If Washington gets its way, the US Marines' handover of a swath of central Iraq to a Polish-led multinational contingent yesterday will be the first of many such ceremonies.

But US troops in Iraq shouldn't start packing yet. As US diplomats begin presenting allies with a new UN resolution designed to attract more countries into an international security force in Iraq, they face an uphill task.

Potential contributors of larger numbers of troops trained for conditions in Iraq, such as India and Turkey, are nervous about sending their soldiers into an increasingly ugly situation. And a new UN Security Council resolution will probably require Washington to give up significant control over political developments in Iraq.

"The key [to bringing more nations into the forces in Iraq] is whether responsibility for the future of Iraq lies in American hands or in UN hands," says Guillaume Parmentier, head of the French Center on the United States, a think tank in Paris. "Before talking about sending troops, we have to talk about Iraq's future."

Pressed by the rising financial and human costs of its occupation of Iraq, Washington will be forced by its need for more international support to "go a long way down the line to giving countries that provide contingents a say in Iraqi affairs," adds Charles Heyman, an analyst with "Jane's World Armies" in London.

The exact wording of the new UN resolution that President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have decided to push forward is not yet known. But it is likely to enhance the UN presence in Iraq beyond the "vital" role that an earlier resolution gave the international body, in return for a UN mandate legitimizing the US-led occupation and authorizing member states to support it.

Washington's decision to turn to the United Nations for help, after months of snubbing the organization that refused to endorse the US invasion of Iraq, "is a tacit admission that we don't have the forces there to get the job done," Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona said yesterday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

A number of Congressional hearings on Iraq are planned, and members of both parties returning from an August recess are reporting an unease among the public over Iraq and the lack of international burden-sharing. A Congressional Budget Office report Tuesday said the costs of maintaining a US force two-thirds the current size could run to $19 billion a year.

"Every month that goes by without more help from our friends and allies means billions more taxpayers' dollars spent on our occupation of Iraq, and, most sadly, more grieving American families," said Sen. Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia Tuesday.

So far 30 countries have contributed or pledged troops to support the 160,000 American and British forces in Iraq, but most of them have sent only a few hundred men each, totaling around 10,000 soldiers.

"The only way to have security is to have large numbers of troops on the ground," says Mr. Heyman, a former British army officer. "You need twice as many men as you have now, lightly armed, well trained, and capable of conducting what might be a low-intensity counter-insurgency."

Page: 1 | 2