So the White House is now on the slippery slope in conceding increasing political authority to the UN in Iraq. That is a helpful step forward for making the transition a little less of a disaster (and a step backward for the neocon vision of the US as Omnipotent Potentate.)
One must make a huge assumption that the Security Council will act swiftly and smoothly on new resolutions to provide the necessary political cover for member states to contribute to reconstruction. I'll put my faith in front of my reason here and believe that the UNSC will want to help Iraq succeed even more than certain members of the UNSC want to see Bush fail.
But the big disaster-in-waiting may be with NATO, who surely will be looked to as the vanguard for a security framework under a UN/US/Iraq "5 Year Reconstruction Plan" that is certain to follow. This is a big risk and the primary reason why OBL seems to want to intimidate European nations into inaction in any Iraq reconstruction, multilateral or otherwise. And we of a certain political persuasion which embraces ALL our European allies and friends need to bolster them now. The general pacifism needs to be replaced with a call to humanitarian action first in Afghanistan, and success there can carry forward into Iraq.
Kerry + UN + NATO (- Bush) = 1/2 a chance
Globeandmail.com
NATO mission in Afghanistan exposes chink in bloc's armour
Beyond Kabul, vows of troops and equipment haven't been met, PAUL KORING reports
By PAUL KORING
UPDATED AT 2:56 PM EDT Thursday, Apr. 15, 2004
KABUL -- It was supposed to be a landmark military operation, inaugurating NATO's transformation into a nimble force capable of offering rapid security assistance anywhere in the world.
Instead, the 6,400-soldier foreign force in Afghanistan -- NATO's most ambitious and far-flung mission -- has exposed serious weaknesses in the European-American alliance.
In Kabul, the Afghan capital, NATO has delivered a powerful measure of security with constant patrols by its high-visibility International Security Assistance Force.
But its sweeping promises to expand the operation beyond Kabul have not been matched by commitments of troops and equipment, starving the force for crucial rapid-reaction forces, combat air support and logistics.
A case in point: Dozens of military transport aircraft from several nations fly into Kabul's airport every week.
But all, including those from the Canadian Forces, ferry supplies only for their own troops.
None are dedicated to ISAF for operations within Afghanistan. So even General Rick Hillier, the NATO force commander who is also Canada's top general, has to beg rides if he needs to move outside the capital.
That hardly seems appropriate for an alliance whose members pledged at a 2002 summit to launch a radical transformation.
Structured to confront the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, NATO was to become an organization that guaranteed the security of its members "against all threats and challenges." Its forces were to become more agile, more quickly deployable and more able to sustain themselves in combat.
Afghanistan, NATO's first direct involvement in peace-support operations, is the first test. "Afghanistan is a top priority for NATO," the alliance's Secretary-General, Japp de Hoop Scheffer, told a conference in Berlin this month. "Our security depends on Afghanistan's security. . . . If we want to win the war against terrorism, we must first win the peace in Afghanistan."
On the ground in Afghanistan, it's a different story.
NATO boasts that 36 countries -- including 12 non-alliance nations -- are contributing troops to ISAF. But 27 of those have sent fewer than 100 soldiers and nine have sent fewer than 10.
The minor contributors reap political credit for participating and help maintain a forest of colourful flags at ISAF's heavily guarded Kabul headquarters. But most add little military punch.
Canada and Germany, with nearly 4,000 troops between them, provide almost two-thirds of the force. Canada's contribution will be cut in August from 1,900 to about 600 and maintained at that level through 2005, Prime Minister Paul Martin announced yesterday.
But finding troops isn't NATO's big problem. Plenty of nations will offer a few hundred infantrymen. It's vital and expensive elements such as combat aircraft, logistics support and air-mobile rapid-reaction forces that are missing.
No ISAF airplanes are based in Afghanistan. Its only attack helicopters -- six recently arrived Dutch Apaches -- can't fly over the Hindu Kush mountains. Therefore, they are unable to give support to a lonely German detachment in the northern town of Konduz -- the first outpost established outside Kabul by ISAF.
With elections planned for September, the alliance has agreed to expand throughout the north and west of the country -- a wide swath currently under the control of local warlords.
To be deployed by late summer, the troops that would do that should be training already. But where they will come from and how they will be supported and protected remains unclear.
The continuing low-level war against Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in southeast Afghanistan is being waged by a separate force consisting of nearly 15,000 U.S. troops and their coalition allies.
These forces are also on the hook to provide air support if ISAF peacekeepers get into trouble. They are also running so-called provincial reconstruction teams -- small military bases designed to curry favour with local populations and keep an eye on the warlords -- until NATO nations can take over.
Gen. Hillier said the alliance will find the necessary forces to operate beyond Kabul. But he acknowledges that there are still significant gaps in aviation, logistics and a rapid-reaction force.
"NATO is going to have to come up with an acceptable force," he said. But senior alliance officials are already warning that it is unlikely to be in place for the September vote.
No NATO nation has offered to provide a heavily armed, air-mobile rapid-reaction force capable of backing up the small outposts ISAF is planning to take over this summer and in the fall.
Indeed, most cannot do so, and the few that can are already heavily committed. Britain, for instance, maintains a large contingent in Iraq as well as contributions to both U.S-led forces in Afghanistan and ISAF.
Nor has any nation offered to handle the unglamorous but crucial forward logistics base needed to supply those outposts, which would require hundreds of troops and trucks.
Even the single provincial reconstruction team currently under NATO command -- the 230-soldier German contingent in Konduz -- gets mixed reviews. It says it has made good progress since taking over in January, but has yet to visit any of the four provinces in its area of operation.
A senior military officer of another NATO nation who is familiar with the area says the Germans spend most of their time inside their compound, venturing out only rarely for short daytime patrols. Perimeter security around the German base has been contracted out to locally hired Afghan gunmen.