July 30, 2004

DIVISION OF LABOR:

Muslim Nations Want Fewer Coalition Troops (BARRY SCHWEID, July 30, 2004, AP)

Muslim countries being sounded out by Saudi Arabia about sending troops to Iraq want a sizable reduction in U.S. and other coalition troops as part of any agreement.

As troops drawn from Muslim countries, most or all from outside the Middle East, took up positions in Iraq, there would be a parallel exodus of coalition soldiers, a senior Saudi official said Friday.

The Muslim force would serve in the name of the United Nations and would supplement U.S. and other coalition troops by protecting U.N. officials and helping Iraqi security personnel patrol Iraq's borders to slow the infiltration of foreign fighters.

For months, the Bush administration has been unable to persuade any Muslim countries to commit troops to Iraq. The main obstacle was the perception that Arab or other Muslim governments would be contributing to a U.S. occupation of Arab Iraq.

The Saudis, who privately dismiss any allegation that the United States wants a long-term presence as an occupying force in Iraq, are trying to counter that argument. A corresponding reduction in U.S. and other coalition forces as Muslim troops arrived would help the Saudis make their case.


Proiving once again we have too much infantry.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 30, 2004 10:36 PM
Comments

This sounds like a no-brainer. We simply relocate our troops to that country west of Iraq.

Posted by: MB at July 30, 2004 11:35 PM

I still see no indication that the Iraqis are in favor of this plan...

Posted by: brian at July 31, 2004 12:01 AM

I'm still leery of Saudi or other muslims troops in Iraq. And if we want the ability to go into Syria or Iran we will need some type of permanement base agreement.

Posted by: AWW at July 31, 2004 12:11 AM

"Proving once again we have too much infantry."

That doesn't prove any such thing except that THEY think we have too many troops on the ground.

What fools think that a coalition of Muslims would be anything more than a sanctioned insurgency? Any ideas State has should be dismissed out of hand.

Posted by: NC3 at July 31, 2004 8:02 AM

Seriously, when did we descend into requesting that enemy nations "help" us by sending their military forces into a country we're occupying?

Posted by: Tom at July 31, 2004 8:53 AM

Germany.

Posted by: oj at July 31, 2004 9:01 AM

Good. Let them argue the point until the camels come home.

Posted by: genecis at July 31, 2004 10:28 AM

Has anyone asked JFK what he thinks we should do?

Posted by: genecis at July 31, 2004 10:30 AM

I'm sure the Shia are looking forward to the coming of another Sunni army.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 31, 2004 2:35 PM

There are also too many firefighters in the US, as can be proven by the number spending their shifts playing cards...
Until a fire breaks out.

If we're going to be interventionists, we need a standing Army, and probably a larger one than currently exists.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 31, 2004 3:43 PM

Michael H.:

Or reliable client states - excuse me, Allies - to keep the peace once the Legions have done the heavy lifting.

Posted by: mike earl at July 31, 2004 9:58 PM
« THOUSANDS OF ADVISERS BUT NO FRIENDS: | Main | TAUNTING: »