Rumsfeld: We don't need the UK

[monkspider]

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that America would be prepared to take military action against Iraq - with or without Britain.
He told a press briefing that the US had alternative plans if the UK decides not to go to war with Iraq.

But Downing Street has expressed surprise at his remarks, insisting that if Saddam Hussein made the wrong moves, then Britain would be in at the front.

In fact, it was made clear that rather than scaling down the UK's involvement in the conflict, the opposite was happening.

In recent days military planners have been talking about Britain's "military contribution being greater than we thought".

But Mr Rumsfeld said: "To the extent that they are able to participate - in the event that the President decides to use force - that would obviously be welcomed.

"To the extent they are not, there are work arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it."

Asked if that meant the US would go to war without its "closest ally", he added: "That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume."

The comments will come as a blow to Tony Blair who says he is willing to work "night and day" to secure enough common ground among UN security council members for a second resolution.

UN deadlock

He warned that Saddam Hussein will be "let off the hook" if France or Russia uses a veto over a further UN resolution.

UK diplomats at the UN have proposed a series of tests they say Baghdad should fulfil within a set time to prove that it is ready to hand over its weapons.

The proposals are part of an attempt to win wider support for a new UN resolution that gives the Iraqi leader a deadline to disarm before war.

Mr Blair hopes the plan will break the UN deadlock and ease mounting political pressure at home following an attack on his strategy by Clare Short, the international development secretary.

The prime minister's official spokesman insisted: "We want to ensure that the United Nations does not crumble into irrelevance."

Big test

But on Tuesday, six undecided UN members - Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan - suggested a 45-day deadline for Iraq to disarm.

This will be seen as a non-starter by America, which has rejected calls to extend the deadline beyond 17 March, insisting that a UN vote on war against Iraq will happen this week.

Former culture secretary Chris Smith criticised some opponents of war for suggesting the Iraq crisis could cost Mr Blair his job.

But he added: "I hope that even at this last stage he could have the courage and the statesmanship to say 'no, we are not going to go ahead with this', even if the Americans decide to do so."

Veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell, a long-standing critic of Mr Blair's stance, forecast moves would be made to call a special party conference to challenge Mr Blair's authority.

But Labour Chairman John Reid told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the prime minister enjoyed widespread support in his party and across the UK although he acknowledged Iraq was a "big test" for Mr Blair.

Deadline

On Monday, the prime minister telephoned Security Council members to discuss the benchmarks against which Iraqi compliance can be judged.

That paved the way for Britain's new proposals, which were drawn up and circulated by Britain's ambassador to the UN, Jeremy Greenstock.
On Tuesday, Mr Blair held talks in Downing Street with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso who was supportive of his British counterpart's stance.

According to the Guardian newspaper, security sources at the UN suggest the new deadline could be pushed back "a few days" beyond the March 17 deadline in the draft resolution.

Downing Street seemed to indicate a degree of flexibility over the date.

France and Russia have warned that they would veto any new UN resolution, while UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said the legitimacy of any military action without a new UN mandate would be "seriously impaired".

----------------------------------

Is this further proof of a US out of control? Will the US eventually lose even it's UK ally? And if so, will it go ahead with the invasion of Iraq as stated?

[Arrian]

I read it as us giving Blair an out.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

In this whole thing, Rumsfeld is my only disappointment.

A botched lobotomy, I do believe.
Get him out of the way, let Bush or Powell speak; but listen not to Rumsfeld.

[Kropotkin]

The diplomatic genius strikes again!

[Arrian]

"To the extent that they are able to participate - in the event that the President decides to use force - that would obviously be welcomed.

"To the extent they are not, there are work arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it."

Asked if that meant the US would go to war without its "closest ally", he added: "That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume."

What, exactly, did he do wrong here?

I'm no fan of Rummy, but I fail to see the problem. He said we'd love to have the Brits along, but if they can't, so be it.

-Arrian

[Japher]

Rumsfeld?

More like DUMBsfeld.

[SlowwHand]

The man doesn't need to be insulting to the Brits.
From day one, they've been shoulder-to-shoulder.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian


What, exactly, did he do wrong here?

I'm no fan of Rummy, but I fail to see the problem. He said we'd love to have the Brits along, but if they can't, so be it.

-Arrian

He implied they may not "be able" to operate with us. IF it becomes an issue, it doesn't have to be talked about in advance, to create ammo for the press, or potential political embarassment or tension at the Bush and Blair level. Rumsfeld should shut the **** up, and realize that there are issues that are beyond his pay grade.

[Arrian]

Ok, fair enough.

-Arrian

[MBD]

I agree this is mostly to give Blair a graceful way to step aside, if he feels he needs to.
You don't remain at the highest levels of government and business for 25 years, as Rumsfeld has done, without being very skillful politically, notwithstanding his occasional "non-diplomatic" statements.
In a backhanded way, this also may be an attempt to stiffen support for British participation.

[Japher]

Rummy does talk waaaaaaaaaaay toooooooo much, reminds me of the Canadian guy; Cretin....hehe

[Demerzel]

"To the extent that they are able to participate"

Hey we've only got ~50k troops in the M.East, obviously that's an insignificant number and we shouldn't bother fighting for all the good we can do.

Thanks a bunch Rumsfeld - first you insult your loose allies and then you start popping off at the close ones.

We've been there from the start and this is the reward we get?

[Arrian]

Demerzel,

I think it's pretty clear he was talking about political considerations, not combat ability.

Even so, as MtG pointed out, we would have been better served if he'd kept his mouth shut.

-Arrian

[ThePantaloonDog]

Rumsfield has the political skills of a jabbering monkey. For good or ill he has only hurt Bush's attempts to get the UN on board. Insulting your allies is generally not seen as a succesful tactic to be used in international politics.

[MBD]

Match his achievements, and then your criticism of his political skills will have more weight.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Arrian
Demerzel,

I think it's pretty clear he was talking about political considerations, not combat ability.

Even so, as MtG pointed out, we would have been better served if he'd kept his mouth shut.

-Arrian

Even if you only consider the political angle, yes the US might have preferred to go the non-UN route but that is the better route to go. Blair is risking his political future on this issue by supporting the US admin. all the way.

Then Rumsfeld stabs him in the back whilst he is busy working on getting some more votes.

/me claps Rumsfeld.

And finally yes, he should learn the useful quote from Mark Twain

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

[KrazyHorse]

Rumsfeld's the one man doing the peace movement the greatest good.

[Starchild]

Thank God. Maybe now Blair will actually listen to his voters.

From day one, they've been shoulder-to-shoulder

And what have we gotten in return...? Steel tariffs and all sorts of other nice goodies. We should have been shoulder to shoulder with the French and Germans on this one.

[DanS]

It's possible that Blair said that he couldn't go in without a UN resolution. Perhaps there is no UN resolution in the offing. Otherwise, I wouldn't know why Rumsfeld is saying such stuff.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by DanS
It's possible that Blair said that he couldn't go in without a UN resolution. Perhaps there is no UN resolution in the offing. Otherwise, I wouldn't know why Rumsfeld is saying such stuff.

no IIRC Blair has said a few times "that he will possibly ignore 1 or even 2 vetos of the 2nd resolution if necessary to do the right thing"

I can probably hunt down a BBC report if required.

[Jaakko]

Can I have a link please?

[DanS]

Perhaps we don't have 9 votes, Demerzel.

[PLATO]

This thread is much ado about nothing. I doubt that Blair is affended.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
This thread is much ado about nothing. I doubt that Blair is affended.

You should be more worried about whether the minority of people in the UK who previously supported you are offended.

[SlowwHand]

Blair's pretty on-the-ball.
I'm sure he knows Rumsfeld is a jackass.

[Sandman]

With any luck we'll be out of the 'coalition' within the week. Good thing too, I'd hate to see Britain embark on another century of imperial villainy.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Frogger


You should be more worried about whether the minority of people in the UK who previously supported you are offended.

Why would they be Frogger? As I said...Much ado about nothing.

[Demerzel]

heh already Rumsfeld has had to "clarify" himself...

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2838593.stm
"Within the hour, Mr Rumsfeld tried to clarify his comments with a statement saying he had "no doubt" in the UK's "full support" for the international community's efforts to disarm Iraq.

He stressed: "I was simply pointing out that obtaining a second United Nation's Security Council Resolution is important to the United Kingdom and that we are working to achieve it.

"In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom."

nice...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sandman
With any luck we'll be out of the 'coalition' within the week. Good thing too, I'd hate to see Britain embark on another century of imperial villainy.

Yeah...I guess bringing stability, education, medicine and utilities to countries was a pretty bad thing for you guys.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MBD
Match his achievements, and then your criticism of his political skills will have more weight.

Some of us aren't wired in to the Democratic or Republican party for decades. Knowing the right asses to kiss is a large part of the ballgame.