What does "working with allies" buy us, Mr. Kerry?

Was America's original ideal of isolationism preferable?

from the bottom of your own reference:

"The Cost

The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated the cost of the Gulf War at $61 billion; however, other sources say that number could be as high as $71 billion. The operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries around the world, most of which came from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States ($36 billion) and Germany and Japan ($16 billion)."

that means the US only paid $8 billion of a total of $61 billion (i am sure you consider the U.S. Department of Defense a credible soucre, so let´s just take their number). that makes 13%.

"In short, "international" support didn't exactly buy us much in Afghanistan in terms of feet on the ground."
that´s because the Northern Alliance of former Mujaheddin did the dirty work. you´d be stunned how few American were there. most the attacking foreign forces did was dropping bombs from high altitude und pressing launching buttons for missiles.

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

ISAF currently numbers around 6,500 troops from 25 allies, eight partner nations and two non-NATO / non-EAPC nations.

BREAKDOWN OF ISAF PERSONNEL STRENGTH
BY NATIONS
as of 29 March 2004

NATO NATIONS
TOTAL
Belgium 280
Bulgaria 38
Canada 1756
Czech Republic 17
Denmark 96
Estonia 6
France 536
Germany 1833
Greece 167
Hungary 13
Iceland 1
Italy 481
Latvia 11
Lithuania 2
Netherlands 24
Norway 241
Poland 18
Portugal 1
Romania 27
Slovenia 21
Spain 118
Turkey 151
United Kingdom 354
United States 60

PARTNER NATIONS


TOTAL
Albania 22
Azerbaijan 22
Croatia 47
Finland 42
Former Yougoslov Republic of Macedonia1 11
Ireland 7
Sweden 46
Switzerland 4

Non-NATO / Non-EAPC NATIONS


TOTAL
New Zealand 3
Afghanistan 80
TOTAL 6536

source: NATO http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/factsheet.htm#troop_contributions

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.

"I'm not sure which is worse - Bush's poor response to Kerry's assertions that our problems in Iraq would be helped by "working with our allies better" or the very fact that Kerry either doesn't know or is lying about not realizing that "working with allies" would not materially change anything in Iraq."

or maybe even Bush is smart enough to realize that this whole war on terror costs an awful lot of money. money you (the American taxpayer) are going to pay. we are not going to help you out this time
this article might be enlightening: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3603923.stm

"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

"And Kerry is wrong, the US is "only" bearing roughly 75% of the total burden militarily (I don't have the exact figure and the number changes by a few percent but if you add the UK + Poland + Japan + Ukraine + Australia, + Spanish + the others you get roughly 20% to 25% of the total personnel in Iraq)."

no, Kerry is right. you are wrong.

MAIN FOREIGN TROOPS IN IRAQ
US: 135,000
UK: 8,700
Italy: 3,000
Poland: 2,400
Ukraine: 1,650
Spain: 1,300
Australia: 850
Japan: 550

Source: BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3637523.stm

makes 88%.

"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.

I am sorry Alex, though listing your sources is refreshing, media sources will not get you far on this website.....The Right have a conspiracy theory that is all centered around the Press being somer sort of left wing cabal designed to stop the real truth getting out.

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.

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.

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?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.main/index.html

Before one can contemplate peace keeping activities, the active fighting needs to end.  After all, history has shown how good the UN is at "peace keeping" when there's actual fighting going on (Bosnia, Rwanda spring to mind).

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?

"If you disagree, you need to present a credible alternative scenario. I don't see one. Your statistics, if anything, bolster my position."

look at your statistics (the CNN link in the blog):

in the second Gulf war the US had only to carry 13% of the financial burden. now it´s 75% (according to you) or 90% (according to Kerry). from the other numbers you present in your blog, it is fair to say Kerry was briefed better. you consider that difference not to be significant? especially as the third Gulf War will cost multiple times as much as the second.
it´s not only Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Germany and Japan have paid twice as much of the cost than the US did.

an other real-world scenario:
how many US Americans are now in Afghanistan? about 12 000
how many non-US Americans? about 6 500
so 65% (UN mission in Afghanistan) to 88% in Iraq.
so that´s 2/3rd of the military burden, not 4/5ths
yes, i consider that significant.

"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%

You will also find that facts 'change'. Almost one year ago the right gloatingly boasted that the war was over....who can forget the carefully stage managed arrival of the Preseident on the aircraft carrier, besuited in aircraft flying jacket declaring that the mission was accomplished. Now Brad tells us that the mission has not been accomplished and we are still at war.....so I guess Mr Bush was telling us less than the truth (yet again) and he has no exit strategy at all.....except to say it will be when the job is done....

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, you can always tell someone playing games with the numbers when they use percentages when it suits them and the absolute values in others.

So it bears repeating: If the US has spent (for the sake of argument) $120 billion in Iraq so far and, as you imply that we could have gotten all but 13%, where do you envision the $100+ billion coming from under the Kerry administration? Which countries? 

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.

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

i am not as much into fantasy world scenarios as you are. i already presented you two real life scenarios:
Afghanistan - right now
the second Gulf War

"significant numbers (as in many tens of thousands) of foreign troops to ease our burden. I don't see that happening."

between 10 000 and 20 000 troops. if that will be enough depends on how long Ayatholla al-Sistani has to wait for democratic elections.


"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."

the contrary is true. building the infrastucture in Iraq is critical to prevent even further civil unrest. how do you think regime change came in Georgia (Caucasus)? the Russians just did cut the people off from gas and electricity. that (and nothing else, corruption is so common in these countries that nobody bothers) caused the revolt there. i have a little background knowledge as my father is currently working there. the resistance in Iraq knows about this. that is why that kidnapping started.

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!

Like so many on this website I was taking out my own frustrations on a blog. It does not mean that I believe your article is not as full of holes as my tea strainer but arguing politics and religion are often pointless exercises, by the time people are old enough to want to discuss them their views are set in stone and all the logic in the world will not shift them. I am including myself here....but you also fit the picture.

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 U.N. is a corupt organization. It will be great to see who in the U.N. was being bribed by Saddam. The U.N. never wanted Saddam out of power anyway, so do you think they really care if Iraq becomes stable?

" Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complains that President Bush pursued a unilateralist foreign policy that gave short shrift to the concerns of the United Nations and our allies when it came to taking military action against Saddam Hussein. But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That's because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003."

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm

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.

Solitair:

I think those of you in Europe aren't understandng the US campaign issue.

In the United States, there is a great deal of resentment that the US is shouldering virtually all the sacrifice in Iraq. This is specifically in the form of troops on the ground.

Kerry is tapping into this by saying that if only we "internationalized" the situation that the US wouldn't be burdened with having to have so many troops there.

But in reality, that's not the case. There are no other large military forces that are really capable of being sent there. I realize people like Alex want to focus on the financial aspects and I'm sure that's interesting in some way, but that's really not what Americans are focusing on.

When Kerry talks about "multilaterialism" he is really talking about Germany and France approval. But I just don't see what their approval buys us especially when put against what a pain in the ass France is to work with on anything.

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.