Draginol Draginol

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

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

A reality check on the world military situation

John Kerry keeps talking about "Internationalizing" the war in Iraq. In a speech he put it quite plainly: "The United States is bearing 90% of the military and financial burden in Iraq."  His assertion is that "Bush's go it alone policies" have created this situation.

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).

The Bush administration lamely responds "I don't think it's right to discount the contributions of countries like Japan, Poland, Ukraine, Spain, UK, etc."   It's lame because it doesn't get to the heart of the matter.

Let's say a President Kerry were in office. What would be the difference? Let's say he got France and Germany and Belgium to love us again. And? We already have a taste of what utilitarianism's benefits are. Afghanistan. For all the "support" of the "world community" that we "squandered", that support didn't translate into much of a physical manifestation.

France provided some aircraft in Afghanistan. Aircraft that would refuse missions if their politicians objected to the mission. The number of French and German and Belgium troops on the ground was miniscule to say at best (the number in some cases may be 0 but I don't want to state that as an absolute).  A few hundred Canadian soldiers were involved in Afghanistan. In short, "international" support didn't exactly buy us much in Afghanistan in terms of feet on the ground.

Now, fast forward to Iraq 2006 with a President Kerry in charge and having kissed the butts of the UN so that they're all helping us in Iraq.  What does that materially buy us? We have ~150,000 American troops on the ground.  Is Kerry or any of his supporters arguing that the French would somehow send over 50,000 troops to help out and Germany an equal number?

Remember the first Gulf War? The one that had UN approval? The model of multilaterialism?  The US burden in the UN approved Gulf War was (according to CNN) (wait for it) >75%. Tthe French sacrifice included 2 combat deaths -- during the entire conflict.

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%.

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.

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

update: According to the stats, Belgium, Germany, and France have around ~2,500 troops in Afghanistan. I'll leave it to others whether they agree with whether that is minuscule or not. I don't consider that number to be very significant in light of the fact NATO invoked article 5.

In addition, some have pointed out in the Gulf War that much of the cost was paid by allies. However, virtually all of that cost came from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. So it's disingenuous to make that argument unless one believes there is a credible scenario that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia might somehow pay a sizeable portion of the costs in Iraq today.

Alex Becherer writes that we are currently providing "88%" of the troops in Iraq. By contrast we "only" provided 76% in 1991. I don't think most Americans would consider that difference significant. Or at least, not significant enough to be worth the strings that the additional 12% of troops would come attached with.

37,552 views 76 replies
Reply #51 Top
To be very honest I suspect that Bush will do a deal with the UN anyway.

He needs to do something and just sending more troops will cost him votes. Doing a deal also lessens Kerry's accusations and saves him votes. The question is whether he'll try for a resolution saying nice things about the US giving control to Iraq or whether he'll go the whole hog and ask for a UN peacekeeping mission.

There are pros and cons for both.

Resolution of support:
pro
- leaves things as they are just gets UN backing
- leaves US 100% in control both militarily and politically
- gives perception that UN is involved
- may open the way for further countries to supply troops
con
- Spain and others have already said this is not enough for them to commit troops
- Iraqis on the ground will see no difference
- bit of a U-turn on stated policy
- likely to need more US troops

UN peace keeping mission
pro
- will gain troops from Spain, France, Russia, India and others
- Iraqis will see the change on the ground
- may be able to reduce US troop levels
con
- loss of some control. How much is the question. US would still be in charge militarily maybe not politically
- major U-turn
- not guarenteed to fix the problems


Paul.
Reply #52 Top
Nazul, why don't you send that to the families of the people on those planes and in the buildings that were attacked. Your conspiracy theories are jutst stupid.
Reply #53 Top

I have yet to see someone put forth a scenario where Kerry is able to bring in substantially more international help than Kerry.

I consider the UK the second most powerful military power on earth because of its ability to project force. Raw numbers of troops is meaningless if they cannot be deployed effectively. I don't recall seeing hundreds of thousands of Indian or Chinese troops deployed outside their borders on some UN sanctioned mission.

BTW, someone said how we should be trying to get Japanese help. a) The Japanese are already there and b) Some of their people have been kidknapped. UN approval is not going to bring any more Japanese troops.

Reply #54 Top
a viable scenario in which kerry involves the international community(in only 3 acts!):

act 1) kerry's chooses a vice presidential candidate who isnt dick cheney (or any other signatory to the project for a new american century's blueprints for regime change in the middle east)

act 2) kerry appoints secretary of defense who isnt donald rumsfeld (or any former administration cabinet member who is a signatory to the aforementioned document)

act 3) kerry subscribes to several major newspapers and reads at least the front page as an adjunct to self-serving position papers and memos provided by his inner circle.
Reply #55 Top
I'll tack on some more for you there Kingbee ...

Having traveled abroad and I think any American who has will agree with me ... the HATRED of George W. Bush and the United States unilaterialism policies are having an effect on the mind set of the non-US public. In every poll, every single one, the public does not support the united States. Much like the United States, there is genuine hatred of Bush and his policies

Here's a scenario: John Kerry is elected and immediately puts an end to unilaterialism. He brings in the UN to Iraq for the politics and NATO into Iraq for security. That provides the ligitimacy that this is a world issue, not a USA issue.That has been stated many many times in this post, but ... again, I think nothing will change some people's minds and they will find the arguments to make their first assumptions work.
Reply #56 Top
Kerry won't bring in substantially more internation help.

He doesn't have to.

He has to stabilise the situation and turn Iraq into a Democracy with lower loss to US soldier lives. This does not require him to bring in substantial foreign troops.

By turning Iraq into a UN peace keeping mission as oppossed to a US occupation he can succeed in doing this with less troops and less loss of life.

More troops is not better.

paul.
Reply #57 Top
Kingbee,

what you propose is magic. And like all magic it won't work. You can create the dragon, but the king won't turn up just like that. European countries do not suddenly gain military strength and send soldiers to Iraq because of the ritual you propose, or any other ritual for that matter. The claim that Europe would send soldiers if only there was more UN involvement stands in stark contrast to the fact that Europe can't do it, because Europe doesn't have the military needed.

The UK has and the UK is already involved. Other allies from Europe would be of little benefit to the US (or the UK) but come with strings attached. I cannot see how any military plan would work if the French have a say in it. Can you?


Solitair,

you are also proposing magic. You seem to believe that renaming the US occupation a UN peace keeping mission would somehow, by magic, make the whole task so much easier. It's not true. It would only make the task harder. Why so many believe that the UN are somehow more liked by Iraqis than the US, I do not know. But I have seen little evidence that this is so.

Reply #58 Top

Reply #47 By: Solitair - 4/20/2004 2:27:26 AM
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.


Excuse me but the main reason for the limited coalition security for the UN compound was not their inability to do the job by the coalition, but a belief by the UN that they would not need any....lord knows no one would dare attack a UN compound...after all the 'help' they gave during the oil-for -food program....in fact the blame lies not with the coalition for the UN bitchout but squarely with the UN themselves seeing as they ignored a joint coalition study done for the UN of security threats they might have to deal with.....frankly the bombing was the shock the UN diplomats needed to bring them back to reality...it just remains to be seen if they understood the lesson
Reply #59 Top
OUR NATION'S SCREWED UP SITUATION

Well, I don't really believe that I can ever change the minds of the radio talk-show fuck-ups, or even the average American who reads these words, and I'll tell you why. A few years ago I acquired a video produced by Mr. G. Edward (Ed) Griffin entitled Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press. In it, Mr. Griffin had a conversation with Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov, a former propagandist for the KGB who had defected to Canada from his post in India. Yuri, the son of a high-ranking Soviet officer, was a member of the propaganda arm of the KGB known as the Novasti press agency. Although the title of the video refers to only one part of Mr. Bezmenov's discussion, the last thirteen minutes of his interview (as much as I felt were necessary to get my points across) are extremely enlightening. Keep in mind that this was taped in 1984. Mr. Bezmenov's frank way of speaking and sense of humor was quite refreshing to hear, even though the content of his comments was disturbing and tragically true. I have inserted corrections or comments in brackets.

ED: Well, you spoke before about "ideological subversion" and that's a phrase that I'm afraid some Americans don't understand. When the Soviets use the phrase "ideological subversion" what do they mean by it?

YURI: Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes. All American mass media has to do is unplug their bananas from their ears, open up their eyes, and they can see it. It has nothing to do with espionage. I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic. It sells more deodorants through advertising. That's probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

Sound familiar? This is the problem we have now with the pro-Marxist, pro-Zionist, pro-Jewish, Israel-first policies of our government, the non-White immigrant invasion, racial tensions due to imagined racial equality, and everything else. The multi-racial, anti-White, anti-American society that is destroying this country is not opposed by most White Americans. We are not defending ourselves. And the Jewish War on Terror is not addressing the root cause of the problem - Israel.

YURI (continued): It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first stage being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism. The result? The result you can see -- most of the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

This should also sound familiar -- the religious belief in equality of the races, the belief in the Holocaust myth and reaction to historians who point out it's lies, the righteousness of our government's so-called War on Terror -- issues almost impossible to refute or counteract when you speak to the average American.

YURI (continued): In other words [for] these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people you need another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.

ED: And yet these people who have been programmed and as you say [are] in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept - these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?

YURI: Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in [the] future what the beautiful society of EQUALITY and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy [and] frustrated people, and Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously they will join the [ranks] of dissenters; dissidents. Unlike the present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. [Now] you can get popular like Daniel Elsburg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being a dissident [and] for criticizing your Pentagon. In [the] future these people will simply be [he makes a squishy noise] squashed like cockroaches for criticizing the government. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful [and] noble ideas of EQUALITY. This they don't understand and it will be the greatest shock for them, of course.

Very interesting, eh? The result of the Jewish Marxist ideas of equality will result in some of the former believers to dissent when they realize what it is in practice. What he means on a higher level is that the Jews who HATE EVERYONE who is not Jewish are going to laugh in our faces when they're running the show. And the "useful idiots" who thought they were fighting for a good cause, racial equality, really a Jewish lie, will be handed their hat. Try walking through some African sections of Washington, D.C. at midnight some time, or have your kids sent to a majority non-White school and see how they like "equality in practice". Further, to show how much the Jewish elitists don't tolerate criticism even now, we're ALL under suspicion of being "domestic terrorists" if we're against the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Jewish War on Terror. Welcome to the Jewnited States of AmeriKwa. Where the Jews say, "When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you."

YURI (continued): The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it's over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it until he's going to receive a kick in his fat bottom. When a military [or Joint Terrorism Task Force] boot crashes his balls, then he will understand, but not before that. That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

To put "demoralization" another way -- we don't know what's right or wrong anymore. White Americans, especially our biological leaders, White males, have been so pumped full of doubt that they don't know what to do. For example; we were wrong and guilty for owning slaves, we are wrong to be "racist" because Africans are our equals like ALL featherless bipeds, we were mean and cruel to our women by not allowing them to vote, or enter the military and professional occupations, we were too intolerant to homosexuals, and of course, we slaughtered millions of innocent, blameless, persecuted Jews JUST because of their religion in the so-called Holocaust. These guilt trips laid on us by the Jews have created not only self-doubt, demoralization, but even a self-loathing feeling in most of our White males. This is the demoralization he's referring to.

Demoralization also explains the behavior of the White police officers at the Seattle Riots a few years ago -- the cops who stood around with their hands in their pockets while stupid and violent Africans were attacking helpless Whites. Instead of doing the right thing, beating the brains out of the Blacks and arresting them, the cops were afraid to be accused of "racial profiling" or "racism". For more on demoralization and its ramifications, such as alienation, listen to Dr. Pierce's "As Ye Sow..." broadcast at http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio/ts/040701.mp3.

YURI (continued): The next stage is destabilization.... It only takes 2 to 5 years to destabilize a nation. This time what matters is essentials; economy, foreign relations, [and] defense systems. And you can see it quite clearly that in some... sensitive areas such as defense and [the] economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it 14 years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process will go that fast.

Of course, I'm not sure how much Mr. Bezemenov knows about the Frankfurt School and other Jewish assaults that I'll get into shortly. If he did, it shouldn't have been too surprising. Recall upon reading his next remarks that this interview was done in 1984.

YURI (continued): Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system train another generation of people who think they are living at the peacetime. False. United States is in a state of war; undeclared, total war against the basic principles and foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andropov of course - it's the system. However, ridiculous it may sound, [it is] the world Communist system, or the world Communist conspiracy. Whether I scare some people or not, I don't give a hoot. If you're not scared by now, nothing can scare you.

And as many of us have pointed out many times before (including Victor Wolzek on VNN and Frank Weltner of the National Alliance) Communism is a Jewish system. Even people who are not racially aware are no longer ignorant about the fact that Marxist-Leninist ideology is prevalent in formerly White Western Christian civilizations around the world (http://www.sierratimes.com/03/09/10/tedlang.htm). Communism, the creation of the Jewish son of rabbis Karl Marx based on centuries old Jewish traditions, is a major threat still, yet the other dragon head of Jewish power, Zionism, is the leading threat to the United States today as the "free trade global capitalism communist slave world run by the Jews" project continues gaining ground on all fronts. Remember, to them, the ends justify the means. Any means that is useful to secure Jewish power is what they'll do. The ideology doesn't matter as much as long as it leads to their desired results.

ED: Okay, so what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people?

YURI: Well, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of REAL patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain [to] them the real danger of socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government.... The moment at least part of [the] United States population is convinced that the danger is real, they have to FORCE their government, and I'm not talking about sending letters, signing petitions, and all this beautiful, noble activity, I'm talking about FORCING [the] United States government to stop aiding Communism....and it is very easy to do; no credits, no technology, no money, no political or diplomatic recognition...

Sounds like good advice for how REAL patriots should handle Israel, doesn't it? Now, let's stop and look at some more revealing information from Mr. Griffin.

Closing statement from Mr. Bezmenov's final remarks underscores our nation's problem nicely:

YURI: You don't have much time, especially if you are talking about young generation, there isn't much time left for convulsions, or some other such bullshit, to the beautiful disco music... I know it sounds unpleasant. I know Americans don't like to listen to things which are unpleasant, but I have defected not to tell you the stories about such idiocy as microfilm, James Bond type espionage. This is garbage... I have come to talk about survival. It's a question of survival of this system. You may ask me what's in it for me - survival, obviously. I am now in your boat. If we sink together, we will sink beautifully. There is no other place on this planet to defect to.

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/33104haddenwaronignorance.htm
Reply #60 Top
Andrew,
The EU countries actually have substantial military power. They just don't often deploy it abroard. France and Germany are currently building a rapid deployment 40k joint EU army as the basis for a wider EU army. This entire force could be deployed. The recent surveys of Iraqis showed that they have no confidence in US or UK forces and they are very skeptical as to whether they will ever leave. Their belief in the UN is much higher (though no where near as high as it could be). The UN is therefore seen by the Shia clergy as a better interim peace keeping force than the US occupation forces. The top Shia cleric will only talk to the UN and not the US. That's all the evidence you should need.


Couchman,
The UN compound was indeed lightly guarded partly as a belief that the UN was safe from attack. This matched up with Iraqi surveys showing that less than 2% felt attacks on the UN or humanitarian organisation were acceptabe. The fact remains that the US has been unable to maintain safety and the UN had NO troops to do such a job. The UN needs to be outside it's compound to do it's job and it can't do that so withdrew it's staff. Sending staff back into a highly guarded compound with thousands of US troops outside achieves nothing.

Paul.
Reply #61 Top
Solitair,

we don't have substantial military power. The French and German military are undertrained and underfunded. The German army isn't even supposed to be anything else. We cannot project military force anywhere except in mainland France and Germany. Even for Bosnia and Serbia we needed British and American support. The joint EU army is a dream, it doesn't look like it will become a reality, at least not in the form it was envisioned. You cannot create a first class military and cutting funds at the same time. I just doesn't work and our government will notice that at some point too.

I don't know where you got your data from regarding the Iraqis' confidence in the coalition or the UN, but I don't believe it. Your data contradicts everything I have read about the region, published here or there (Iraqi bloggers sometimes translate Iraqi newspaper articles).

And I don't care about the Shia clergy. If they believe in the UN after 12 years of starvation and UN support for Saddam Hussein, I fear there is nothing we can do help them but must ignore them, regardless of how much influence they have or pretend to have.

The UN withdrew from Iraq after they were attacked ONCE. If Iraqis really think that this means the UN will be more likely to get the job done than the coalition, Iraqis must be idiots. Incidentally, I don't think they are or that they do.

Reply #62 Top
Andrew,
on paper the EU armies are a substantial force. The problem is that they replicate the same functrionality time and time again and are so not suited to large scale deployment abroard. Germany nd France have already formed a nucleus for a rapid response EU force and plan to raise this to 40k. 60k is the initial plan for an EU rapid response force. The biggest difference between such a force and current forces is the addition of enahnced transport and support facilities. THis is the primary reason for the new airbus military transport plane. Give the EU a few years and less US opposition and it will be able to projet force where it is needed so that the US doesn't have to go it alone.

As for Iraq data. I posted a link to a Oxford Research Internation poll a while back. I don't have the link handy but you should be able to find it with a search.

You sdhould also care about the Shia clergy. They represent the majority of the population and without their support no solution will occur. Just a minor cleric calling for attacks on the US has created the current problem. Not caring about the clerics is not caring about the Iraqis themselves.

Again I stress the difference between unarmed civilians withdrawing because the situation was not stable enough to do their work and armed soldiers as part of a peace keeping mission.

Paul.

Reply #63 Top
Let's not forget that EVERY country that we have committed troops to under a UN banner during Clinton's era of "peace and prosperity" still has troops in it. Every one of them.

If you need to see what happens when the UN takes over a mission, go read about Somalia. When realistic military action needs to be taken, the UN is too afraid of it's own shadow to do anything.

And any of you who think that just because the UN is in charge that Iraqis are going to lay down thier arms and sing by the campfire are sorely mistaken. These militants don't give a rat's ass who is in charge, they want to be in charge and they're going to continue thier murderous ways until they are in charge or dead. To believe otherwise is juvenile and unrealistic.

You can continue to talk about principle all you want, but the people on the ground aren't anti-American, they're pro-themselves. Adding the UN wouldn't make any difference. Don't believe me? Look at Afghanistan (this is where I happen to be). Despite UN involvement, warlords are still going to try to maintain their power or take it from others. They don't care that the UN's here, they're not fighting for principle, they're fighting for power.
Reply #64 Top
Couchman,
The UN compound was indeed lightly guarded partly as a belief that the UN was safe from attack. This matched up with Iraqi surveys showing that less than 2% felt attacks on the UN or humanitarian organisation were acceptabe. The fact remains that the US has been unable to maintain safety and the UN had NO troops to do such a job. The UN needs to be outside it's compound to do it's job and it can't do that so withdrew it's staff. Sending staff back into a highly guarded compound with thousands of US troops outside achieves nothing.


..ahhh...now thats laughable...first off the UN did not want the added security because they felt might somehow taint the UN presance there...and second...the UN once again had the mentality that no one would dare blow up their compound.....both of these facts are easily available...especially since kofi annan accepted the blame for these very reasons...that was before any perceived problem with coalition security in iraq
Reply #65 Top
Couchman,
what is your point? What is laughable? The fact that people died? The fact that they though the compound would not be attacked? Or the fact that they couldn't do their job?
The UN compound could indeeed have been more heavily guarded but as i am saying, the important work of the UN is outside the compound. The UN withdrew NOT because of an attack on it's lightly defended compound but because of the implications of that attack on it being able to complete humanitarian work. That's very different from the suggestion in a post above that 1 bomb scares them off and the Iraqis would therefore have no faith in a UN peace-keeping mission.

Paul.
Reply #66 Top
What is laughable is the fact that certain people believe the UN compound was bombed because of some fault of the Coalition...when if fact it was UN neglect and arrogance that was the main fault...if for some reason you fail to see that then I fell sorry for you...as for the UN leaving...well they did..sorry if that negates your talking points....regardless of the fact that they could have moved into the coalition HQ if only temporary till a more perminant and suitable compound was found...they didnt,.. they ran ...and it serves them right....as to faith in the UN..lol...gee they lost whatever faith the Iraqis had after the joke known as the food for oil program .....
Reply #67 Top
couchman,
you are either purposely ignoring my points or didn't read my replies before you bother responding to them.

I have already said that the UN made a mistake. Did you even bother to read my replies? No need to feel sorry for me as reading my replies would have answered your point.

Which part of the UN needing to work on the ground and not behind walls did you fail to understand. Or did you not bother to read that part either?

As for serving them right, so you feel it's acceptable that civilians were killed? That's contemptible!

Your comment about faith in the UN is also off the mark. Fact on the ground and fact in your head ar obviously differnt things. The Iraqis have asked for the UN to be involved. Indeed many now refuse to talk to the US. Surveys show they have more faith in the UN than coalition forces. But I suppose what's actually happening doesn't matter to you, just what you believe.

Please spend a bit more effort reading replies before you comment on them, and separating your personal opinions on the UN from the opinions of Iraqis.

Paul.
Reply #68 Top

The US still has troops in Germany and Japan and Korea decades after "the war".

I fully expect the same to be true in Iraq if necessary.

Reply #69 Top
As for serving them right, so you feel it's acceptable that civilians were killed? That's contemptible!


Hey putz....if by some weird thought process you figured I rejoiced at the the idea of civilians being killed then you are far more lost in illusion than I thought....what you failed to realize....once again was the fact that the mentality of the UN in such as they would never be attacked like this in any way was the only point I was making....if you care to look at previous signs of this.....read up on one of the reasons US forces were deployed into somalia in the 90's.....while the very public reason was for humanitarian reasons....the simple fact that 6 pakistani peacekeepers were executed there as well as UN/NGO compounds & efforts were being attacked...and per usual..the UN freaked...
Reply #70 Top
The US still has troops in Germany and Japan and Korea decades after "the war".


While US forces in Japan/Korea are still stationed there because NK only signed a cease-fire agreement and are there for the protection of both countries....although efforts are underway to increase the preparedness,size and aquisition of both the Japanese and South Korean forces while also reducing the dependance on US forces....this will not eliminate the dependance but will reduce it....

As for forces in Germany and most of western Europe ....roughly bout 150,000 consecutively deployed.... one could only guess they are protecting them from the ghost of Stalin....and when before the war... there was some debate in diplomatic circles about pulling them out for use in Iraq and afghanistan....Europe as per usual had a sh*t-fit complaining that they were needed for our Nato commitment.... Europe has gotten rather accustomed to having small military budgets because of this fact....point of fact...the entire USMC is larger than any single western Europes whole military....and while there are Nato forces in afghan....16,000 to 21,000 ...fact is they are mostly situated in Kabul....very few are actually operating outside the cities in conjunction with the US forces there...

But with regards to Iraq I agree....coalition forces will be in Iraq at a minimum of 15 - 20 years as a stablizing force.....but at lower force numbers as the situation changes for the better
Reply #71 Top
Sorry couchman for misreading your quote

it serves them right


to mean you felt the killing of UN civilians was accpetable.

As I have stated a few times before, I do agree that the UN made a mistake in assuming it would not be a target. It's civilians could not do their jobs though if they were targets and hence were withdrawn. This does not imply that UN peace keeping troops would flee. It's standard practice for countries around the world (including the US) to evacuate civilians from their embassies if they are considered at risk. This is what the UN did. The fact is that the coalition has been unable to produce a safe environment for civilians to work in.

Paul.
Reply #72 Top
The fact is that the coalition has been unable to produce a safe environment for civilians to work in.


Not quite....if one looks to the northern region ...what was known as the Kurdish autonomous region before the regimes fall, you would see an area of Iraq where not only Kurds...but Shia and Sunni who live in relative peace, have the most progressive area of all Iraq with regards to society and ecconomy.....and has generally been the only region with a consistent normality about it...due in part to the enforced no-fly zone before the war and also in part because the diff groups there, Sunni and Shia and Kurdish didnt exactly have a fond opinion of the regime....it is also important to note that when the media overhyped the probs when elements of the ICDC when they were deployed to work in conjunction with the Marines in Falluja, it was not widely reported that the while some units retreated/left because they were outgunned/out of ammo, the ones that didnt leave were from the Kurdish region...a mix of the three ethnic majorities in Iraq....and one can only surmise (did i spell that correct?) that the most reliable Iraqi forces would come from the Northern Kurdish region...and I believe they have been under used to date...but thats my opinion..who knows...but hey Solitair...at least we were civil regarding the debate....
Craig...........
Reply #73 Top
I always try to be civil in debates, otherwise no one would bother debating with me! I do occasionally get testy though.

I do agree with you that the northern region is the most stable at the moment. Unfortunately that is not the whole country and the coalition needs to find a way to expand that stability. What works for one region does not necessarily work for others though. It is worth remembering that many Shias and Sunnis (in particular) fled the northern towns when the Kurds regained control. The Kurd majority however has not shown the revenge mentality that was feared. But it has left the Kurds feeling in control of their region and not feeling as 'occupied' as the rest of the country.

The US has realised that scrapping the Iraqi army was a mistake, as was firing all Baath party members. They are now actively trying to get these people back and maybe once they do things will be a bit more stable.

Paul.
Reply #74 Top
The US has realised that scrapping the Iraqi army was a mistake, as was firing all Baath party members. They are now actively trying to get these people back and maybe once they do things will be a bit more stable.


Actually....the one person who made that choice was Paul Bremer....and not keeping a majority of the Iraqi army in barracks instead of letting them fade into the backround has always gnawed at me.....as for the Baath party officials....only a few are actually of any real help...as most are useless ....and if we really want to start to take control of Iraq....one needs to seriously get control of both the Iranian and Syrian borders....mostly Irans for no other reason than the fact that Iran has set up training camps just over the border of Iraq where some of the former regime loyalists, jihadists, foreign fighters(they do get a nice chunk of money for successful IED's and american deaths) and the real criminal element in Iraq which is quite large( dont no why this has been under-reported).....if we want to train and equip the new ICDC properly...one might consider basing large numbers out along the border for training and joint operations .....it would give what the ICDC needs most...pride and experience...if only on a limited basis...but we have to start somewhere.........
Reply #75 Top
The sad truth with the Baath party was that many of the most able people joined it to ensure they got promoted. There are thousands of civil servants who were members of the Baath party who were denied their old jobs back for being in that party. The administration has recently reversed that policy as it needs those people. These are the people who built Iraq, who know how to run the country.

I do agree that the current fledginf army needs more training and a feeling of pride. Calling it the Iraq army would probably help, as then it would have no obvious ties to a US linked administration.

Paul.