The inference I get from this article is:
Dont help Bush in Iraq, and then he lacks the resources to cause another huge mess anywhere else.
---------------------------------------------
Despite a recent claim by chief US administrator Paul Bremer that Iraq is "not a country in chaos and Baghdad is not a city in chaos", events suggest otherwise. Mr Bush does not want to get bogged down there.
The presidential election next year is a powerful incentive for the Bush team to consider any proposal that prevents Iraq from becoming a determining campaign issue.
And the influential Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which carries out independent policy studies, has provided a practical reason for Mr Bush to change his policy.
It says basically that the United States does not have enough troops to do the job, especially if it needs to keep a substantial force free for potential action elsewhere. And the Korean peninsula is on everyone's mind these days.
Powell position
The CBO report is in the form of a letter to veteran West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, an opponent of the Iraq war.
It says that if the Pentagon continues with its current intention to rotate troops after one year in Iraq, it would need to reduce the 180,000 soldiers there now to between 38,000 and 64,000 by the winter of next year.
This would allow for family time, retraining and, above all, for enough troops to be kept ready for action elsewhere.
An alternative plan, to increase the size of the army by two divisions would, the report says, be very expensive. It would cost $19bn up-front and bring the cost of occupying Iraq to $29bn a year.
The idea of bringing the UN in was publicly floated by the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
He is very close to the Secretary of State Colin Powell himself, and clearly would not have spoken without his chief's say-so. Mr Powell has now persuaded President Bush that this is the way forward.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3076976.stm
Dont help Bush in Iraq, and then he lacks the resources to cause another huge mess anywhere else.
---------------------------------------------
Despite a recent claim by chief US administrator Paul Bremer that Iraq is "not a country in chaos and Baghdad is not a city in chaos", events suggest otherwise. Mr Bush does not want to get bogged down there.
The presidential election next year is a powerful incentive for the Bush team to consider any proposal that prevents Iraq from becoming a determining campaign issue.
And the influential Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which carries out independent policy studies, has provided a practical reason for Mr Bush to change his policy.
It says basically that the United States does not have enough troops to do the job, especially if it needs to keep a substantial force free for potential action elsewhere. And the Korean peninsula is on everyone's mind these days.
Powell position
The CBO report is in the form of a letter to veteran West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, an opponent of the Iraq war.
It says that if the Pentagon continues with its current intention to rotate troops after one year in Iraq, it would need to reduce the 180,000 soldiers there now to between 38,000 and 64,000 by the winter of next year.
This would allow for family time, retraining and, above all, for enough troops to be kept ready for action elsewhere.
An alternative plan, to increase the size of the army by two divisions would, the report says, be very expensive. It would cost $19bn up-front and bring the cost of occupying Iraq to $29bn a year.
The idea of bringing the UN in was publicly floated by the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
He is very close to the Secretary of State Colin Powell himself, and clearly would not have spoken without his chief's say-so. Mr Powell has now persuaded President Bush that this is the way forward.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3076976.stm
