if what i heard bob woodward saying on '60 minutes' is true, kerry's missing the point. the real issue should be 'working with the cabinet' --or, at very least, not working so closely with your allies that the vp and secretary of defense are showing prince abdullah classified invasion plans (for domestic eyes only no less) before the secretary of state (a retired general) is briefed.

One thing about Afghanistan that I thought was particularly illuminating in this discussion.

Even with ALL of NATO, whose combined population and GDP rivals or exceeds that of the United States and despite Europe being much closer to Afghanistan than the United States, even with all this in mind, the US is still doing the majority of the fighting and dying in Afghanistan.  Alex writes as if we Americans should be excited that 6,000 NATO allies are working along with our 12,000 to 18,000 (I don't know the exact figure) Americans.  Why isn't it 12,000 Americans and 18,000 troops from NATO?

300 troops from say Belgium sounds pretty token when you consider the fact that the US put its own cities up for sacrifice to defend Belgium for 40 years.

I think Alex makes my point better than I can. Kerry implies that if we just stopped "our go it alone policies" that we could get a massive amount of military help from our friends. But that's really not the case.  Even Alex, from Germany, thinks all our allies combined doing a third of the work is something impressive.  I don't. 

If someone could say "If we got the UN to take over, other countries would pour in 120,000 troops and the US would only have to keep 30,000 over" that would be something.  Heck, I might even be persauded if other countries could shoulder half the burden.  But no one is talking that scenario. 

That's why Kerry is being disengenous.

Brad,
I totally agree that Europe should be doing more. The US needs to ask itself why Europe is not doing more. Three reasons come to mind.

a) Lack of a belief in the reason for war in the first place: Many people in Europe believe that this is a war the US and Britian created by themselves. They see it as unjust and a war of oppression. Invading a country to replace it's leadership is a contenscious issue. Those people are unlikely to want to send troops no matter what the circumstances.

Troop control: Many countries have a serious problem with sending troops abroard to be under US control. This is not so much to do with US as with the fact that the opinion in the region would make their troops targets. A UN mission is different however and many countries may increase troop numbers for such. Other countries like France and Russia have promised to actually send troops for a UN mission.

c) Lack of an EU army: Europe has been arguing for years that it needs an integrated sizeable EU army to be able to send to such conflicts. The US keeps blocking such moves as it feels it lessens the strength of Nato. The EU is currently discussing a 60k army. If such an army was in place a sizeable proportion of it could be sent to Iraq. At the moment the various EU countries have separate armies which, despite Nato membership, are not as integrated and cohesive as required.

The bottom line at the moment is that a UN mission would reduce the need for troops. Iraqi's would see that the US was not an occupying force. They would see arab and muslim troops on the streets along with western troops. They would have more trust in the fact that they would soon be in control.

The US would still be carrying the burden but it was the US the started the war against the wishes of many other countries. These are the very same countries the US now wants to become invovled. Their involvement would lower the burden on the US though and hopefully lead to a much lower death count.

As for the US politics between Kerry and Bush, I can't comment. I'll just say that Europe (as well as the rest of the world) needs to get over the fact that the US invaded Iraq and start focussing on getting democracy established there. The US needs to give them a situation in which they can do that. A UN mission would do just that.

Paul.

there is nothing to lose from having help from the un, if they pay for things and add troops, if you dont piss them off so much and call them stupid and useless and we can work without them and then kiss up to them after they will not trust you in the future

We can't withdraw and we need to stabilize a country that is showing increasing hostility and insurgents. The president gives us a June 30 deadline for an interim gov't. This doesn't seem realistic taking into consideration all the events that are unfolding. Al-Qaida seems to be gaining more and more support from the Muslim world and we still haven't captured Bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri. Who is the real enemy which holds more importance? Iraq and Hussein or Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? We seem to be focusing most of our efforts in Iraq again understimating the versatility of Al-Qaeda by diffusing more of our effort into Iraq which would hold a risk (possibly) in the long run but for the sake of American interests what is more important? Neither Kerry or Bush are giving any sort of proposal that would make sense. There are too many inconsistencies with this administration one could write a book on it actually 3 different people have...

Solitair: Europe claims to believe in the war in Terror and yet their "help" in Afghanistan has been pretty modest.  Their help in the first Gulf war besides the British was extremely modest. 

My point isn't to bash the Europeans but to point out that their help doesn't make a material difference one way or the other.  However, their help comes with lots of strings attached. That is why the US hasn't seen the need to kowtow to the French and Germans.

Maybe this administration should have thought about being in a place where help from allies would make no material difference...

Brad,
there are indeed strings attached. Control. France, Germany, China, India all want the US to relinquish control of Iraqi's destiny. That's a serious attached string, but it's one the Iraqi people want. There is a serious problem of perception going on here.

You are worried about kowtowing to France and Germany as oppossed to figuring out how to stop American kids being killed daily. The US would not have to kowtow to France and Germany (and others) if it didn't get itself into this mess in the first place. If the US hadn't alienated so many countries over it's invasion. It's attempt to force article 1442. It's refusal to allow a UN mission after conquering Iraq. It's refusal to allow non allied countries to bid for rebuilding contracts. It's cancellation of existing French and Russian Oil contracts. Maybe it's time for the US to eat some humble pie, admit it has a problem and needs help. You may be surprised at how quickly France and Germany accept the apology, offer assistance and get troops on the ground.

Paul.

Not getting into all the responses here ...

What does "working with allies" get us?

Less dead American lives.

If any President needs to put more American lives then nessesary in danger, then he needs to do a better job.

although ive not been to either country and what little knowledge i have about afghanistan and iraq is derived solely through news agencies (and some discussions years ago with a cousin who spent a long while wandering from europe to india and back), i would have expected fierce resistance and popular insurgency much more likely in afghanistan than iraq. clearly thats not the way its playing out. sustained insurgency would have seemed--to me anyway--less likely in iraq this time around.

maybe kowtowing isnt such a bad alternative after all.

It's refusal to allow a UN mission after conquering Iraq.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Would this be the same UN that turned tail last summer when their headquarters got bombed? I guess the US's 'refusal' was ignored by the UN.

I agree, France and Germany not being involved really makes no difference when you consider the relative size of what is there now and what they could have provided. The major impact of them snubbing the coalition is giving ammunition to the arguments used by disorderly Iraqis and the left. But when you think about this, the disorderly Iraqis are going to do what they're doing now anyways so it really doesn't influence them. And the left wing is going to spin something (if not the lack of European support then they'd find something else) to make the current Administration look like they are failing. You can't give someone any credibility if under no circumstances would they ever say the other side is right.

At the end of the day, the US military, already the strongest by far in the world, will become even stronger because of the war on terrorism. Something I know that the terrorist aren't considering.

Maybe it's time for the US to eat some humble pie, admit it has a problem and needs help. You may be surprised at how quickly France and Germany accept the apology, offer assistance and get troops on the ground.

Even if France and Germany offer double the troops they have in Afghanistan (according the the figures above) that's still less than 5,000 troops, which is a drop in the bucket.

The US has admitted it needs help. However, it is hard to justify giving France an equal voice in Iraq if they were to only contribute about 1% of the total troops there.

The US doesn't want Chinese troops in Iraq, even if they offered to come.

I'm not sure what Russia and India have promised to send upon UN approval, or if they even mentioned a specific number.

Maybe it's time for the US to eat some humble pie, admit it has a problem and needs help. You may be surprised at how quickly France and Germany accept the apology, offer assistance and get troops on the ground.

Clearly I'm not speaking quite the same language as you are Solitair.

My point is that France and Germany simply don't have the military forces to contribute in the first place. What, btw, would the US "apologize" for? For enforcing UN resolutions? For protecting its national interests? It's absurd to suggest the US has something to apologize for.

But that's besides the ponit -- France and Germany have nothing realistic to contribute. I can't imagine some mythical best case scenario in which 50,000 French and German troops head to Iraq. Do you? That's the types of numbers one would need for it to be worthwhile.

The best strategy, I believe, is the one the US is already on - get the Iraqi's in charge of themselves. Train their own security forces to handle their own country with the US slowly moving into a support role for them.  I see that as a lot better solution than kissing up to the French in the hopes they might send a battalion or two to Iraq in exchange for them interfering with every decision being made.

What does "working with allies" get us? Less dead American lives.

Do you know this? Really? How do you know? Did you read the article? For it to make a material difference you'd need to swap out say 50,000 or more US troops with that of some contribution nation or nations and I don't see any scenario that has numbers on that scale. Realistically, if France and Germany were on board you would have a couple thousand.

Sigh.

Look people, look at the numbers that Alex was nice enough to post.  The UK, arguably the second most powerful military in the world, who is totally commited, has only 8,700 troops in Iraq.  USA >135,000, UK 8,700. So unless someone is going to argue that France is going to contribute vastly more than the UK has, the US is going to have to do virtually all the lifting regardless.

Forget about troop numbers etc. the US will still have to provide the bulk of the force. Being under the UN banner will be largely symbolic, but it is an important symbol. The Arab world does not trust the US. The current US policy of complete unconditional and uncritical support of Israel is only compounding this mistrust. Now we have Iraq with, what Iraqis see as a US occupational force whereas under a UN banner (i.e. the world) it would be seen as a peacekeeping force. The longer the US delays handing over control to the UN (and it must be on UN terms not US terms or the UN will just be seen as a US puppet by Iraqis) the deeper into the quagmire the US will get.

I don't think the Arab world trusts the Europeans either. Particularly since it was countries like France that turned them into colonies.

Iraq is too important to let the UN screw it up as it has done with Bosnia. There has to be concrete benefit. Symbolism ain't enough.

Certainly Iraq poses unique problems for anyone trying to keep the peace there. The war opened the Pandoras box, and extremists in two of the three major ethnic groups (not sure what is happening with the Kurds), free of Saddmas repressive regime, are now flexing their muscles. I feel it is so delicately poised that one step the wrong way could set the whole middle east alight. One step the wrong way by the peacekeepers/occupying force (whatever you like to call them) and the locals will start siding with the extremists. Maybe Europeans arent trusted as well but the UN is a world body not just Europeans or Americans and Arab countries are represented there as well. And while Europeans may not be trusted they are more so than the US.

heyhey - the UN already abandoned Iraq. Remember? If one bomb scares them off, do you think the Iraqi population is going to have faith in that? They want Iraq run by Iraqis. Not the USA. Not the UN.

Do you know this? Really? How do you know? Did you read the article? For it to make a material difference you'd need to swap out say 50,000 or more US troops with that of some contribution nation or nations and I don't see any scenario that has numbers on that scale. Realistically, if France and Germany were on board you would have a couple thousand.

Sigh.

Look people, look at the numbers that Alex was nice enough to post. The UK, arguably the second most powerful military in the world, who is totally commited, has only 8,700 troops in Iraq. USA >135,000, UK 8,700. So unless someone is going to argue that France is going to contribute vastly more than the UK has, the US is going to have to do virtually all the lifting regardless.



Oh man, that was funny. Not to be rude, but the United Kingdom being the second most powerful military in the world? I guess if you're going by numbers, you're right ... wait, no ... that can't be ... India has more troops then the UK ... China's million man army has them beat by a bit. You must have meant nuclear weapons, right? Of course ... wait ... no ... that one doesn't fly either ... Russia, China and France all have more ... Maybe you meant that the UK spends more ... nope ... wrong again! Japan, France, Italy, Germany, South Korea, Israel and Saudi Arabia spend more ... so please ... clear up what you meant by the UK being "arguably the second most powerful military"

But to get back to our debate ... I would rather have (hypothetically) 99,999 American troops and 1 forgein troop as opposed to 100,000 american troops any day of the week. You're talking about someone's husband, father, brother, son who has to go over to Iraq and lay their life on the line. Rather then having the insurgents take Koren and Japanese hostages, you would rather they take AMERICAN lives?

I think you're being too narrow minded here ... what is happening in Iraq is ... it's the right war fought for the wrong reasons.

I'm not going to change your mind. No one and nothing can. So mainly I write for my own sanity. Is the United States bearing most of the costs for the war? Absolutely ... and costs aren't just in dollar signs and troop numbers, it's in the body bags as well. UN and NATO involvement won't solve that problem, but to think it wouldn't help is just being narrowminded. I cannot wait for the day when other countries begin to take part in the security of Iraq (including the Iraqis) because we'll bring our sons home.

To reiterate ... looking at the numbers is what went wrong in Vietnam. 100,000 troops here ... 50,000 there ... understand there is a family and life behind each one. You're right. We're going to provide 75% or more to this war. That cannot be disputed. It's a fact. But I'd much rather have 100,000 american troops in danger then 135,000.

Look people, look at the numbers that Alex was nice enough to post. The UK, arguably the second most powerful military in the world, who is totally commited, has only 8,700 troops in Iraq. USA >135,000, UK 8,700. So unless someone is going to argue that France is going to contribute vastly more than the UK has, the US is going to have to do virtually all the lifting regardless.

.....Just a bit of an update on this...the UK is not the second most powerful military in the world....but its damm close...it is however the military force in Europe today.....
....Now heres a bit of dishearting information....If the UK and the rest of europe enter the EU ...as is planned..that could create a serious clusterf*ck if say we were looking for troop commitments from UK,Poland, Germany, etc...for an operation like whats going on in Afghan or Iraq....because the EU intends to field a unified EU army...in which EU political and military intrests take precidence over any national intrests like commiting forces with the US...in essence it overrides both nato and national intrests for EU intrests...and those same 8,700 UK troops would be able to disengage themselves from the EU command structure so easily....by the way....the US still as part of their NATO commitment has bout 150,000 service personnel consistently deployed in western Europe...and last time we publiclly pondered re-deploying NATO commitment troops (who are protecting western Europe from Stalin's ghost) our 'FAIR-WHEATHER' friends cited our NATO commitment as grounds for keeping them there....

The UN civilian offices in Bagdad were bombed and the UN civilian staff pulled out. This is very different from having blue capped peace keepers on the ground. The UN had no troops on the ground to support it's stafdf and the US troops obviously couldn't do the job. Bit rich to accuse the UN of abandoning Iraq over this.

Yet again I must emphasis that a UN peace keeping mission (blue caps on ground not just some fancy resolution) would be about perception not troops. It should not need extra troops. The very fact that the Iraqis see control of the military situation change from US to a UN mssion (which the US will probably control anyway) will give them some confidence that the US is not there to stay.

Will a UN mission add a significant number of troops? NO maybe 20k max.
Will this have a significant effect on stability on the ground? YES
Will the US therefore be able to reduce it's troop numbers? YES
Will fewer US kids be killed? YES

The current policy is not working. Something needs to be done and I believe 'working with allies' is your best hope. Note that Honduras today announced the withddrawal of it's troops. This trickle is turning into a landslide. Within a few months only US and British troops will be left.

Paul.

Draginol,
The UN were not in Iraq as peacekeepers when they left they were there unarmed and in no sense militarily.
I certainly agree that the Iraqis want an Iraq run by themselves but I believe the common Iraqi in the street sees the need for a strong military force to keep the peace for some time to come.
It is pretty obvious now that very few people (and certainly no one in power) envisaged the current state of affairs before the war, things are not good at the moment and like most people the average Iraqi will be looking for someone to blame. They have a natural mistrust of Americans and so it doesnt take much for the extremists to persuade them that this is all the fault of the US......Imperfect as the UN is, I dont see the US has much choice.
My feeling is that if Bush wins in Nov then, after the election, he will do exactly what Kerry is proposing now....i.e. build bridges with the UN and go in as a UN force. If I was a betting man I would put money on it

My apologies to Solitaire/Paul, I seem to be repeating you. I had not seen your last post when I replied.

One other thing, I believe those countries who went 'all the way with the USA' were pathetic when it came to fronting up with troops. If they believed in this war where was their commitment. It seems obvious that they just payed lip service just to curry favour with the US...they are far worse than those like France and Germany who said we disagree and stayed away.

‘No Hijackers For 9/11’

Repentant arms dealer reveals disgruntled
U.S. military on the verge of revolt

Back in May 2003, a journalist in Portugal reported on a sensational, marathon meeting of a group of U.S. pilots that issued a report concluding that the story told by the U.S. government about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 was improbable and unlikely.

Except for several notices on the Internet, that story was basically never reported in the U.S., and largely debunked when the reporter flubbed the name of the organizer, creating disbelief in the minds of many readers.

The record was corrected in stunning fashion Feb. 25 on Alex Jones’ Prison Planet radio program when former Pentagon arms salesman Donn de Grand-Pre, author of three books that allege 9/11 was an inside job, set the record straight, because he was the man who organized that conference. That 72-hour non-stop symposium by a group of military and civilian pilots concluded the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the 9/11 tragedy had no control over their aircraft.

de Grand Pre, a retired Army colonel, is the author of “A Window on America,” “Confessions of an Arms Peddler” and his latest, “Barbarians Inside the Gates.” His thesis in the third book “is that the wars we have engaged in for whatever reasons since the end of World War II have not only been unconstitutionally waged, but have caused a net loss in political power. Each war was waged to divert our attention away from the true enemy within, and toward a contrived enemy outside our borders.”

de Grand-Pre explained that his third book actually has three parts: “OK, I’ve got three books out under the title, "Barbarians Inside the Gates." Book 1 was "The Serpent’s Sting," Book 2 is "The Viper’s Venom," Book 3, which just came out is “The Rattler’s Revenge.”

“And I’d like to quote from Book 2, which came out October of 2002. There is a very important paragraph there. It says,

"The trigger for the 911 activity was the imminent and unstoppable worldwide financial collapse which can only be prevented temporarily by a major war, perhaps to become known as World War III. To bring it off one more time, martial law will probably be imposed in the United States."

de Grand-Pre was the top U.S. arms dealer to the Middle East under the Ford and Carter administrations. What he saw caused him to leave government service and begin investigating the forces he saw warping our nation’s future.

In the interview with Jones, de Grand-Pre made several stunning assertions, among them:

• There were no hijackers on the 9/11 killer jets. And he said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Richard Myers) agrees with him.

In a previous interview that appeared on Michael Rivero’s What Really Happened website, de Grand-Pre had already outlined his conclusions about 9-11.

“The 9-11 activity and horrific destruction of US property and lives was intentionally meant to trigger a psychological and patriotic
reaction on the part of the US citizens, which is paving the way for “combined UN activity” (using the fig leaf of NATO) for striking key targets in both the Middle East/ South Asia and the Balkans. The goal continues to be ultimate destruction of all national sovereignty
and establishment of a global government.

“The trigger for the 9-11 activity was the imminent and unstoppable world-wide financial collapse, which can only be prevented
(temporarily) by a major war, perhaps to become known as WW 111. To bring it off (one more time), martial law will probably be
imposed in the United States.

http://www.johnkaminski.com/nohijackers.htm