. Second, that linkage is aimed at conveying to other countries that their potential commitment of troops would in essence be aimed at supporting UN activities, and not sustaining the US occupation of Iraq. Third, while asking other nations to commit troops, Washington is still in no mood to share with them the authority of ruling Iraq. Powell underscored Washington's new line by stating, "We have said all along that we want the UN to play a vital role," but made it quite clear that "the issue of ceding authority is not an issue we have had to discuss today".
Therein lies the rub. As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated, the US must relent on the issue of sharing governing authority if it wants peacekeeping troops from those nations who opposed the war in Iraq and are still refusing to get involved in that country. The impending passage of the new UN resolution very much depends on the willingness of Washington and London to be flexible. As Annan noted, "It would also imply not just burden-sharing, but also sharing decisions and responsibility with others. If that doesn't happen, I think it is going to be very difficult to get a second resolution that will satisfy everybody."
The calculations of the Bush administration related to the impending UN resolution are quite apparent. Through that resolution, it wants other countries to station their troops in various parts of Iraq to protect its infrastructure from being sabotaged, thereby lowering the visibility of US forces, and also reducing the rate of its casualties.
But the most immediate outcome of the presence of multinational troops would be that the level of casualties of other nations' forces would drastically shoot upward. What country would allow its forces to absorb such a punishment? On the face of it, it does not seem that too many nations are so inclined. In fact, one European diplomat stated on a background basis, "It [the US quest for a multinational peacekeeping force] sends us the message, 'We don't need to spill more American blood, we need foreign blood.'" Japan is already reported to be reconsidering the issue of deployment of its troops in Iraq.
The blowing up of the UN headquarters in Iraq has established the fact that guerrilla warfare in that country is being waged without any regard to who is being attacked. Apparently, the perpetrators of that attack do not differentiate among UN officials, US troops or the Iraqis who are working for either of those entities. For that reason, it is generally speculated that the pro-Saddam forces have either lost the lead in carrying out the sabotage and attacking US forces, or they have formed a nexus with the jihadi groups, who might have acquired an upper hand in this mindless mayhem.
The fact that the US government has suddenly decided to expand the UN's symbolic authority is a clear signal that its own estimates of the security situation in the coming weeks and months in Iraq are quite ominous. Even then, the decision to build a coalition is quintessentially American. Powell phrased it quite adroitly when he observed that nations that are about to commit their troops to Iraq should be confident that those troops would be serving under the competent military command of the United States.
Translation: The US government has no intention of loosening its grip on power in Iraq. Other nations must be willing to come to Iraq, but still on America's terms. That is just a classier way of saying "coalition of the willing", a phrase that was popularized by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld but which still remains a source of annoyance for a number of countries of "old" Europe. The differences of the pre-Iraq-invasion days between the United States and a number of European countries seem to have resurfaced. France, Germany, Mexico, Syria and others are reportedly "cool" to Powell's offer to share the burden in Iraq without sharing the authority. France would like to see an enhanced role for the UN.
When Rumsfeld first uttered that phrase, "coalition of the willing", the strategic environment was quite different for the United States. Its troops were posturing to invade Iraq, America's military victory was assured, given its superiority over the Iraqi forces, and Washington was dismissive of all opposition to its then impending invasion of Iraq as a minor irritation. Now, Powell's insistence that multinational troops must come to Iraq to help the US fulfill its own vision of the future of Iraq is a galling proposition. However, the staying power of that proposition is quite shaky.
The continued deterioration of the security situation in Iraq will be a major setback for the United States' proposed ambitious transformation of the Middle East. If the security situation deteriorates further, the US will have to revisit the issue of sharing the governing authority with other nations. Bush has already indicated a willingness to discuss all such issues in the UN forum. Even then, the level of violence and terrorism may not level off.
It appears that, at some point, the entire issue of the continued occupation of Iraq has to be revisited in Washington. Regardless of who remains in charge in Iraq, it seems that the continued suffering of the Iraqis will not end any time soon.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst. |
