You agree that Bush ‘efforts’ to involve the likes of France and Germany were merely superficial then?
Absolutely not. Bush would be perfectly happy to have ‘integrated’ French and German armies to take care of Saddam, without commiting a single US soldier and taking a lot of credit. French and Germans hated the idea, and Chirac and Shroeder knew better then to push their voters too far.
I agree, which is why I think the UN Security Council is generally useless. Diplomacy is just a pretty dressing on realpolitik. The bottom line is that every member of that Security Council answers to a different electorate with grossly different interests. They don’t vote on the basis of what is “right,” but rather what’s in their country’s best interests (Just a feeling, not a cite). Sometimes doing what’s “right” is also politically expedient. France and Germany had nothing to gain by authorizing a war on Iraq but they had huge oil development deals to lose. I don’t blame them for not voting for the war, but it’s hard to counter someone who claims to be taking moral high ground. My guess is the the US’s unilateral action will probably create more terrorism, but less willingness for organized countries to take aggressive action.
No. the Germans and the French will not necessarily be against joining the US to find a solution to Iraq debacle if the following scenario unfolds:
1- Kerry wins the US election by a landslide.
2- The first thing he does is to go to the United Nation and apologizes to the world on behalf of the US for Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq. He tells the world that the US recognizes that it made a huge mistake, and that is why the American people removed the Bush administration from power on November 2nd. The US is now ready to amend the big mistake and we sincerely ask Europe, specifically France and Germany, to join the US to find and implement a solution to the current mess created by the Bush regime in Iraq.
3- He asks the French and the Germans to vote on a referendum if they are willing to join the rest of the world to find and implement a solution to the problem the world faces in Iraq due to the colossal mistake made by the Bush administration. This may include a large commitment of German and French troops to establish security in Iraq, until we jointly formulate and help the Iraqis to find a solution for the mess their country faces as a result of Bush administration’s colossal mistake.
By doing the above, the US will then begin to benefit from building a coalition with France and Germany, and begin to make the world safer.
You’ve got it the wrong way around. The reason the majority of Europeans (and other non US citizens) don’t like Bush is because of the policy his administration follows. This isn’t just about the Iraq war, but also about the long list of treaties and conventions Bush withdrew the US from. You make it sound as if Europeans have an irrational hatred of Bush and this affects their view of US policy. Is that what you think?
Straight at the screen, Yes!!! And not only Europeans, **Marley23 ** too.
How is it irrational? Planet of the Shapes just told you (some of) the reasons.
Hey, New Iskander - remember Afghanistan?
70 countries joined that coalition, many of which opted out of the fracas in Iraq (quagmire indeed). It’s not that the allies and semi-allies of the US are opposed to anything you guys do. Even countries, such as my own, which is (in theory) neutral, joined up.
Think about that for a while, why don’t you.
No, we shouldn’t do it because the Europeans hate him, we should do it because he is a freakin’ imbecile of a President. And, I guess we can have some respect for most of the Europeans for realizing this before about 1/2 of the citizens of the U.S. have.
Playing the what if game, Germany likely wouldn’t have committed troops for the invasion, only logistic support and funding. They probably would have provided a sizeable training/stabilizing force in the aftermath (The German contribution to Afghanistan was the first time since WWII that German troops were deployed at war outside German borders). France on the other hand had decided to add 15.000 to the coalition in the event the inspectors come back to the table and said that they had found something or hadn’t been able to their job, putting them on pair with the British.
If anybody wants to know how large the coalition could have been, they should count the number of troops committed in 1991. Personally, I find it as kind of a representative joke that Costa Rica was part of the coalition this time around, didn’t they dissolve their military forces decades ago?
As for the political situation in those two countris: Unlike Spain, both had elections not long before the Iraq issue became really hot, so new elections aren’t due for quite some time (if I’m not mistaken, in 2006 in Germany (parliament) and in 2007 in France (president)). In Germany the only other option are the conservatives, who are more supportive of the US than the Social Democrats now in power. In any event, radicals will not take over in neither country.
As for the people in Europe, I think the OP misjudges the impact of UN approval. Polls prior to the invasion revealed considerably higher support for the task when equipped with a SC resolution.
By the way, a good 1991 vs 2003 comparison is available here:
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/u/u_/u_s_led_coalition_against_iraq.html
Includes a list of which countries supply/supplied what: combat, non-combat or political support only. In 1991 a total of 16 countries sent combat forces, in 2003 it was 4.
Well, yeah. Sort of.
The Presidency isn’t a right, it isn’t an entitlement, it’s a job. It’s a job with a limited term, so a person can be replaced. It’s a job from which a person can be fired for minor mistakes, because there’s only the one office, & there are plenty of intelligent men who could do it competently. It’s a job that’s too important to keep in the hands of someone who’s making enemies for our country. So if the only reason to vote out W. Bush were the fact that he is loathed like Adolf Hitler by populace of even our allies (not only Europe, but South Korea, etc.), it would still be reason enough to replace him.
But more than that, Bush has shown himself to have the foreign policy of a 27-year-old. He went to war to play the brave liberating hero, without being honest with his constituents–maybe without being honest with himself–about the real long-term cost of occupying Iraq & building a civil government where Saddam had replaced civil institutions with his tyranny. Now the real brave young men of this country are dying for this immature man’s dreams of glory. He has risen to the level of his own incompetence. If he believes in this enough to fight with his own life for it, let him be a soldier on the ground, not the commander-in-chief.
He’s surrounded by all these 60-year-old men, but they think like hotheaded youths. He’s a Rehoboam, who listens to the brash young men, instead of the advice of his elders. That his brash young men are all eligible for AARP membership doesn’t make it OK.
Alternatively, if Bush wins, the US will appear to have confirmed its support of a man the rest of the civilised world considers a jackass, & our position definitely won’t improve, & we’ll keep sputtering along alone, while Iraq goes more & more to hell. This is reason enough to vote for John Kerry.
The problem I have with that statement is that it takes for granted the sanity of our purported allies populace. That populace loathes Bush intensely but have no strong feelings about Putin, for instance. That is a crying shame. It’s gotten to the point that even Russian media refers in passing to “notorious Abu Ghraib prison” as an obvious example of military abuses. Because everybody is concerned about Abu Ghraib, but who cares about Chernokozovo prison?
Well, yes but Putin can actually speak his own language, he looks civil enough
he talks nice too other diplomats … in short he doesn’t come over like a gun toting boorish pawn for a pressure group.
See how actual diplomatic skills can make a bloody great difference.
No, Putin doesn’t act folksy he acts as a statesman.
I would give to this point the same answer I give to the usual question : “why are people criticizing Israel and not say, Syria?”. Mainly because they heard all the time about Bush and the american policies and vastly less about Putin and the russian policies and also for a part because the expectations are much lower in the case of Russia than in the case of the USA.
Well, considering how unpopular Gerhard Schröder and the SPD are right now in Germany, there probably will be a CDU & FDP coalition in power after the next German elections. The only reason Schröder’s party won the last elections was due to their stance against the war in Iraq. The CDU (the main opponent of the SPD) was seen as waffling on the issue, and the majority of the German population was against the war, so they voted for Schröder. Once the CDU & FDP have won the next election (this is almost a sure thing right now) they may be more willing to join a coalition with the U.S., but this seems unlikely, because the majority of the population is still against the war, and they will not be happy with this.
At the moment the war isn’t a very important issue in German politics. The German population is more worried about the economy and the cost cutting programs started by the current government.
Where on earth do you read that from my statement? As someone else explained, I wasn’t talking about his personality. His policies are the problem. There are plenty of odd characters on the diplomatic scene. This is the same warmed-over “halls of Europe” junk I heard from Bush on Friday at the debate. When I said his attitude, I didn’t mean the fact that he speaks with a Texas accent. I meant - and I said this in my second post - that he made it clear from the start he wanted to go to war whether it was really necessary or not.
I think the word I want here is “lip service.” Of course he said he welcomed help (when he was finally convinced to give the UN a try). Anybody can do that! When it came to actually getting the help, he failed. France, Germany and others didn’t want to help him because of the attitude he gave them and because they felt he was doing something stupid.
Didn’t you say a few posts ago that you love Europe? Do you mean you just like the shape of the landmass?
Cite?
Putin does run the media over there.
I’d also love a cite for my irrational hatred there, smart guy. I’m pretty sure I’m not foaming at the mouth over here.
Re-read The Gaspode’s excellent post before you shoot your mouth off about “purported” allies. The war in Afghanistan was about bringing the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity to justice and your allies were falling over their feet to send soldiers to Afghanistan to help do that. I lived in Germany at the time, and if there’s a country that hates the idea of war, it’s Germany. Yet, the public support for going to Afghanistan to help out, with troops, was massive.
The Iraq war, in stark contrast, was a foolish stunt with a weak rationale. Lots of Europeans frankly were disgusted with the attempt to use the 9/11 attack (and their heartfelt sympathy) as political capital to launch an unrelated war. It became more and more clear thet your buffoon-in-charge was going to have his little war no matter what and that he was only going through the motions with the UNSC, inspections etc. as an attempt to gain some extra legitimacy - not to prevent the war if possible. Not statesmanlike, not honest. Of course, if he and his administration had managed to accept the lack of support with something resembling style or even grace, GWB’s name might not have been a curse. But when they started out with their idiotic “Freedom Fries” and “Old Europe” and “Axis of Weasels” bullshit, they pretty much burned their bridges.
It’s too bad that extending a hand to GWB over Iraq would be pretty much political suicide, but the situation is one of his own making.
So Chernokozovo is OK, then?
My God!
OTOH, if you are trying to give us a sample of common European mindset, it’s perfect.