home

Breaking: Bush Wants Command Of UN Forces

This is all the world needs. Bush Team wants to place a US General in charge of ALL UN peacekeeping missions. This would essentially make Mr. Preemptive, Unilateral Decider the Commander In Chief of worldwide military missions with an extra 95,000 soldiers (or UN peacekeepers) to manage "trouble spots from Lebanon to Sudan."

The Australian reports this "hugely controversial" measure would be a huge step backwards to how the UN operated when established in WWII as a "US-led alliance." Some UN officials are concerned that the US may use UN forces for covert actions "as it did with the UN weapons inspection teams in the Iraq of Saddam Hussein."  IT may also be Bush's exit strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan by replacing US troops with UN forces. Today, the NATO commander indicated that a victory in Afghanistan is not doable without more troops.

It is quite likely that Bush may succeed with this game plan:

"The US is in a strong position to get the top peacekeeping job - currently held by a Frenchman -because of its decisive support in electing Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean Foreign Minister, as the next UN Secretary-General.
Mr Ban, who takes over on January 1, is setting up a transition team to select his top officials and is coming under heavy pressure from the big powers to appoint their favourites to key posts."

Bush Team is justifying its "right" to head worldwide military operations by citing US contributions to the UN.  The US only contributes a fraction of the peacekeeping forces:  335 peacekeepers and 330 civilians out of 95,000 UN peacekeepers.  However, the US cites that it pays 26% of the UN peacekeeping budget:

"We pay the most," the US official said. "It almost goes without saying that if the Americans are spending the most money on peacekeeping we should have a say in the management of it. It's about time."

The seriousness of this proposal can not be underestimated. Under Bush's great commander-in-chief skills, the world now has conflicts in Iraq and  Afghanistan and wars which have worsened by his neglect in the Middle East and Africa. Taliban and insurgent republics are spreading throughout Iraq and Afghanistan because Bush failed to provide sufficient ground forces.

The Iraq war is spreading into Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia while Bush is prepping Latin America with permanent military bases. Meanwhile, administration hawks are promoting a confrontational stance against Russia and China and advancing with plans to control space, which then brings India into the global space wars. And, now the Afghanistan war is spreading into Pakistan. NATO, Afghanistan and Pakistan agree that "NATO forces operating in Afghanistan would be allowed to conduct hot-pursuit operations across the border into Pakistan."

In addition to seeking control over UN peacekeeping forces, Bush Team is working on a "parallel diplomatic track" to establish a coalition of nations to sanction Iran should the UN not cave to Bush's whims.

Many seemed confidant that Bush could not accomplish his neocon plans to spread wars in Iran, Syria and elsewhere because the continuing Iraq and Afghanistan wars have wrecked our troop capability for new wars.  Now we can see that Bush's answer is to get more cannon fodder not by a US draft, but by taking over 95,000 UN peacekeeping forces.  Seems Bush actually has a 3-pronged plan for world peace:  (1) Bully the heads of foreign countries to bow to his wishes, but if that does not work, (2) impose sanctions with a coalition working outside the UN and (3) be ready to deploy UN forces in combination with US troops and NATO.

Now, more so than ever before, world peace truly lies in the voters' hands.

Patriot Daily: News of the day, just a click away!

< An Exception, Just This Once | "This is not an Election, it's an intervention" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    just TOO much (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Patriot Daily on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:39:15 PM EST
    with bush having charge of UN troops and a coalition to impose sanctions, who is there to stop bush? on earth or in space?

    There is real resistance .... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:03:28 AM EST
    .... and something resembling rational ablity in republican ranks. Though it may seem that Bush is unstoppable, there are moves to contain him.

    From the inside. Beware the Ides of (November?):

    Damn Their Eyes:

    Bush's presidency has reeled from - the political catastrophe in Florida where he lost the election of 2000 before John Roberts and Jim Baker rigged the Supreme Court decision - to the national catastrophe on 9/11. From there, Bush fabricated a series of crises from Afghanistan to Iraq and Iran to terrorize his own people into voting for him in 2004. After demonizing the weak and militarily impotent nations he deemed to be vile as the `Axis of Evil,' that very `Axis of Evil' struck back in 2006 with a devastating military and political defeat for Bush's puppet state of Israel in their ill-conceived war against Hezbollah. That shocking defeat was swiftly followed by a nuclear blast from North Korea.

    Those two events weakened Bush's presidency to the point that senior members of his own party swiftly stepped in to sever his reins to real political power. Jim Baker, Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft have been very busy deconstructing Bush and Cheney's diabolical plans to launch World War W by attacking Iran this autumn. The Iran War was to be the crowning glory of the neoconservative campaign in the midterm elections, but Baker, Powell and Scowcroft seized the moment of North Korea's nuclear explosion to force Bush, Cheney and their loyal neoconservative legions to release their grips on the reins of American political power. Ranking Republicans want a return to the calm waters of rationality, and they have begun the painful process by telling the press, "Iraq is lost."

    With their belligerent rhetoric now torn and tattered, the Bush-Cheney White House faces a political holocaust next Tuesday. American voters are incendiary with anger at the Bush-Cheney White House. By a majority of two to one, American voters are opposed to the war in Iraq. A volcanic eruption of political dynamite will explode next Tuesday triggering an earthquake in American history. The seismic proportions will be gigantic, and the tectonic shifts will relegate neoconservativism - as it has been known and practiced by Bush and Cheney - to a grotesque exhibit in the museum of political insanity.
    ...
    America's global reputation as a democratic society lies in ruins. Worse. The American press and media are now ranked 53rd on the Worldwide Press Freedom Index. This decline in status is nothing less than a disgrace, for the United States of America is tied in a dead heat with three other countries: Botswana, Croatia and Tonga - for even that dubious distinction.



    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#4)
    by Maggie Mae on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 08:04:26 PM EST
    That whole article is well worth the read.  

     

    Parent

    Breaking Bush (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 07:17:38 AM EST
    Texas Versus Tel Aviv: US Policy in the Middle East
    By James Petras, Oct 31, 2006

    The struggle within the US power structure between the economic empire builders (EEB) and the civilian militarists/Zioncons over US Middle East and global policy is now out in the open and intensifying.  The EEB now have a politically powerful organizational expression, the Baker Commission (known officially as the Iraq Study Group) led by the formidable former Secretary of State, James Baker.  The EEB are backed by a group of bipartisan congressional leaders, sectors of the traditional military elite, a powerful coalition of Texas-based oil and gas groups and sectors of Wall Street financial houses and potentially a large majority of public opinion.  
    ...
    The elite divisions in an around the Administration are coming to the fore:  Alberto Fernandez, Director of Public Diplomacy at the State Department Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs publicly denounced US `arrogance and stupidity in Iraq' right after Bush came out for `staying the course'.  Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State from 2001-2005, came out for a `phased withdrawal of US forces in Iraq'.