Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (41907)	4/9/2004 12:00:53 AM
From: lurqer	Respond to of 89467

Iraq conflict fuels coalition doubts Barnaby Mason There are increasing signs of unease among some of the US' military allies in Iraq as the upsurge of fighting draws them into combat. Ukrainian troops pulled out of the town of Kut south-east of Baghdad on Wednesday after coming under attack by militia supporting the Shia cleric, Moqtada Sadr. Government statements by several of the larger countries with forces in Iraq have emphasised that they will stick to their commitments. But public opposition to the policy is increasing. Humanitarian role The US assembled a coalition of nearly 40 countries on the ground in Iraq. Many countries sent small numbers of troops to please Washington, to show solidarity or for other political reasons. They did not expect to be involved in serious fighting, and often sold their engagement to a dubious public with the argument that it was a form of humanitarian aid or reconstruction. Those assumptions have been blown away by the armed uprising by supporters of Mr Sadr. Coalition soldiers have been involved in fighting in several Shia cities in the south: The Ukrainians who retreated from Kut; the Bulgarians and Poles in Karbala; the Spaniards in Najaf; the Italians in Nasiriya. Elsewhere, 500 Japanese non-combat troops and a similar number of South Koreans have suspended activities outside their military camps. The Japanese government said "terrorists" were trying to drive its troops out of Iraq. The only new announcement of formal withdrawal came from Kazakhstan, which said its tiny deployment would end next month. Military impact Even in countries where the government has restated its determination to stay in Iraq, political and public opinion is divided and vulnerable. Opposition in Italy, Poland and Australia is becoming more vocal. In most cases, the withdrawal of allied troops would not be militarily significant. Apart from the UK, only a few countries have contingents of more than 1,000 - notably Italy, Poland, Ukraine and Spain. The new Socialist government in Madrid has said it will pull its forces out unless the United Nations takes charge in Iraq by the end of June. These kinds of numbers may not matter in absolute terms, but they would cause problems because the US military is overstretched. Political fallout Most non-American troops were sent to the Shia south because it was considered relatively well-disposed to the occupiers. If that is no longer the case, the whole deployment system will have to be reconsidered. However, the political impact of troop withdrawals would be more significant. It would tend to confirm that the occupation was essentially an American-British affair; it would increase the demand for a much greater UN role; and it would influence US and British public opinion, inflicting political damage on US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. There is no evidence that the Iraq coalition is about to collapse. Some erosion around the edges is more likely. But nothing is certain in a rapidly changing situation on the ground in Iraq. If things get worse, the Bush administration will not be able to count on all its allies staying the course. news.bbc.co.uk lurqer