- $1 billion Empire State Building IPO: why it won't be like Facebook IPO
- In surprise move, GOP leaders admit defeat in payroll tax battle
- More than 30,000 Germans turn out against anti-piracy treaty ACTA
- Does Obama blueprint reduce budget deficit fast enough? (+video)
- Pentagon budget: Does it pit active-duty forces against retirees? (+video)
- Murdoch media crisis deepens with five new arrests
- How Pinterest combines the best parts of Facebook, Tumblr, and Etsy
- US, China face 'trust deficit' as China's heir apparent visits
US allies leery of post-attack Iraq
Support for an attack on Iraq continues to drag. European allies doubt US staying power in an invasion's aftermath.
WASHINGTON
When war commenced in Afghanistan last October, President Bush said the United States was committed not just to routing terrorists, but to rebuilding a broken country so no international threat would rule there again.
But today, US military forces off fighting the war in the mountains against Al Qaeda are not an active part of the international security force trying to support a shaky interim government in the capital of Kabul. And promised roads to reknit the Afghan fabric aren't being built, regional warlords are gaining strength, and signs of schisms within the new government grow by the day.
These so-called "day-after" issues go a long way in explaining why US allies remain leery of an American attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. While there is no love for the tyrant of Baghdad in either European or Arab capitals, there is plenty of fretting that the US will take out Hussein without preparing much for the aftermath or even sticking around for it.
"The Europeans are resigned to the idea that if the Americans are committed to going into Iraq they will do it," says Dominique Moïsi, of the French Institute on Foreign Relations (IFRI) in Paris. "But the experience in Afghanistan only reinforces the doubts about American stamina for a longstanding commitment, and leaves European leaders asking, 'Are we going to once again be the cleaning lady of an American intervention?'"
The US doesn't really need partners to act militarily, but it wants them to help in postwar rebuilding and relations with the Muslim world. Republicans as much as Democrats are reminding Bush of this.
Last week House majority leader Dick Armey, a Texas Republican and faithful Bush ally, warned that the US "will not have the support of other nation states" if it launches an "unprovoked attack."
Indeed, Vice President Dick Cheney, in conversations Saturday with Iraqi opposition leaders, stressed a US commitment to democratic rule post-Hussein implying support for sweeping, long-term leadership change, not just a change-of-guard coup.
As early as last February, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the US was preparing to take down Hussein's regime "on its own" if necessary. Still, a military operation is likely to include British forces, and access to NATO bases in Turkey and other staging facilities in Qatar, and Kurd-controlled Iraq.
What the US knows it can't manage alone are postattack elements, from developing a new regime to peacekeeping and reconstruction. Experts say those problems could require an international presence for a decade.
"The Europeans see that we will expect them to come in and do the nation-building afterwards, and they're uneasy with that," says Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.
Page: 1 | 2 
