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 3)

Draginol

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

psychx

on Apr 19, 2004

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

Solitair

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

Jesse3581

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

kingbee

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

Mathew Ryan

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

uKnowMyStyle

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

Madine

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

Draginol

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

Draginol

on Apr 19, 2004

What does "working with allies" get us?

Less dead American lives.

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.

heyhey

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

Draginol

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

heyhey

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

Draginol

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

Jesse3581

on Apr 19, 2004

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.

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!