Was America's original ideal of isolationism preferable?

Quite simply it buys you cooperation and it is only through international cooperation that the war on terror will be won. For most of the countries (besides Britain) that you mention supporting the US in Iraq their numbers on the ground are (to use your own term) miniscule but even so, for most of them their governments are in trouble at home because of their support. Blair is under huge pressure and if an election was held today would not survive, we saw what happened in Spain, Polands prime minister is openly saying that he feels he was misled (which you can read as playing to the domestic market), the taking of the hostages in Japan has showed the depth of anti-war feeling in that country. And in Australia the incumbents trail the opposition in opinion polls.
The real terrorists that threaten Western democracy cannot be bombed out of existence, they are in fragmented cells throughout many countries and it is only with cooperation with those countries that this cancer will be rooted out.

"There is no phantom military force that we could magically conjure up by kissing up to the UN."

Russia
Russia has not ruled out sending peacekeepers to Iraq, but like France, it would want an appropriate UN Security Council resolution to be passed. Russia wants to see a much stronger role for the UN.

Bangladesh
Bangladesh may contribute peacekeeping troops at a later stage - but only under the flag of the United Nations.

Pakistan
Pakistan would be likely to contribute troops to a multinational peacekeeping force, but only if it was led by the United Nations rather than the US.

India
India has said it would consider deploying troops only if there was an explicit UN mandate.

nice list at BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3628959.stm

"The horse still lives so a few more whacks: Non-UN approval for current US policy in Iraq puts the US burden in Iraq at over 75%. UN approval of US action would likely put the US burden in Iraq at...over 75%."

no, don´t try to sound smart. war and peacekeeping are two different things. reading this article leaves me pretty dissapointed. you often state that history is one of your hobbies. still your knowledge seems to be so little you are not aware of this. i wonder how few people in your country that are not interested in history know about that. scary.

Alex:

Let's use your numbers since either set will work fine.

In the Gulf War, the US provided 76% of the troops. That is the model for "multilaterialism". According to your stat the US is providing 88%. So okay, full blown, best-case scenario if the US kisses the butts of France and Germany would be another 12%.  And you consider that...significant? Enough to justify the strings that that 12% would come attached with?

As for the amount being spent in Iraq, those stats are apples and oranges because a huge chunk of that "Support" came in the form of oil and money from Kuwait.  Under what scenario do you envision Saudi Arabia or Kuwait paying say $50 billion in Iraq now even if Kerry is elected?

My position is pretty clear: UN support or not, the US is going to be carrying 4/5ths of the burden. If you disagree, you need to present a credible alternative scenario.  I don't see one. Your statistics, if anything, bolster my position.

your numbers of "0" for German, French and Belgium troops and "a few hundred" Canadians are of course wrong.

1) I didn't claim there were 0. I said there was a minsicule number. Perhaps even 0 in some cases (I didn't know off hand what Belgium's number was).

2) But yes, I consider 536 troops from France to be "miniscule". NATO activates article 5 for the first time and the result? ~6000 troops in Afghanistan.  The point isn't to deride that contribution but to point out that NATO countries just don't have the military capability to really be that helpful.

3) Someone pointed out that we might get Russian troops in Iraq if we had UN support. And that would be...good?

"So now we're not at war? You think the issue in Iraq is a peace keeping mission? I could have swarn the UN high tailed it out of Iraq last August because it was too dangerous.
Peace keeping isn't the issue presently. It's still a war. Certainly that is Kerry's and Bush's position. Perhaps you haven't been reading the current news?"

unlike indie journalists, heads of states plan (or at least should plan) in longer terms. at some time peacekeeping will come, want to take that burden alone as well? fine with me, i consider my tax money to be better spent in Germany. the costs for rebuilding Iraq are tremendous as well. Iraq has also very high debts. so, sorry but both Bush and Kerry are right, you are not.

i am just giving you the link to the costs of the third Gulf War again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3603923.stm
remember: last time you had only to pay 13%
this time it will be 90%

Is there some point where you'll present the alternative, credible scenario?

I.e. where Kerry is elected and gets tens of billions of dollars out of Japan and Germany? Japan has pledged money this time as well and sent troops to Iraq as well.

I cannot think of a scenario where the US, under Kerry or anyone else, is going to get other countries to pay 94% of the cost.  The US just passed an $87 billion package in Iraq.  The war itself has probably cost about that much. But let's be conservative and say the US has "only" spent $120 billion.  So, where do you envision under the Kerry Presidency $110 billion being conjured up from?  How about $50 billion?

Even in the BEST case scenario, when Germany was freshly grateful to US help in its reunification efforts we got what? Japan's already doing the best it can do.  And Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were the ones who realistically did the most and they're certainly not going to pony up that kind of money.

The principle problem in Iraq is not money. It is feet on the ground. Troops.  Kerry is clearly trying to present the misleading view that if only we had UN support we could get significant numbers (as in many tens of thousands) of foreign troops to ease our burden.  I don't see that happening.

And since you seem to be fixating on the money aspect, I can only assume you agree with me.

I think we can agree that UN cooperation would translate into more financial aid from other countries. But I don't think that is anywhere near as big of an issue to actual people on the ground in Iraq helping create a stable government.

 

BTW, "Disenter", if all you have to do is make rants against "the right" please take it somewhere else.  At least Alex is putting forth his point of view with logic and facts. I'm sure the DU or some other fringe site is looking for more people like you.  But here we expect people to discuss the issues and not just make lame partisan quips.

Kerry's and the Democrats' plan can be summed up in THREE simple, related words - FREE [AMERICAN} MONEY, PAYOUT and [FINANCIAL] OUTLAY, US-burdened, US-taxpayer and Government subsidized, but NOT US controlled, prioritized, or managed - IOW, Socialism-centric UN-based Global Government/One World Government (UNGG/OWG)! Kofi Annan said it himself - he wants Iraq and Afghanistan to have "progressive" new secular governments, and ones that will obey the will and decisions of the UN world body. The econopolitical objectives of the global ANTI-AMERICAN MOVEMENT is no different than for GORBACHEVISM, ie, exploiting and depending on predom American and Western investments and local, LIMITED CAPITALISM to modernize the backward and failed Communist states, espec super-states RUSSIA and CHINA, while also maintaining the nuclear status quo. The Failed Left wants free and capitalist hyperpower America under Communist-controlled, PC domestic Socialism and under similar UN-based, ANTI-SOVEREIGN International Socialist control, by 2015 NLT 2020 - between now and 2015/2020, I expect the Left to deliberately induce a worsening geopolitical situation in order to forcibly cause or induce the USA to militarily engage in INTERNATIONAL LIMITED WARS! WIth the failure of Leftism-Socialism, espec Leftist Absolutist champion the former USSR, instead of "COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM NOW", the Failed Left, including the Clinton-led American Left vis-a-vis American Political NATIONAL UNITARIANISM, has reversed back into the Rightist Capitalist base it allegedly claims to have evolved from, and now seeks to "redo Socialism" by "push" or "driving" the successful Right and Rightism-based Capitalism unto surreal, PC, Rightism-led ergo only Rightism-blamed, GLOBAL IMPERIALISM, read GLOBAL WELFARE-POLICE STATE in Leftspeak, which the still power-mad Left will later usurp. The only precept Failed Leftism-Socialism has left is its reliance on the DESPOTIC STATE to ensure the obeyance of Leftist agendas - IOW, the Left will take over the future new American Global Empire because the only thing it stands for as a movement is [DESPOTIC] GOVERNMENT-BUREAUCRATIC-POLITICAL POWER, Government for the sake of Government, Politics for the sake of Politics, Bureaucratic Administration and Control for the sake of Bureaucratic Administration and Control, REGULATION FOR THE SAKE OF REGULATION, POWER FOR THE SAKE OF POWER, the STATE BY AND FOR THE SAKE OF THE STATE, etc. The Left no longer cares about inter-ideological competition against Rightism or Capitalism, no longer cares about tolerance, no longer cares about ideological co-existence, not even about social utopianism or liberalism/libertarianism - it wants UNCONDITIONAL, UNDENIABLE, and UNCHALLENGEABLE STATE PROTECTION OF ITS AGENDA! IT DOES NOT MATTER ANYMORE TO THE LEFT IF AMERICA IS ISOLATIONIST, NEUTRALIST, OR EXPANSIONIST - AMERICA WILL BE ATTACKED AS MANY TIMES AS NECESSARY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO FORCE IT TO EXPAND ITS MILPOL REACH, AND ACCEPT SOCIALISM AND GIVE UP ITS SOVEREIGNTY TO SOCIALIST OWG! As represented by the Communist Clintons, the Left is out to KILL AMERICA and AMERICANISM BY "SAVING IT" - if LIMITED WARS fail to subjugate America under Socialism and Socialist OWG, it is highly likely that after 2015/2020 LIMITED WAR will become ALL-OUT, UNCONDITIONAL, HIGH-INTENSITY GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR - if as demonstrated by the post-MADRID support of faith-based, theocrat Radical Islam/Islamofascists/IslamoSocialists for the Spanish Secular Socialist Party, the warning by Radical Islam that "TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE" may also be interpreted as a severe negative. "Line in the Sand", "Kill or be Killed", "Live or Die" warning for INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM, espec COMMAND SOCIALISM [Russia-China], versus America! The choice for the Failed Left, espec still COMMUNISM-CENTRIC RUSSIA/CHINA, is to either kill America, or be doomed forever to be nothing more than a group of PERMANENT MINOR/WEAK STATES, albeit nuclear-armed dsepite their nuclear advantage being inevitably nullified by US-developed and US-built GLOBAL-THEATER MISSLE DEFENSE! Both the USAF and USN are in general agreement that China's best opportunity of waging successful war or beenficial stalemate against America is NOW, THIS DECADE (2004-2010/2014) BEFORE AMERICAN DOMINANCE BECOMES TOO STRONG TO EVER HOPE TO CHALLENGE AND PREVAIL AGAINST, EVEN WITH A FASCIST ECONOMY AND POWERFUL, MODERN NUCLEAR ARSENALS. iF IN THE MILITARY, STAY IN; IF OUT, REENLIST; AND IF RETIRED OR JUST A DEDICATED PATRIOT, TAKE REPEATED REFRESHER/SURVIVALIST TRAINING - TEACH YOUR WOMEN, YOUR GRANDMOTHER, AND YOUR DOG TO SHOOT AND MAKE WAR, CUZ THE COMMIES WILL BE COMING SOON ENOUGH. THE CLINTONS AND CLINTON LEFT FROM WITHIN, GLOBAL LIMITED WARS FROM WITHOUT!? As long as the Clintons lead or control the national Democratic Party, A VOTE FOR ANY DEMLIB IN 2004 OR AFTER IS IN REALITY A VOTE FOR COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, AND ANTI-SOVEREIGN OWG, ALA "AMERICA MUST BE CONSTRAINED AND CONTROLLED" [See Pravda] - the Left PREFERS non-nuclear, conventional-only war, or not worse than LIMITED [TACTICAL/BATTLEFIELD] NUCLEAR WAR, FOR NOW [2004-2015/2020] because a destroyed world is contrary to its promise of modernity, peace, and prosperity under Socialism, promises which thus far it has failed to unilaterally, bilaterally, or multilaterally, keep!

Brad,
I'm having some trouble understanding the core of your argument here. You say 'There is no phantom military force that we could magically conjure up by kissing up to the UN' and this I agree with.

So what?

The point of getting the UN involved is not to conjure a magical force but to stabilise Iraq and help convert it to a modern democracy in the region. What do troops have to do with it? Why do you assume that the UN would want or need to provide 100k troops?

What the UN would do for Iraq is remove the belief on the ground that this was an occupational force. It would also restore the Iraqi military and create an Iraqi army. It would aim to REDUCE the number of troops required, not increase it.

You accuse other posters here of not providing an alternative but I throw that back at you. What alternative do you see for the US. It's about to lose Spanish troops. Portugese Polish and Bangladeshi troops look likely to follow. The generals on the ground are already calling for another 10-20k troops. So in another few months the US will have over 150k troops on the ground. Do you feel this is going to work? Maybe it's time to admit the US has made a big mistake. Not in the war but in it's attempt to control Iraq itself.

Paul.

The UN is only as corrupt as it's member states. Indeed the real decisions in the UN are made at a security council level and the US has the highest rate of veto there.

Why do you believe the UN as a whole is corrupt?
One common misconception is that the Food for Oil program was corrupt. It was not. It was just designed to punich Iraq and not Saddam. Saddam was thus able to corrupt it on his side to ensure that his peopel sufferred and not him. He was also able to smuggle oil out to other countries. Those countries were corrupt not the UN. A decision made by the security council including the US and in hindsight it was a bad decision. French and Russian companies received $11B business, not profit. They bought oil. They provided food.
If any proof exists that people within the UN accepted bribes then they should indeed be fired and prosecuted!
Do you believe the same of people within the US government? How do you view the corrupt nature of the Iraq reconstruction fund? The fact that hundreds of millions has been overcharged?

I do think the UN cares if Iraq is stable. Suggestions of otherwise really are unworthy.

Paul.

It would also restore the Iraqi military and create an Iraqi army. It would aim to REDUCE the number of troops required, not increase it.

What exactly do you think the United States is already doing there? It is training a new Iraqi army and preparing to turn things over to the Iraqi's as fast as possible. I don't see the UN being able to do that better than the United States. And having the UN just created the usual beauracratic BS that we've seen in Kosovo, Bosnia, and personally, I don't trust the UN. The corruption in the oil for food program is just one example.