[rmnunez]

The Amerrican effort to enlist greater support from the UN or to acquire some sort of UN 'imprimatur' is aimed at securing further commitments for military deployments from other countries. The need for reinforcements is a consequence (though only in part) of the greater 'resistance' encountered in the occupation. The Americans are being knocked off at a rate of a soldier a day in sporadic ambushes and such. These attacks are not at all the conventional military situation and often pit them against potential civilians and surrounded by absolutely innocent bystanders. The US casualty rate does not seem excessive to me. History documents higher casualty rates (either side and both) in Vietnam and WW2. UNHCR has compiled documentation of casualty rates in a variety of Latin American and African uprisings and these are far higher on a per diem basis. While the Americans are facing unanticipated 'resistance', the level of casualties they are taking is not something unbearable (with all due regard to the tremendous grief their families surely feel). Its a sacrifice the Americans, through Bush II, have expressed a will to bear.

UN endorsement is a condition imposed by, for example, India. There are a number of countries "on the fence" about this. They apreciate the need to help the US manage the situation, have resources and expertise to contribute, but will withhold military commitments for UN backing. The UN is receptive and sympathetic to the US predicament and seems to encourage raprochement, not out of puppetry to American interests rather than out of the sensible perception multilateralism is preferable to what we see now. The Americans seek nominal foreign deployments so they can rotate their forces out. Probably 15 thousand foreigners would suffice and about 2 thirds of these have been committed. However, their primary value is in internationalizing the profile so some 'heat' is taken from the arguments we see some sort of US 'occupation'.