QandO
Questions and Observations| « Bias? What bias? | Main | Selective editing... » |
|
July 04, 2004 The same old song, different verse. I read John Kerry's op/ed piece entitled "A Realistic Path in Iraq" in the Washington Post today hoping against hope that he perhaps had "a better idea'. Well, to put it succinctly, he hasn't. In fact it was the same old song ... we need to make kissy-kissy with France and Germany and give them some business in Iraq (and that is the apparent "key" to success in Iraq). He never comes out and says "France and Germany" but there's no mistaking who he is talking about. But we need a more far-reaching plan if we are to win the substantial help that is required. We have to move our allies beyond the resentment they feel about the Bush administration's failed diplomacy so they can focus on their interest in fighting terrorism and promoting peace. The best way to do that is to vest friends and allies in Iraq's future. Any question as to which nations he's addressing? Yes, it could also include Russia, but then Kerry opines that if we'd do the above, we'd get more help from NATO of which Russia is not a part. So that pretty much narrows the field, doesn't it? Then, having taken these dramatic steps, we could realistically call on NATO to step up to its responsibilities. Our goal should be an alliance commitment to deploy a major portion of the peacekeeping force that will be needed in Iraq for a long time to come. Just as NATO came together to contain the Soviet Union and bring peace to Bosnia and Kosovo, with the right kind of leadership from us NATO can be mobilized to help stabilize Iraq and the region. And if NATO comes, others will too. Let me translate that for you ... if we bribe France and Germany with "multi- billion dollar reconstruction contracts" and let them "be a part of putting Iraq's profitable oil industry back together" we might --- note the word "might" because it is certainly no foregone conclusion--- be able to convince them to vote to have "NATO to step up to its responsibilities." Even Kerry understands that NATO is shirking in this instance. And he knows why. His solution? Well, he calls it 'a realistic path'. I call it overt bribery. I call it caving in to two countries which have done everything in their power to hinder success in Iraq. If this is an example of Mr. Kerry's foreign policy expertice, then he needs to be sitting on that Senate Foreign Relations Committee again next year at this time so he can do a little more learning. It may be a pragmatic approach, but lets cut the spin and at least call it what it is. Bribery for help. Caving into an intrasigent third-rate power who will then own you (after all, if it works once, we can bet they'll try to make it work twice). Instead of NATO doing its duty as it should, we'll bribe our so-called "allies" so we can get that help? Another in a long line of reasons I want this guy no where near the White House, except when making social calls. |
And President Bush's "plan" is better how? (Apologies if you're not serious about fixing Iraq, but just got giddy over the chance to "fisk" an op-ed piece. The fisking was, uh, brilliant, I guess.)
Pulling NATO in could very well lead to Russian support. In the two years since its creation, we haven't made much use of the NRC. Why not give it a shot? Of course it's not certain, but it's a start. Again, what better ideas do you have?
By the way, it's not necessarily bribery. The sole purpose of NATO is NOT to clean up after America's mess. From behind your computer monitor, Iraq may not seem like a dangerous place, but some leaders would prefer not to send thousands of troops into harm's way willy-nilly. Incentive is everything!
As for "we can bet they'll try to make it work twice." Well, yes, the next time we fuck up an occupation, we might have to come begging for help from our allies. There are consequences for failure, you know.
Posted by: florentino ariza at July 5, 2004 02:33 PM
Fisking? I'd characterize it as a commentary on his column. If you want to see Fisking see the Krugman article.
Pulling NATO in would do precisely the opposite ... keep Russia away. They've played games with NATO before (recall recently the Balkans).
The NATO canard is simply a ruse. NATO would add little if anything to the security of Iraq since it has found itself "stretched" in its deployment to Afghanistan. For instance:
"Yet, after months and months of haggling, European governments were only barely able to commit at Istanbul to staffing three new provincial centers, each with a couple of hundred troops. The cup-rattling forced on Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was humiliating: With 26 nations and 5 million men in arms to draw on, Scheffer struggled to obtain just three helicopters for the Afghan operation."
And Afghanistan was an action of which NATO "approved". Imagine the solid support they'd give Iraq.
We have 10 of the 16 NATO nations in Iraq now. It seems rather ridiculous to attempt to infer that adding the other 6 will somehow miraculously "fix" Iraq or make it secure. It won't.
So that leaves one pondering the why's and wherefore's of Kerry's use or inclusion of NATO as one of the principle reasons for his suggestions. Quite simply its a way to hide his pandering to France and to a lesser extent, Germany. His fixation with their inclusion is beyond me. Their inclusion in Iraq is hardly necessary for success.
What both nations want is access to contracts and oil. Both have made that very clear. What's also very clear is they won't have much to contribute in the way of troops and they certainly have no desire to put what they could contribute in harms way. So of what use are they?
In essence Kerry is simply repeating an oft uttered "truisms" of the left: we don't have a coalition (although we have more in THIS coalition than we had in GWI), we've alienated our allies (although there is nothing in the recent past to suggest that France has ever been a staunch ally) and that we need them to "succeed" (which is simply not true).
The fact remains that the left is, for whatever reason, simply emotionally destroyed by the idea that we have people in Europe saying bad things about us ... as though that hasn't been de rigueur for the last 50+ years.
Kerry brings nothing new to the table which spells success. He only brings his belief that we must somehow seek the approval of others before we can act in our own behalf. And he's willing to give into a third-rate country like France with the HOPE of success, apparently not understanding that doing so simply gives France the upper hand in all future dealings, not just with Iraq.
Lastly, when Iraq devolves into a state of anarchy and civil war, then we can talk about, "fuck ups". Until then, like most of the left, you're a little early in your dismissal of success in Iraq.
Posted by: McQ at July 5, 2004 03:34 PM