U.S. considers United Nations command in Iraq to keep Spain on board

U.S. officials are exploring ways to persuade Spain to keep its troops in Iraq, including the possibility of a separate United Nations command to oversee international forces.

Under that scenario, the U.S. military would continue to lead its own soldiers, while troops from Spain and other countries could be led by the United Nations, a State Department official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

It's not clear if the scenario would be acceptable to Spain. And Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "I wouldn't want to speculate on any potential U.N. resolution in the future."

But U.S. leaders have made clear they think it might be possible to accommodate the concerns of Spanish Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, despite his insistence that Spanish troops will leave unless the United Nations takes charge in Iraq.

more…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/19/national1541EST0696.DTL

They will do anything to keep them on board. Bush and friends run everything this way. They compromise on everything that they don't have a 100% advantage on. They like to squash bad press or competition.

They crumple like a paperbag.

Are you paying attention America?

I'm waiting for someone to stand up to Cheney.

Spain wants out, now.

of one group (their own and maybe the Brits) and the UN in charge of the rest? How stupid!

...in order to bash the Spanish again.

A fledgling gov't that ran on a central plank of 'withdrawal' is not likely to be impressed by any Bush-led initiative--the socialists would do so at their own peril.

Such a refusal to honour their electoral committments would be ironic and wouldn't be missed by European socialists...

Kerensky's gov't came to power on the promise of withdrawing from WW1 and they didn't...and look what happened

U. S. keeps control of its 130,000-140,000 troops, the Brits keep control of an unknown number of troops(can anyone supply us with the numbers?) and the U. N. takes charge of maybe 4,000 troops...that the U. S. has painted bullseyes on.

the British have about 12,000 troops in Iraq concentrated in the south.

Both troops and corporate predators. No US ownership or control of anything.

Americans, Brits, Poles....UN in, US OUT...OF EVERYTHING.

War profiteers who are bilking the U. S. taxpayers should have to pay the money back to us., PLUS PENALTIES.

There is no alternative to Zapatero's condition for staying in Iraq.

To keep Spain (and Poland, and the Netherlands, and a few others) on board, there are two scenarios: NATO and a UN-led peacekeeping mission.

NATO is operating within the UN framework, and already is involved in a UN-mandated operation (Kosovo) and has the clear added advantage of having its own command and control infrastructure, with strong (dominant) US influence.

The alternative of a "classic" UN peacekeeping mission is the lesser of the two, but perhaps more politically feasable.

However - the idea of a "split" mission (i.e., a separate US and UN structure) is both impractical and insufficient to keep the allies on board and in Iraq.

Time to get off the dime: Bush needs to acknowledge that he over-reached in Iraq, and that he needs the international community to clean up his mess. And that involves submitting to a leadership role for the UN, whether directly or indirectly (through NATO)