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.

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...