Thank you for your clarification. An approximately 800 word essay
follows. Please request clarification if needed.
Sincerely,
Wonko
Thus far, President Bush’s foreign policy concerning nation building
in Iraq has been predominantly unilateral, albeit with some support
from other countries. Security Council Resolution 1483 confers legal
authority on the United States and Britain. A United States official,
Paul Bremer, heads the Coalition Provisional Authority. He reports to
President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, rather
than to the United Nations or an Iraqi governmental structure.
According to Time, a 600 member civilian staff and about 200,000
American soldiers are the current governing force, along with about
15,000 British troops. According to Business Week “[a]bout 12,000
soldiers from Britain, Australia, and Poland are already in Iraq. The
Defense Dept. says it has firm commitments from 24 more countries to
provide forces and is discussing possible support with a dozen
nations.” (6) While the Bush Administration is actively asking allies
for 30,000 additional troops by the end of September, for the time
being, the United States is completely responsible for the management
of Iraq.
The United Nations has had minimal involvement thus far, other than to
pass Security Council Resolution 1483. It is speculated that unless
more power is granted to the United Nations with respect to Iraq, NATO
and nations such as India, France, Russia, and Germany will not
contribute troops for peacekeeping. (4)
Thus far, Iraqis have had little involvement in the occupation
government. Bremer plans to announce the appointment of a 35 member
Iraqi advisory council to oversee some government ministries, and he
hopes that there will be elections for a new national government
within a year. “Earlier this month [June], the U.S. decided against
allowing a group of seven former opposition parties—a coalition
calling itself the ‘leadership council’—to quickly establish an
all-Iraqi provisional government. Instead, civilian administrator
Paul Bremer announced plans to appoint a 25-to-30-person political
council that will answer to him; U.S. officials told TIME they hope to
name councilors by early next month. Bremer modified the plan in
response to Iraqi demands that the council be given more clout and
independence, but the U.S.’s prewar allies aren’t satisfied. After
meeting last week in Arbil, in northern Iraq, members of the
leadership council called Bremer’s modified plan ‘insufficient.’ Some
factions, including the Pentagon-backed Iraqi National Congress
(I.N.C.), told TIME they may refuse to cooperate with the council.
‘We wish them the best of luck,’ says Nabil al-Mousawi, a top aide to
I.N.C. leader Ahmed Chalabi. ‘But at this point my advice would be
that we not be involved.’” (1)
American forces have been training Iraqis to serve as a police force.
(7) “The U.S. is also embarking on a plan to train and equip a new
Iraqi national army comprising some 60,000 men, although that project
will likely take years to complete.” (2) “An interim city council in
Baghdad met for the first time July 7.” (6)
There is little doubt that the United States is incurring almost all
of the costs of the occupation as well. The occupation is currently
estimated to be costing $3 billion a month, and the US has
“...suffered combat casualties at a rate upward of one death every
other day.” (2)
In contrast, the peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan are far more
multilateral. However, concerns exist that the situation may be
spinning out of control. “Some 11,000 coalition troops remain
deployed in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, while
peacekeeping duties are the preserve of the 4,800 foreign troops
grouped under the banner of the International Security Assistance
Force, whose small numbers confine its work to the capital, Kabul. A
number of U.S. legislators and South Asia experts are quietly warning
that the security situation there is in danger of unraveling in the
face of Taliban resurgence and internecine warlord conflicts, and that
turning the situation around requires either expanding the terms of
the U.S. deployment to stabilizing Afghanistan, or else significantly
expanding ISAF. (ISAF has one advantage in that it has drawn on major
troop contributions from NATO members that had opposed the Iraq
war—Turkey, France and Germany.)” (2)
Is Bush’s foreign policy on Iraq intermestic? Based on the following
definition: “Intermestic-The merger of international and domestic
concerns” (5), I think so. Bush is trying to accomplish two things.
First, he wants to convince the enemies of the United States that they
will be punished if they act aggressively towards United States by
developing weapons of mass destruction and/or harboring terrorists
(Syria, Iran, North Korea, for example). Second, he wants to convince
the American public that he is trying to protect them from terrorism
and foreign enemies. Maintaining a high level of credibility with
both groups is important for President Bush both as he tries to
protect the country and as he seeks reelection next year.
Sources:
(1) “Who Will Run Iraq” by Romesh Ratnesar and Scott Macleod, Time
Magazine, June 23, 2003
(2) “ Iraq: When Can We Go Home” by Tony Karon, Time Magazine, June
26, 2003
(3) “Life Under Fire” by Romesh Ratnesar with Simon Robinson in
Baghdad, Time Magazine, July 14, 2003
(4) “Looking For Help In The Wrong Place” by Michael Elliott, Time
Magazine, August 4, 2003
(5) “Glossary Definitions”
http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/wpold/ch1/glossrtch1d.html
(6) “Boxed In in Baghdad” by Stan Crock, Business Week, July 10, 2003
(7) “Bomb kills seven Iraqi police recruits” cnews, July 5, 2003
http://lifewise.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/07/05/127867-ap.html |
