Daily Update
updated 11:00 a.m. ET October 28, 2003
Nations retreat from troop commitments
USA Today reports several nations which had indicated they might send troops to Iraq have decided
against the idea. Bangladesh and Portugal, two countries that the US had been pressing to send troops, said they would not send any. At one point Bangladesh had said it might send as many as 5000 troops. But the opposition to sending Muslim troops to Iraq without being asked by the host goverment is so strong, that Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia will not even ask Parliament to vote on a motion for deployment.
Portugal, which has 120 policemen already in Iraq, had said it would consider sending a limited number of troops once the UN resolution authorizing a force was passed. But the recent violence in Iraq has convinced the Lisbon government not to send any combat force.
South Korea is also equivocating on an offer of 5000 troops for Iraq.
Reuters reports that Seoul will send a survey team to Iraq this month
before making a final decision. South Korea already has 700 medical and engineering personnel in Iraq, and might make the same sort of decision as Portugal: send a smaller number of non-combat personnel.
Donga.com of South Korea reports that the US had asked for at least a division of around 2500 men. A high-ranking official of South Korea's National Security Council said the number of personnel sent to Iraq
would not exceed 3000, if any were sent.
Meanwhile, an
MSNBC report quotes Iraq's foreign minister as saying it was
increasingly unlikely Turkey would send troops, since the new provisional Iraqi government has strongly objected to the idea.
"This subject is still under study but all the indicators show it may not happen...I think this is positive," Hoshiyar Zebari, a Kurd appointed by Iraq's US-backed Governing Council, told Dubai-based Al Arabiya television from London. "The indicators are encouraging because there is a halt and a review of the matter, especially since the Governing Council unanimously said it does not want troops from neighbouring states to participate in peacekeeping due to sensitivities and because these countries may have their own agenda," he said. As
The Christian Science Monitor reports several experts have said the idea of sending Turkish troops to Iraq was
a bad idea in the first place, considering that Turkey once ruled Iraq as part of the Ottoman empire, and Turkey's concerns that Kurds in northern Iraq will try to establish an independent state.
These setbacks come just weeks after India and Pakistan turned down Pentagon requests to send large contingents to Iraq, despite heavy pressure from US officials.
Europeans also sent the US a mixed messages in a recent poll taken by the European Union.
The Financial Times reports that, on the one hand, 68 percent of those surveyed said military intervention in Iraq
had not been justified, against 29 percent who said the US was right to lead the march on Baghdad. Fifty-eight percent of those asked said the United Nations should manage the rebuilding of Iraq, against only 18 percent who said Washington should remain in charge.
But as the
Washington Times points out, a majority of those Europeans surveyed in the same poll said they think their countries
should participate in rebuilding Iraq, even though Europeans overwhelmingly believe the United States should bear the primary financial and military responsibility. There were majorities for sending troops in Denmark, the Netherlands,
Ireland, Italy, Sweden, and Britain, while the strongest opposition to sending peacekeepers was in Germany, Greece, Austria and France.
Meanwhile,
FOX News reports that overdeployment of US troops
may threaten recruitment and retention for the entire military, particularly the National Guard and Reserve, presenting the risk of a "hollow force" – a military that suffers dramatic drops in volunteers willing to join or stay in the Armed Services. But the US is making efforts to solve some of the problems that might be leading to the drop in reserve forces
Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, has outlined his blueprint to revamp the force, suggesting that troops be given longer notice before being called up, more predictable deployment schedules be created and Army reservists be mobilized to serve not more than nine- to 12-month deployments in a five- to six-year window. Helmly also suggested giving more reservists specialized training in high-demand jobs such as military police and civil affairs so that the same specialists don't keep getting called over and over again. Finally, although the number of attacks on US troops have increased in the past few weeks,
USA Today reports that US troops are
more than twice as likely to survive combat wounds in Iraq than they have been in most wars over the past century, an internal study conducted by the military shows. In World War Two, for instance, the ratio of wounded to killed was two to one. But since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to "major combat," the ratio is ten to one (ten wounded for every one soldier killed), the best ever.
Also...
•
Iraq had no bomb project: expert (
The Age)
•
Iraqis celebrate. Then brutal reality dawns (
Guardian)
•
Key Lebanese politician outrages US with remark about Wolfowitz (
Reuters)
•
Who are the bombers in Iraq? (
Inter Press Service News Agency)
•
Permits ordered for Palestinians (
Guardian)
•
No pause in Patriot Act pounding (
St. Pete's Times)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed