[Articles from: The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times]

Bush Revises Views On 'Combat' in Iraq: 'Major Operations' Over, President Says/More Foreign Troops Likely, Bush Says

Bush Revises Views On 'Combat' in Iraq 'Major Operations' Over, President Says
by Dana Milbank and Bradley Graham
August 19, 2003

In an interview with the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service given on Thursday and released by the White House August 19, Bush interrupted the questioner when asked about his announcement on May 1 of, as the journalist put it, "the end of combat operations."

"Actually, major military operations," Bush replied. "Because we still have combat operations going on." Bush added: "It's a different kind of combat mission, but, nevertheless, it's combat, just ask the kids that are over there killing and being shot at."

In his May 1 speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush declared: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country." The headline on the White House site above Bush's May 1 speech is "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended."

Since then, a search of Bush speeches on the White House Web site indicates, the president had not spoken of the guerrilla fighting in Iraq as combat until this interview; he had earlier spoken of the "cessation of combat" in Iraq.

The description of active combat in Iraq was one of several statements Bush made in the interview that differed with earlier administration positions as he discussed his foreign policy while visiting a military facility in Miramar, Calif.

More Foreign Troops Likely, Bush Says
by Maura Reynolds (Burbank), Maggie Farley (United Nations) and Paul Richter (Washington)
August 23, 2003

He is hopeful about persuading nations to send forces to Iraq. But Annan says that will be difficult unless the U.S. cedes some authority.

BURBANK, Wash. — President Bush expressed optimism Friday about the prospects of persuading other nations to send troops to Iraq, even as U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned that if the U.S. wants more help in the volatile country, it must be more flexible about sharing authority.

Bush blamed the bombing of U.N. headquarters on Hussein loyalists as well as foreign "Al Qaeda-style" fighters who want to turn Iraq into a battleground for challenging U.S. power. "They want to fight us there because they can't stand the thought of a free society in the Middle East," the president said. "They hate freedom. They hate the thought of a democracy emerging. And, therefore, they want to violently prevent that from happening."

"We do need, and welcome, more foreign troops into Iraq. And there will be more foreign troops into Iraq," Bush told reporters at Seattle's King County Airport. "And what that will do is, that will enable many of those troops to guard the infrastructure.

"What's happening, of course, is — as the life of the average Iraqi begins to improve — those who hate freedom destroy the infrastructures that we've been improving. It's part of their strategy. So we'll get more people guarding that And that will help free up our hunter teams" searching for members of the Saddam Hussein government.

Annan said that although the United Nations would not send in peacekeepers to bolster security in Iraq, the Security Council could create a multinational force to go in with U.N. approval, but under U.S. command.

But the U.S. seemed unwilling to loosen its grip enough to take the hand some countries might offer. "There's an opportunity here for the Security Council to stand up and show support for U.N. operations in Iraq, and for the Iraqi people," one senior U.S. official said, three days after a bomb devastated U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Yet, "we're not interested in getting involved in any kind of a sterile debate about authorities."

Asked whether he would be willing to give more political authority to the United Nations in Iraq, Bush said: "Well, I've always said the United Nations ought to have a vital role And so, yes, there will be a vital role for the U.N. As a matter of fact, we're discussing resolutions now about how to encourage other nations to participate in the process."

Along with France and perhaps other countries, Mexico put forward a Security Council measure to ensure the protection of humanitarian workers. But its introduction has caused a surprisingly tense standoff with the U.S. over a section referring to the International Criminal Court, which Washington opposes.

A vote is scheduled for Monday, but the U.S. said it would not support the resolution unless Mexico dropped the section. The resolution, supported by the 14 other members of the council, puts the U.S. in the awkward position of having to reject the same themes of enhancing security that they have been sounding.