Deinonychus antirrhopus

I think the non-partisan among us are looking for Bush to back off from his unilateralist stance and offer real concessions to the rest of the world as a way to encourage their help. Yes, an argument can be made that the UN would put us right back where we started. But it also seems like our determination to run everything, and pass all the contracts to US companies validates the world's suspicions of US arrogance and colonalism.

The claim that our stance is "unilateralist" can only be made by adopting complete ignorance of events - current and past.

That our efforts have been actively opposed by a handful of countries, such as Germany, France and to a lesser extent Russia, does not make them "unilateralist".

I think it is more accurate to say that we were only supported by a handful of countries. Germany, France, Russia, etc where only the most notable countries to oppose our efforts.

In any case, the fact remains that a broader coalition would now be helpful. Extending some concessions to past/present allies in exchange for more direct support would be a step in the right direction.

Bush could also lean harder on the house of Saud to help directly.

No, it would not be more accurate to say that. And regardless, our action was not "unilateralist".

This is a fine example of what Steve is saying - that there is little substance to critics of the Bush administration policy.

What would be accurate to say Robin? There were 46 of 191 UN countries that were part of our 'coalition'. I could list them out, but that seems a bit off topic. (One the supposed coalition members, Turkey, wouldn't let us bring troops through their country.) Of those, how many provided/are providing actual troops? UK, Australia, Poland?

My point was simply that it didn't have UN support, nor the support of traditional allies or many of the middle-eastern states. Current support is fairly hallow and token.

How do we gain additional global direct support for the effort? Or is your argument that we ALREADY have it, and that we don't need anymore? I'm having a hard time figuring out the point of your criticism.

btw, you left the Bushim debate just when it got good.

Of those, how many provided/are providing actual troops? UK, Australia, Poland?

Well there is this article, and here is a quote to give us a better idea of who is sending troops.

Polish Maj. Gen. Andrzej Tyszkiewicz, commander of the Multinational Division South-Central, told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz during his Oct. 24 visit to the division's headquarters in Hillah, Iraq, the unit's biggest challenge is overcoming its many differences to operate as "one team with one mission."

Soldiers from Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Hungary, Honduras, Kazakhstan, El Salvador, Lithuania, Mongolia, Romania, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Thailand, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia and the Dominican Republic are represented in the division. Poland has the largest representation, with about 2,500 troops, followed by Spain and Ukraine.

Granted it isn't many, but I don't think even with more U.N./multi-national support there'd be that many more. Typically the U.S. provides the bulk of the heavy lifiting (at least that is my impression).

As for the U.N. considering that their food-for-oil program was practically a private slush fund for Saddam and his sons I don't think we'd be better of with them. You'll have to do more to convince me of this.

Kismet:

In ANY conflict, only a minority of states will provide real troops.

To begin with: Cross out all of sub-Saharan Africa. What is that, ~30 countries? Cross out South and Central America, including the Caribbean. That's another, what ~20 countries, at least?

Now, you MIGHT get something from Southeast Asia and Central Asia. We didn't for Gulf War I, we did get some from Central Asia in Gulf War II. That's another two dozen countries or so.

Now we have the Middle East, Eastern and Western Europe, and Northeast Asia.

Last time around (Gulf War I) we had Middle Eastern support, which we didn't this time. But last time we had very little Eastern European support, which we got this time (e.g., Poland, Lithuania, and the like). Call that roughly a wash.

Neither time did Northeast Asia pony up combat troops. Again, a wash.

So, we're left w/ the Western Europeans. 8 countries signed the letter condemning France and Germany for speaking for them (9, since Eire would've joined, but wasn't asked).

So, really, we're talking about France and Germany (Germany, actually last time didn't commit ground troops, but might have had aircraft, so we'll count them as participating last time). Russia, after all, last time didn't participate w/ troops, either.

But why should we expect them to support everything we do? We're not them, and they are not us. We didn't expect Russia to support Kosovo, yet went ahead anyway, w/o UN support. Do we condemn Russia for that? Or do we accept that perhaps their own Slavic nature/ties limits their options? Why is that any different from what happened in Iraq?

National interests will diverge, and states will act according to their OWN interests. Why does French NON-cooperation not engender as much reactioni as our non-cooperation?

I absolutely agree that the UN has mishandled things in the past, and likely wouldn't be any more productive in this situation. (Although if we maintain control of security, and there is no Saddam backdoor for the cash, it might turn out okay.) But it is still better to share the misery, right? Let some others be shooting ducks, and try to reduce the perception that this is an American colonialism effort. Especially if there were some other islamic forces - like the Sauds.

At this point, we might also bite the bullet and send more US forces - go back to the overwhelming force doctrine to accelerate the closure of this thing. But then it really starts to sound like Vietnam...

"Kismet" -- Allies are those who help you out of common interests.

If France, Russia, and Germany don't have the same interests as the US, they're not our allies. "Making concessions" to them would mean furthering THEIR interests, likely at the expense of ours.

More importantly, do you know what "concessions" they're likely to ask for? From what I've gathered, all three are likely to be asking for conditions that would be harmful to the future of Iraq. The French are likely to demand the reinstatement of the Total-Final-Elf sweet-heart contracts; the Russians are likely to demand repayment of the arms debt run up by Saddam. Do you remember what happened the last time the "international community" saddled a losing country with massive debts?

And most critically, look at what the "international community" has done to Kosovo. We went in there without UN approval -- and with French obstructionism -- and then let the UN in to "rebuild". All these years later, and the UN is still trying to run the place.

The US and Britain have a hell of a lot better record of rebuilding nations than the UN does, so I just don't get why so many people demand UN involvement.

"Let some others be shooting ducks, and try to reduce the perception that this is an American colonialism effort."

Only those ignorant of history believe this is a "colonialism effort". Or do you count all of Europe, most of the Pacific Rim, and parts of the Carribean as US colonies?

"Especially if there were some other islamic forces - like the Sauds."

Uh, yeah. You do realize the Saudis are the motivating and funding sources for the world-wide Islamist movement, don't you? Letting the Saudis in would be like asking the Klan to help run an inner-city health clinic.

Besides which, the Iraqi governing council has made it clear they don't want ANY of their neighbors involved. You might want to consider why that is.

"At this point, we might also bite the bullet and send more US forces - go back to the overwhelming force doctrine to accelerate the closure of this thing. But then it really starts to sound like Vietnam..."

Again, only to those who are ignorant of history.

The only way Iraq will turn into "another Vietnam" is if domestic politics force us into fighting a half-assed war. If it appears the government doesn't want us to win, then support for the war will disappear, and THEN we'll have "another Vietnam".

I'm not sure if you are all denying unilateralism (maybe not the right term, but you get the idea) as defending it. Whether or not that was the right policy to begin with is a different issue, and a matter of opinion.

But we are trying to come up with ideas here, right? I'm not a Democrat, but the fact is there are other ideas, they just all suck for one reason or another. 1. Follow the current course and simply wait it out. 2. Get others/the UN to help via concessions. 3. Send more US troops. 4. Re-enlist the Iraqi army. 5. Mow them all down (hat tip to Trent).

Notice that run away is not an option.

I said *perception* of colonialism. Not mine, mind you, but of many Iraqis and probably a good part of the world. Providing contracts exclusively to American companies compounds that perception.

I personally think it would be superb irony to pressure the Sauds to contribute troops and money to our efforts exactly because of that fact. Likely, they won't, and then we can expose the duplicative fascist bastards for what they are.

I sorta think we ARE fighting a half-assed war - originally because of the Rummy doctrine and now because of politics.

There simply is not a need for more troops. More troops provide little more than more Western targets.

There simply is not a need for more troops. More troops provide little more than more Western targets.

Ideally, they wouldn't be American targets. And hopefully, whoever helped would be less of targets than we are.

Is your argument that everything is going exactly as planned, and the world just needs to have more patience so the strategy can play out?

The following is a transcript of the speech delivered by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski on Oct. 28:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

Although not a position advocated by Dr. Brzezinski, there is another school of thought that is well reasoned. The U.S. has an obligation, in the ‘just war’ sense, for removing governments that threaten our security, but we have no military obligation to build a replacement government. That is rightly the responsibility of the offending nation. The U.S. should therefore remove all military presence after the threat has been removed and provide cultural assistance as requested by the nation to build a more effective government.

I greatly respect the thoughtful analysis from people like Brzezinski and others who are trying to provide a roadmap for extrication and resolution of this tough problem - BUT, I cannot escape the personal resentment that the Saudis do not appear to be providing the kind of local leadership that could exert such a profound influence on the Middle East - both in terms of building systems of governance that work as well as discouraging the support of terrorism - whether from radical religious fundamentalists or secular groups or whatever. Consider the power of an angry and disapproving Saudi nation to suppress and ultimately eliminate terrorism as a raison d’etre for these various factions. If I were to add my own stripe to the mix, I would suggest a policy to encourage the Saudi nation to fill in the leadership vacuum that is being so awkwardly filled at present by us poor vicious heathen dogs of Satan.

One thing that struck me as very important - somewhere on the Internet and I cannot recall the attribution - but someone pointed out that the Islamic religious radicalism was not a discrete either-or phenomenon (either you are or you aren’t) but it is an attitude that exists on a continuum and therefore permeates all of the peoples of the Middle East - to some degree or another. This fact alone would suggest limited success for a Western solution. I would pressure the Saudis to take the lead.

And the final lesson I have learned is that military superiority absolutely MUST precede the development of social and cultural civilization. The U.S. has tried to make progress on the dual front and it cannot be done - one has to come first and that is military strength.

Is your argument that everything is going exactly as planned, and the world just needs to have more patience so the strategy can play out?

I'd say the situation's just about as good as it can realistically be. Nothing is ever "exactly as planned", in any field.

I sorta think we ARE fighting a half-assed war - originally because of the Rummy doctrine and now because of politics.

What is the "Rummy doctrine"? Where did you hear about it? Do you have any evidence that what you attribute to the "Rummy doctrine" is really what Rumsfeld believes?

Oh, and if there's a half-assed war being fought because of politics, look at the anti-war movement and the Democratic party for the cause. If the Democrats acted like grown-ups dealing with a dangerous world instead of children playing make-believe, maybe it wouldn't be necessary to fight with kids glovs on.