The Unwilling

Zapatero, like 90 percent of Spaniards, opposed the war, and he ran for election on a promise to withdraw Spanish troops. The Bush administration chided Spain for sending the wrong message to the terrorists, but noted -- or at any rate asserted -- that the coalition is going strong, with the U.K., Ukraine, and Albania still on board. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld infamously tagged the U.S.'s allies in the Iraq war -- Spain, Poland, and Bulgaria -- the "New Europe." But the Spanish pullout brings Spain into alignment with France and Germany ("Old Europe"), who of course opposed the war, and who now want the U.N. to have a central role in Iraq. As European Commission President Romano Prodi said:

"With this decision, Spain has returned to our position. …The split that had prevented Europe from having a common position is being healed."

Prodi is due to lead the Italian left in the 2006 elections against Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who sent Italian troops to Iraq in the face of overwhelming domestic position. With increased violence in Iraq, including the kidnapping and videotaped execution of an Italian contractor, Berlusconi could meet the electoral fate of Spain's former Prime Minister José María Aznar.

The U.S. would like more troops from Europe -- "Old" and "New" -- and beyond. The 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq make up the bulk of the "coalition." The second-largest contingent, the British, chip in 8,700 troops. The Pentagon insists that U.S. troops are not overextended, but recent extensions of tour of duty amid heightened violence suggest otherwise.

Ukraine, which has 1,650 troops in Iraq, said it has no plans to pull them, but it withdrew Ukrainian troops from Kut after one of its soldiers was killed in clashes with Shia militants. Russian companies removed nearly 500 civil contractors from Iraq after several of them were kidnapped and released. Russia's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Yakovenko told the Associated Press that:

"The Russian side cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens in Iraq today, just as the coalition forces cannot do so. As soon as the situation stabilizes in terms of security, our specialists will return there. … In no way are we leaving Iraq."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has urged the U.S. to come back to the U.N., saying that a Security Council resolution "that will allow us to point the way towards political transition in Iraq" is needed. The Bush administration has begun to listen, in part because it hopes that a more active U.N. role will translate into greater contribution of troops and aid from its members. Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N.'s special envoy to Iraq's, has drafted a plan that may become the blueprint for the post-June 30th Iraqi government. As the Christian Science Monitor reports:

"Brahimi's plan seeks to appoint a 'caretaker' government limited to election responsibilities. It would deemphasize religious and ethnic quota policies that the US supports. He envisions a transitional government with a prime minister, a president as head of state, and a broad-based consultative council to advise the transitional leadership but with no lawmaking powers. The top leaders would probably be selected by the U.N."

The Washington Post editorialized thusly:

"The greatest remaining asset of the United Nations in Iraq is still a potentially powerful one: It is not the United States, and so it has a better chance of overseeing the creation of a new Iraqi government without provoking a nationalist backlash. Key leaders who won't agree even to meet with U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer, such as Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, have talked to Mr. Brahimi and even invited his intervention. But it's not yet clear whether Mr. Sistani will accept Mr. Brahimi's proposal for a transitional Iraqi government. Even if he does, it's uncertain whether a U.N.-selected administration will have enough support from Iraqis to help turn around the deteriorating security situation."

But the Spanish newspaper El Pais argued that:

"The chaos and violence that Iraq is experiencing make it enormously difficult for the United Nations to assume political direction of that country. As for direction of the military, the United States had clearly let Zapatero and his associates know that it would not agree to American troops being placed under the command of that world organization or any other."

A military role for the U.N. is not a viable option. At present, the U.N. has neither the will nor the capability to get itself embroiled in open combat. The U.N. withdrew its international staff last year when its Baghdad headquarters were attacked by suicide bombers, killing the U.N.'s special representative Sergio de Mello. As for NATO countries, whose leaders and populations bitterly opposed the war, there is little desire to send troops to fight for a "peace" that has resulted in more coalition casualties than the war.

Regardless of the political arrangement following June 30th -- which will involve the U.S. and the U.N. hand-picking yet another government until elections can take place -- the security function will remain the responsibility of the U.S. The new Iraqi government will continue to rely not on its domestic popularity but on American military power for its survival. The latter maybe bolstered by a greater U.N. role -- especially if progress is made on holding nationwide elections.

So far, however, the Bush administration has failed to either internationalize or legitimize the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Even its former coalition partners are voting with their feet.