| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| A Coalition of One |
| 2004-04-14 |
| Attacks on weak allies in Iraq show the problem with Kerry’s 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 it’s 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 can’t 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 doesn’t follow Spain’s example. Mr. Koizumi overcame his country’s 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 they’ll burn the Japanese civilians alive unless Mr. Koizumi withdraws his troops. In some cases, hostages are taken in hopes of scaring off countries that didn’t 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 coalition’s 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 America’s 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 |
| #11 i would just like to hear from anyone who said the same about wars in the past ..in bosnia/yugo it was an american show. basically the same breakdown of percentages..with americans the majority as in iraq today..hell the last war where our allies?? were a majority was in WWI! |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-04-14 12:24:08 PM |
| #10 Dave D. - I agree with you: Kerry never made any such statements. My point is to add to yours- I believe that Kerry's failures are as a result of his upbringing, and not to expect him to give the answer you and I would like to see! |
| Posted by: Anonymous4052 2004-04-14 12:16:21 PM |
| #9 Anon4052: I'm perfectly aware that France and Germany are what Kerry means when he talks about the so-called "allies" who've allegedly made the coalition "fraudulent" by not being a part of it. What I'm asking is, is there any documented instance of Kerry having the balls to actually call them by NAME instead of hiding behind the generic term "allies". To the best of my knowledge, he never has. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-04-14 11:52:02 AM |
| #8 Dave D - #4 Can anyone point me to any instance of Kerry stating plainly why he considers this coalition "fraudulent?" #6 So this pussy is afraid to utter the words "France" and "Germany" in his speeches Wasn't Kerry's mother from France???? We've been talking about connecting the dots y'all. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4052 2004-04-14 11:43:45 AM |
| #7 The second largest military group in Iraq, after the United States, is the Iraqi army and civil defense forces. There have been some problems with the existing Iraqi security forces, but since they number over 150,000, it is truly apparent that the numbers giving problems are small. I would not expect the Iraqi police to stand up to a much better equipped militia, and withdrawing was both a prudent and a reasonable choice when they were faced with Sadr's thugs. American police are not equipped and trained for such a task, either. The unit that refused to go to Fallujah was poorly led. Unit failures are nearly always leadership failures; see 1st Cav in Korea or Kasserine Pass in North Africa. The Iraqis were being told that theirs was a defense of the nation role, and they were understandably anxious to be placed into a position they were not prepared for in advance, fighting their fellow Iraqis. Don't forget that two batllns. of Iraqis are serving well in Fallujah. Police, Facility Security, Border Guards and Civil Defense forces are all at their posts and serving their nation throughout Iraq today. That's something I wish Bush had said last night. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-04-14 10:15:02 AM |
| #6 Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to long ago; but I'm wondering if he's ever said anything to the contrary. So this pussy is afraid to utter the words "France" and "Germany" in his speeches, but he keeps whining that their absence renders the coalition "fraudulent." What a leader! |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-04-14 6:54:36 AM |
| #5 DaveD, unless we are serving Frog and Kraut, it is fraudulent to him and his socialist buddies. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-04-14 6:49:58 AM |
| #4 Can anyone point me to any instance of Kerry stating plainly why he considers this coalition "fraudulent?" Or to any instance of him specifying precisely which nations would have to be added to it, to correct whatever deficiency he's claiming exists? I can't find a thing. All I can find are vague generalities about having the U.N. "take the lead" or some such nonsense. When has the U.N. ever taken the lead, anywhere, and succeeded? Certainly not in Kosovo; I don't think they've even restored electrical service there yet, after years of U.N. administration. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-04-14 6:26:12 AM |
| #3 Doh, and dont forget the Poles. |
| Posted by: kbr 2004-04-14 6:24:02 AM |
| #2 Powerful stuff. But we dont have enough soldiers to do all the occupation stuff. He is wrong on that score. We can tear down a Saddam with less then we used, but we can not police it all, and be prepared to fight another regional war if a Kim Jong gets froggy. Allies help fill the gaps. And I would also include the Aussies with the Brits, Aussies can fight. |
| Posted by: kbr 2004-04-14 6:21:43 AM |
| #1 The man is right! Excepting the UK the other coalition members don't have the capacity to do a serious amount of fighting. Irrespective of whether they have the political will. The damage is being done to reconstruction efforts not to military capabilities. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-04-14 6:06:51 AM |