IRAQ/IRELAND: The senior Democratic congressman on the House Armed Services Committee in the US Congress has said Ireland should be asked to provide peace- keeping troops in Iraq.
In an interview with the Kansas City Star newspaper, Mr Ike Skelton said that "it would be wise to have professional peacekeepers there, such as the Irish, such as the Scandinavians. They're good at it. That's what they do. They ought to be asked."
He was speaking before the explosion at the UN compound in Baghdad on Tuesday. He said US troops in Iraq "are worn out. They fought the war. And in addition, they're not trained as peacekeepers."
Mr Skelton led a cross-party delegation from the House Armed Services Committee to Ireland in 1993 to study Irish Army peacekeeping methods. He did so at the suggestion of Mr John O'Connor, an Irishman who then worked with British Aerospace in the US and who he had come to know through Washington diplomatic circles.
On his Irish visit Mr Skelton and his party met Government officials and were briefed on Irish peacekeeping methods and experience. They also visited the Defence Forces at the Curragh and met the then Army Chief of Staff, Lieut Gen Noel Bergin.
In a subsequent report to Congress Mr Skelton said he was greatly impressed by the Irish Defence Forces peacekeeping record. His comments were later quoted "verbatim" by President Clinton on his Irish visits, Mr O'Connor recalled yesterday.
The House Armed Services Committee must approve all military spending proposed by Washington before it can be passed by Congress. Mr Skelton has been a member of the committee since 1980. A strong supporter of the US military, he told the Kansas City Star that "there was either a serious miscalculation or a serious lack of strong intelligence about the attitude of the Iraqi people in the aftermath [of the war\] . . . The average Iraqi did not welcome us with open arms. I think most Iraqis are very glad Saddam Hussein is gone. I think a number of Iraqis have the attitude: 'You got rid of him, go home to America'."
He continued: "I don't think we anticipated major problems. Not just [guerrilla warfare\]. We didn't anticipate the difficulty of putting Humpty Dumpty back together." As to who was to blame for the state of the occupation, he said "there used to be a sign on President Truman's desk that said, 'The buck stops here'. He assumed responsibility for whatever occurred. We should have got more international participation early on. We should seek it even more so now."
For America the stakes were "very, very high", he said.
"We're there. We have no choice but to win, and by win, I mean to have a stable, responsible Iraq with some kind of representative government. If we fail at this, if America fails at this, there could be years of serious consequences, not the least of which would be a loss of worldwide credibility and leadership, in addition to making Americans wherever they are in this world more prone to danger. The stakes are very, very high."
As to how long US forces would be in Iraq, he said "\ Tommy Franks says two to four years. I think that's extremely optimistic. We've been in Korea 50 years. Japan, 58. Germany, 58. Now, the nature of those occupations changed in the latter two instances. The nature of South Korea has not. Ask me that in 50 years."
