|
A Coalition of One
Attacks on weak allies in Iraq show the problem with Kerryâs internationalism. The U.S. Army has a slogan for the new type of warfare that pits often a single soldier against a handful of attackers: "An Army of One." It evokes the power of a small unit or even a lone soldier on the battlefield to bring the full crushing weight of the U.S. military on the enemy. Given the latest developments in Iraq, President Bush might want to adapt a similar strategy for the U.S. diplomatic corps. Call it a Coalition of One. This is no admission that John Kerry is correct in describing the coalition of the willing as "fraudulent." Rather itâs a truth that neither Mr. Kerry nor Mr. Bush is likely to admit. Allies are nice, but when it comes to fighting, there is no substitute for the U.S. military. Asking coalition partners to put lives on the line to performing missions better left to the U.S. military risks losing international cooperation on things America canât do alone--such as stopping weapons proliferation by interdicting ships, forcing down airplanes and inspecting packages shipped internationally. This hard reality is evident in the recent attacks in Iraq and on full display from Madrid to Tokyo to the floor of the United Nations. The U.N. dickers over whether to sanction the new Iraqi government. Meanwhile, NATO demurs on sending troops or of taking a symbolic role in running the country. Terrorist bombings in Madrid seem to have succeeded in driving Spain from the coalition. In Tokyo, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is trying to make sure his country doesnât follow Spainâs example. Mr. Koizumi overcame his countryâs longstanding policy of not sending military forces abroad to dispatch 350 soldiers to Iraq. But he must now face a public that is tepid on the war and anxious over three Japanese hostages. The terrorists say theyâll burn the Japanese civilians alive unless Mr. Koizumi withdraws his troops. In some cases, hostages are taken in hopes of scaring off countries that didnât have much to do with the liberation of Iraq but that are now helping to rebuild it. Seven Chinese nationals were grabbed near Fallujah and released yesterday. Other abductions include three Pakistanis, two Turks, a Filipino and a Nepalese--all of whom were released shortly after being kidnapped. South Korea also saw several of its citizens taken prisoner, one of whom escaped and the rest were released. Ukrainian forces were driven from Kut; only American firepower brought the city back under coalition control. These are a lot of headaches considering that some of these countries have not sent troops and most of the allies that have sent only a few hundred or a few thousand soldiers that often rely on American supply lines. Britain, with 8,700 troops, has the largest military contingent in Iraq next to the U.S. The original model the Bush administration had for the coalition in Iraq is a good one. Most of the fighting would be done by U.S. and British soldiers. Other coalition partners would focus on peacekeeping, civil engineering projects and in some cases gathering intelligence and fighting small-scale engagements. The problem now is that fighting is breaking out all over the country as terrorists have figured out the chink in the in the coalitionâs armor: allies with soft public support at home or limited military resources. It is here that al Qaeda finds an alliance with Iraqi insurgents. As coalition partners sour on keeping troops in Iraq, they may also find it possible to scare them away from full cooperation in the world-wide war on terror. Spain is trying to belie that belief by promising to send more troops to Afghanistan in lieu of those it is withdrawing from Iraq. But after the Madrid bombings, terrorists can now hope to intimidate other Western powers. This is about where Mr. Kerry might want to rethink his internationalist approach. The kidnapping and targeted terrorism will likely continue. The terrorists are testing Americaâs will by holding Halliburton employee Thomas Hamill hostage, and they are hoping to see which of the weaker allies can be scared off. Dragging along the French or the Germans would only have left a larger opening for the enemy to exploit. Whether our side has one face or many, the enemy must always be met by a coalition that is of one mind and of one purpose. Posted by: tipper 2004-04-14 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=30503 |