Regardless of Outcome, Resolution Poses Risks

The Bush administration faces enormous risks in going back to the United Nations for help in Iraq -- with no guarantees that it will win passage of a new resolution or, even if it does, that it will be able to persuade skeptical, nervous and cranky allies to provide the infusion of foreign troops and funds it wants.

But the United States had little choice, according to U.S. officials and analysts as well as foreign envoys.

A confluence of factors -- including congressional pressure, public anxiety, the approaching presidential campaign, the impending new U.N. session, worsening violence in Iraq and growing impatience among Iraqis -- forced President Bush to return to the world body and put his Iraq policy on the line, the array of sources said.

Although the U.N. Security Council refused to endorse military action against Iraq earlier this year, going back to the arena of one of the administration’s worst defeats appears to be the only way to address problems the world’s mightiest military and strongest economy cannot resolve on its own, they added.

The biggest risk is being rejected -- again.

“If we are rejected, it will be a major diplomatic defeat and another black eye that will make us look even worse in the eyes of the world. Our ability to get countries to sign up or help financially will then be even more limited,” said Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council staff member in the Clinton and current Bush administrations and now director of research at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

Failure to find common ground could also deepen the divide in ways that affect not only Iraq but future cooperation on other foreign crises, the analysts warned.

Yet winning passage of a new resolution may not solve the issues that led Washington to ask for help.

“With passage of a new resolution there will be expectations that all problems will be resolved, and the reality is that they won’t,” said Judith Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst who is now at the National Defense University.

“A new resolution may end up giving us more people to provide more protection, but it’s not going to ease our security problem because those who want us out want all foreigners out of Iraq.”

“The people who blew up U.N. headquarters were signaling that the U.N. was not acceptable either,” she said. “So we have to be careful what we ask for.”

U.S. officials, however, counter that Washington has nothing to lose -- just as, they say, it had nothing to lose in trying for a resolution on the eve of war.

“As difficult as our experience was this spring, it offered an example and a lesson,” a senior State Department official said.

“When this administration goes to the U.N., we’re not giving the Security Council a veto over what happens. We’re trying to work with others.

“Even though we didn’t get that resolution, just going there helped us get Britain, Italy and Spain to send troops.”

Failure this time would mean the administration could lose the prospect of getting new troops from India, Pakistan, Turkey and Bangladesh. Assistance from the latter three, with predominantly Muslim populations, is seen as particularly important to defusing tensions with the Islamic world and giving the occupation a broader legitimacy.

“We also might lose the approval of French diplomats, which doesn’t pain us very much,” the senior administration official said. “And we’d probably lose a little in public opinion.

“But whatever happens, what is emerging is a consensus about the need for further international support to ensure Iraq’s stability and reconstruction.”

In other words, he argued, the process itself boosts America’s goals.

But analysts warn that going to the world body may instead make the United States look uncomfortably vulnerable, undermining the administration’s agenda.

“The risks in the short term expose us to direct criticism from those who will now be able to tell us what a mess Iraq is,” said Ellen Laipson, former vice chairwoman of the National Intelligence Council and now president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Washington defense think tank.

“Asking for help can also lead to a perception of weakness or inconsistency or not having had a strategic plan, which could have longer-term consequences.”

After a briefing Thursday before Congress, which has been urging the administration to seek more U.N. help, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz argued that the administration’s decision to seek a new U.N. resolution did not represent a shift in policy and was instead a sign of the administration’s ability to be flexible in the face of changing events.

“Things change,” Wolfowitz said. “You exploit opportunities, you deal with surprises.”

If the White House does win passage of a new resolution and gets commitments for more troops, it will still take time to get those forces in place.

Deploying tens of thousands of additional troops could take three to four months, probably meaning only limited relief for U.S. and coalition troops before early next year, according to William Durch, a senior associate at the Stimson Center.

Resolving the sensitive issue of who will pay the costs would also take time; many of the countries now being asked to offer troops expect at least partial assistance.

That cost will range from $125,000 a year for each soldier from a developed country to about $40,000 a year for each soldier from a developing country, said Durch, a specialist on peacekeeping and nation-building operations.

And additional troops mean more targets, Laipson noted.

“That’s the dilemma,” she said. “More troops can sometimes increase vulnerability. It’s very paradoxical.”

Times staff writer Janet Hook in Washington contributed to this report.