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

A reality check on the world military situation

Published on April 18, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

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.

Comments (Page 1)

dipique

on Apr 18, 2004

Was America's original ideal of isolationism preferable?

Alex Becherer

on Apr 18, 2004

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

Gerry Atrick

on Apr 18, 2004

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.

Alex Becherer

on Apr 18, 2004

"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

Alex Becherer

on Apr 18, 2004

"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

Alex Becherer

on Apr 18, 2004

"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%.

Alex Becherer

on Apr 18, 2004

"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.

Disenter

on Apr 18, 2004

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.

Draginol

on Apr 18, 2004

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.

Draginol

on Apr 18, 2004

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).

Draginol

on Apr 18, 2004

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?

Alex Becherer

on Apr 18, 2004

"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.

Alex Becherer

on Apr 18, 2004

"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%

Disenter

on Apr 18, 2004

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....

Draginol

on Apr 18, 2004

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!