« Fertility Politics | Main | Um... »
Arab League
I agree with Tom Friedman that the Arab League's behavior with regard to Iraq has been less-than-exemplary, but I don't know what makes him think it would be better if they were sending their soldiers into Iraq. The League, after all, is hardly an organization of exemplary individuals. Instead, it's a policy organ of current Arab regimes and, in particular, the Egyptian regime. What these governments know about organizing a free and fair election is beyond me. Now Bush (and, frankly, Friedman even more so) should be blamed for not having considered in advance that this whole invade-occupy-stabilize-reconstruct thing is something that works much better with the cooperation of neighboring countries and that Iraq's neighbors were not-at-all likely to cooperate with what Bush (and, especially, Friedman and like-minded idealists) wanted to achieve in Iraq.
The EU/NATO point is a better one. France is essentially throwing its weight around because they're pissed at us and to prove that it can (une certain idée de la France, and all that) in an unfortunate manner. At the same time, their effort to prove that they can throw their weight around, that Europe does matter, and that when the US alienates all of European public opinion this significantly enhances the strength of French grand strategy and Eurogaullist policy derives, in large part, from the neoconservative insistence that none of the above was true. But it's neither the case that Europe is irrelevant (as the right had it before the war) or that Europe is benevolent (as some of the left often has it). Rather, it matters, its leading governments matter, and they may or may not cooperate with us according to whether or not they feel like doing so.
December 12, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8345a0c0369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Arab League:
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 2:30:14 PM
Comments
Your depiction of France's foreign policy as solely a reaction against American neoconservatives is a bit off the mark. Their recent attitude is consistent with their historical one, and the effort to have a "great France" is a long-running one, irregardless of defeat in world wars, economic wars, colonial wars and whatnot.
Posted by: hohoho | Dec 12, 2004 6:12:33 PM
This is not about troops or elections. It is about politics and cooperation.
The US has made 10-20k troops extra available for the elections. If the US shifts troops from Japan, Korea and Europe they can easily add another 20-40k.
If the US had instituted the draft a year ago when it became clear that there weren't enough troops, there would be plenty available by now.
Yet the US isn't prepared to make that sacrifice, despite telling everyone then and now that thay can and will pursue this Iraq adventure according to their own interests.
So, yes Europe has an interest in a democratic Iraq. Europe has an interest in cooperating with the US. Yet Europe has no interest in American adventurism.
Thus some European countries deliver, like the UK, and some don't.
But whatever the deliberation of the European countries, the Iraq adventure, and that includes the elections, remains the responsibility of the US.
Posted by: Duh | Dec 12, 2004 6:19:48 PM
Friedman: Most Palestinians clearly want an end to the conflict with Israel and a chance to live a normal life, but a determined minority from Hamas has been resisting. Most NATO countries (I hope) would prefer a decent outcome in Iraq, but a determined minority, more worried about an American success than an Iraqi failure, is holding NATO back.
And most Americans would prefer a decent outcome in Iraq, but a determined Democratic Party, more worried about an American success than an Iraqi failure, is holding America back. The only difference is, the American left isn't as honest about its goals as its Palestinian counterparts, and would rather try to trick the voters with propaganda than admit to its real agenda.
Posted by: Al | Dec 12, 2004 6:32:34 PM
fucking frogs...
Since October 21, 2001, French reconnaissance aircraft and air tankers have contributed to the air campaign over Afghanistan. They were reinforced from the winter of 2001 to the summer of 2002, by French naval aviation forces and French Air Force transport planes and fighters. France was indeed the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan, in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during operation Anaconda. From October 23, 2001 to September 30, 2002, a total of 12,000 flying hours were conducted in support of operations in Afghanistan by the French Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft, the C135 tankers, the C160 and C130 transports, the E2C and the Super Etendard from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, and the Mirage 2000D strike aircraft. The Mirage 2000D and Super Etendard destroyed 33 targets linked to Al Qaeda or the Talibans in direct support of American Special Forces. Today, 130 military are based in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, helping to operate the airport and supporting 2 transport aircraft engaged in the support of the French contingent in Afghanistan.
French forces arrived early on the ground. From December 2, 2001 to January 27, 2002, a reinforced company secured in Mazar-e-Sharif the detachment of US engineers repairing the airfield in order to fly in humanitarian assistance. In total, some 5,500 French soldiers were sent to the region. Today, 200 special troops are involved alongside American troops in the fight against the remnants of the Talibans in Southern Afghanistan.
Today, France is still largely involved in Afghanistan. Currently, 540 French troops are deployed in that country as part of the International Security Assistance Force, whose duty is to maintain security at the Kabul airport and its surroundings. And France is also playing a significant role in training the new Afghan army, alongside the US and the United Kingdom, having organized three battalions of 500 men and being presently involved in the training of all Afghan officers.
With the Navy contribution to OEF, a total of 1,470 French troops are involved in the stabilization of Afghanistan. They currently amount to 1,820 with the arrival of the EUROCORPS in Kabul during the summer.
http://www.consulfrance-atlanta.org/forces_francaises.htm
Posted by: floresiensis | Dec 12, 2004 6:38:26 PM
The assessment of France's position is way off. They said they were not going to get involved in Bush's ponzi middle east scheme and they meant it. The only reason they have to keep repeating themselves is because Bush keeps trying to force their involvement by other means, such as through NATO.
Posted by: Robert McClelland | Dec 12, 2004 6:40:45 PM
Oops, that should be ponzi Iraq scheme.
Posted by: Robert McClelland | Dec 12, 2004 6:43:36 PM
TBogg summarized Friedman's column the best.
Posted by: D. | Dec 12, 2004 6:47:03 PM
It wasn't just an "invade-occupy-stabilize-reconstruct" plan, it was an "invade-occupy-stabilize-reconstruct-THEN USE IRAQ AS A BASE TO OVERTHROW MOST OTHER NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES" plan. And they wonder why the neighboring countries aren't interested in joining up. This whole invasion was predicated on the idea that the regimes of the Arab world were rotten beyond all repair, and were enabled by Europe and most other countries in the international community. Thus it hinged on the idea that the US would have to remake the entire Arab world acting alone if necessary. Seemingly, the more countries that join our coalition, the more it invalidates the war's thesis in the first place.
Posted by: Adam M | Dec 12, 2004 6:52:31 PM
I love Friedman's suggestion of the 500 man EU 'Lambchop' brigade for the BBQ on election night.
Posted by: Dick Durata | Dec 12, 2004 7:04:22 PM
Al, the fact that pepole like you are more interested in smearing the Democrats than fairly evaluating the failures of Bush administration policy is a big reason why we're losing in Iraq.
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Dec 12, 2004 8:15:05 PM
Al,
I want you to name names. Which Democrats have publicly expressed a desire for America to lose in Iraq? Just curious.
Posted by: oodja | Dec 12, 2004 9:28:57 PM
Sure Al, the reason Bush failed in Iraq is because of a Democratic fifth column here at home.
That kind of logic would've been right at home among the nationalist right-wingers in post-WWI Germany. Yup, it wasn't the Kaiser's screwed up militarist foreign policy or the loss of troops on the Western Front, it was all those damned Social Democrats and Anarchists back at home who stabbed us in the back! Why don't you take a year off of posting anywhere and read a little history.
Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Dec 12, 2004 9:29:09 PM
Wow, Al is such a pathetic troll.
Posted by: cleek | Dec 12, 2004 9:56:06 PM
Yhe Bush Administration sealed this deal before it happened, by declaring that all Iraqi money would go to American firms, period.
The Iraq War was not in anyone's political interest, and because of that policy, it was also in no one elses economic interest.
We made clear, before the war that we did not want their help or need their approval.
I find it perfectly undestaandable that they might just enjoy watching us stew in our own juice.
Ans as best as I can see, neither Euro's nor Arabs have any incentive to help us out of this mess. We are whittling opurselves down to size.
And if we ultimately have to declare victory and leave, the consequences to other Arab States, is no democratic model to challange other regimes, a divided and severly weakened Iraq, that won't pose threats to its neighbors for decades, if not, centuries. So why would anyone expect their help?
Posted by: Jerry F. | Dec 12, 2004 10:04:02 PM
I particularly enjoy Al's comparing the American left to Hamas, the Palestinian ultra-right.
In fact, if there is an equivalent to Hamas in the US, it's people like Al.
Being compared to Hamas would enrage Al, of course. But then, being compared to Al would enrage Hamas.
Posted by: A Tiny | Dec 12, 2004 10:04:45 PM
Ooff topic,I can't wait for the Wire thread, respecting our left coasters is killing me, I want to discuss.
Posted by: jbou | Dec 12, 2004 10:55:46 PM
Whenever considering the motivations of the French government in Iraq, we Americans should really remember that Chirac's opposition to this war is almost the only thing he's done in fifteen years that his country overwhelmingly approves of.
Chirac has used this glorious opposition as political cover for a very unpopular economic reform of France's social system--although it doesn't really seem like the French people, who turned out onto the streets en masse against specific proposals, are fooled.
So while the French technocrats weighed up the foreign policy pros and cons of this little American adventure largely as reasonable commentors above suggested, Chirac also counted on his impassioned resistance bolstering his incredibly low approval ratings with his voters, many of whom, if you'll recall, voted for him over the noxious facist Le Pen with gloves or clothespins on their noses.
Chirac is a calculating, corrupt bastard, but he's also responding to the wishes of his electorate. That's democracy, Al, so sorry.
Posted by: Jackmormon | Dec 12, 2004 11:03:16 PM
If I systematically and not unintentionally berate nearly every last one of my neighbors, shit on their porches, and repeatedly remind them how much they suck compared to me, should I expect them to put out the flames when my house burns down?
This is a rhetorical question, of course.
Posted by: Green Dem | Dec 13, 2004 12:42:28 AM
Most of the world wants the US to fail in Iraq not because they want Iraq to be a mess but because they do not want to live in a world where the US goes to war for no good reason (other than that it is bigger than anyone else so can do so). If the US gets humiliated in Iraq there's a good chance this kind of awful Bush adventurism will lose its appeal and so not happen again for a very long time. (Until the next spoiled-rich-kid president comes along who spent his formative years drunk and on drugs and so does not remember what war is like.)
Posted by: wab104 | Dec 13, 2004 5:24:51 AM
What wab104 said. Deranged megalomaniacs sitting on 10,000 nuclear weapons need to be taught a lesson before they wreak more havoc.
Also, there is no such thing as a benevolent government; those who think that Europe is benevolent are fools, but one can find European (French in particular) politics helpful at this particular moment in history. That said, we shouldn't forget that Jacques Chirac is an extremely corrupt politician, there's no question about that.
Posted by: abb1 | Dec 13, 2004 5:51:26 AM
A little historical context from 2 months ago:
Iraqi government officials and commanders of the U.S.-led military coalition killed a proposal by Saudi Arabia for a Muslim peacekeeping force in Iraq, the White House said yesterday, citing concerns over who would be in charge.
Responding to reports in two newspapers, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the government in Baghdad had "some real concerns" about having troops from a neighboring country inside Iraq.
"The multinational force commanders also had some concerns about forces operating outside the chain of command," he said. Most of the multinational force commanders are Americans, as are the majority of forces.
Posted by: Carl | Dec 13, 2004 7:18:36 AM
Arab troops wouldn't fix anything.
The Soviets already tried this in Afghanistan during the 80's. They brought in troops from the Muslim Soviet states to try and put a Muslim face on the operation and the end result was that they had to send them back after they realized the vast majority sympathized with the resistance and either didn't fight, sold or gave them ammunition or defected to the Mujahadeen.
Posted by: absynthe | Dec 13, 2004 9:37:13 AM
Strangely I find myself in agreement with something abb1 says. Not the part about "deranged megalomaniacs with 10,000 nuclear weapons" -- because while I do think the Cheney/Bush admin is a paradoxical and dangerous combination of breathtaking cynicism, corruption, and incompetence, I don't think that this kneejerk throwback to left-wing cold war rhetoric is remotely relevant.
But because abb1 is right to question Matt's ingenuousness in raising the question of the benevolence of European governments. They're duly elected governments acting in what they perceive to be the best interests of their countries. Given what's happened in Iraq it's hard to argue against them. And if we've failed to rally them into a coherent and mutually agreed-upon set of policies, that's a failure of our leadership. They are not obliged to follow a schoolyard bully like Cheney/Bush. Moreover, I don't believe the French et al. are acting to counter American leadership. They are acting in the absence of any credible American leadership.
Posted by: larry birnbaum | Dec 13, 2004 10:01:16 AM
o0o0o0o0, out swings Al with the stab in the back theory.
More magical thinking from the Phalangists.
Somehow I don't think if we all got your groupthink and wished really hard the resistance would go away it would do anything but it's always great to see how the Crusaders "think".
Posted by: absynthe | Dec 13, 2004 10:05:28 AM
Proof that Friedman is senile comes from this sentence at the beginning of his column:
If each NATO country contributed just 100 soldiers, roughly speaking we could have five NATO soldiers guarding every polling station in Iraq for the January election.
There will be about 9000 polling stations
(numbers differ, but this gives about 1k-2k voters per station which is reasonable)
5 * 9k = 45k soldiers
100 soldiers per country gives
450 NATO countries
If associated countries count as members that is off by a factor ten. If not then it is even more silly.
Posted by: Duh | Dec 13, 2004 10:36:06 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
