U.S. Says Iraq Coalition Is Not Crumbling

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

U.S. Says Iraq Coalition Is Not Crumbling

 

By Steve Holland

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House insisted on Wednesday the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq (news - web sites) was strong despite comments from staunch ally Poland that it may join three other nations in withdrawing troops.

 

 

On a day when at least 68 people died in suicide car bombings in southern Iraq, the Bush administration faced questions as to whether enough money was being allocated to fund U.S. military operations this year in Iraq.

 

 

Spain's decision a week ago to withdraw its 1,400 troops has triggered second thoughts among the original 34-nation coalition in Iraq. Honduras and the Dominican Republic have said they also are withdrawing troops.

 

 

Thailand said on Tuesday it will withdraw its 451 medical and engineering troops from Iraq if they are attacked.

 

 

And on Wednesday, Poland said it was reviewing its position in Iraq but would not pull troops out suddenly or without Washington's approval. Poland has been a key U.S. ally in Iraq.

 

 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said there have been "very strong statements of support" from nations like Britain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Portugal and others.

 

 

British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites), Bush's staunchest ally in the U.S.-led invasion and occupation, insists British troops will remain but said on Wednesday he does not plan to increase the number from the 7,500 now there. Australia, another original member of the U.S.-led coalition, also said it would not send more troops to help fill the void left by the withdrawals. Only about 350 of Australia's 2,000 troops are left in Iraq.

 

 

Japan has said it would not withdraw its troops despite deteriorating security in Iraq as a whole and two separate incidents of Japanese civilians being taken hostage.

 

 

McClellan said, "We appreciate the strong statements of support for the Iraqi people, helping the Iraqi people move forward on a free and peaceful future. The coalition remains strong and their resolve is firm."

 

 

The United States has 135,000 troops in Iraq backed with smaller forces from other countries, of which Britain is the largest number.

 

 

The White House says the coalition is a show of international support, but it was put together when the U.N. Security Council refused to back the war and critics note most of the major world powers have little or no involvement.

 

The United States and Britain are working on the details of a new U.N. resolution for Iraq that Bush said last week could "help other nations to decide to participate."

 

Some members of the U.S. Congress are concerned the Bush administration is letting election-year politics influence its decision to not request additional funding for military operations in Iraq this year.

 

An $87 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq last year raised concern among Americans about the costs of the war at a time of record budget deficits.

 

Some on Capitol Hill believe billions more are needed over the next five months.

 

"The administration would be well served here to come forward now, be honest about this," Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) told NBC's "Today" show.

 

"And that means be honest with the Congress, be honest with the American people. Every ground squirrel in this country knows that it's going to be $50 billion to $75 billion in additional money required to sustain us in Iraq for this year," Hagel said.

 

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday the Pentagon (news - web sites) was "evaluating right now" whether it will need more emergency money for Iraq before next year, which could put debate in Congress on a spending bill at the height of the campaign before November's elections.

 

McClellan said the White House would do what the military commanders wanted but at this point believed "current funding levels are more than adequate at this time."

I thought everything we're doing is unilateral? No?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Honduras and the Dominican Republic have said they also are withdrawing troops.

Oh no. Who's going to clean the toilets in Saddam's old palaces?

[Guest jpclemmons]

I thought everything we're doing is unilateral? No?

 

But how many troops from the "coalition" (other than Great Britian) helped us during the Iraq liberation? most of the other members of the "coalition" joined afterwards.

[Guest hunger4unger]

They are still helping now, and the situation is worse now than during the actual "war". The coalition will lose commitment from various countries the longer the situation carries on - the people of certain members of the coalition simply won't allow their leaders to let their troops die for...um..nothing!

[Guest wrestlingbs]

 

 

 

 

 

Honduras and the Dominican Republic have said they also are withdrawing troops.

Oh no. Who's going to clean the toilets in Saddam's old palaces?

You may be singing a different tune when more nations follow.

 

I hope to God the situation in Iraq gets better. I may hate Bush for getting us into this mess but I'm hoping we can work it out.