Bush administration builds motley posse to keep peace

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Poland is sending 2,300 soldiers. Ukraine promises 1,800. Small bands of Macedonians and Albanians are already here. And Sri Lanka says it's ready to consider requests for help.

A posse of nations is materializing to help keep Iraq's peace, but big powers like France, Germany and Russia are showing little inclination to join.

After invading Iraq over the objections of some allies and spurning a major U.N. role after the war, the United States -- whose troops are increasingly coming under attack -- has begun to seek help.

Many hope a larger international presence could reassure Iraqis that they are not being colonized and help get Americans out of the line of fire. For now, the occupation of Iraq is overwhelmingly American, with about 150,000 U.S. troops in the country. There are 12,000 other occupation troops, mostly British.

By the end of September, the non-U.S. contingent is supposed to rise to around 20,000, led by Britain and Poland, said Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The United States has asked 70 countries to contribute troops. Just 24 have promised to do so, and some are sending as few as two dozen.

Military analysts say NATO allies such as France and Germany are much better equipped to help the U.S. military than an assemblage of armies from small countries.

Bowing out

Germany turned down a request last month to participate in Poland's peacekeeping mission. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Tuesday that Russia has no intention of sending troops. And France hasn't been asked to participate, a French diplomatic official said Wednesday.

Some say U.S. officials' decisions ahead of the war are coming back to haunt them.

"It's one reason why promoting solidarity would have made sense, instead of dissing our allies," said Dana Allin of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Now they don't feel particularly eager to join us."

More international participation could help show Iraqis that the occupation isn't aimed at taking Iraq's oil. Iraqis bristle at U.S. forces, who are deemed too supportive of Israel, while Britain is spurned as a former colonial master, said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Poland, which sent an advance force of 250 soldiers Wednesday, is one of America's more eager partners. By September, the Poles will command one of three military sectors in Iraq, which includes the Shiite holy cities of Karbala and Najaf.

The Poles will lead a stabilization force of 9,000 soldiers from 15 countries, including Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Spain, Ukraine, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and El Salvador.

Poland is supposed to deploy 2,300 soldiers and the Ukrainians are sending a mechanized unit of 1,800 soldiers. Both asked Washington to foot part of the bill.

Other contributors include Denmark, with 367 soldiers near the southern city of Basra, and 43 Lithuanians under their command. The Czech Republic's military has 306 personnel -- mainly doctors and nurses -- operating a field hospital near Basra. The Netherlands is sending 1,100 troops.

Italy has sent 800 soldiers and Carabineri police, who patrol Iraqi streets in shiny black vans.

Some missions are too small to be of military significance. Macedonia has 28 soldiers in northern Iraq. Albania has 100 in the same region. Latvia sent 36. Estonia pledged a few dozen soldiers, mine divers and cargo handlers. Portugal promised 120 police officers. The Philippines sent 175 personnel, including soldiers, police and medics.

Allin, at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said real legitimacy comes with the blessing of the United Nations, which is slipping into a larger role -- taking over humanitarian aid and police training duties from the U.S. military.

"It's a no-brainer that you should have a prominent U.N. role in Iraq," Allin said. The United Nations, he said, "has a legitimacy that the United States disdains but the rest of the world takes seriously."

But the United Nations won't send peacekeepers without a new Security Council resolution, an unlikely event in the near future, Fawzi, the U.N. spokesman, said.

Critics say many nations sending troops are more interested in currying favor with Washington than attending to Iraqis' needs.

"The countries involved are mostly small, poor, weak and struggling," said Richard K. Betts, director of the Institute for War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. "Any crumbs of attention and approval they can get from the sole superpower are useful to them, and worth symbolic participation in the American enterprise."