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 5)

Leauki

on Apr 21, 2004

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.

Solitair

on Apr 21, 2004

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.

WAA

on Apr 21, 2004

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.

couchman

on Apr 21, 2004

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

Solitair

on Apr 22, 2004

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.

couchman

on Apr 23, 2004

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 .....

Solitair

on Apr 23, 2004

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.

Draginol

on Apr 25, 2004

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.

couchman

on Apr 26, 2004

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...

couchman

on Apr 26, 2004

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

Solitair

on Apr 27, 2004

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.

couchman

on Apr 28, 2004

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...........

Solitair

on Apr 28, 2004

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.

couchman

on Apr 28, 2004

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.........

Solitair

on Apr 29, 2004

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.

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!