Centerfield

Multi-nation coalition building is the ONLY solution to world problems.

We cannot go it alone

dd
http://www.jadbury.com/

Multi-nation coalition building is the ONLY solution to world problems.

We cannot go it alone

dd
http://www.jadbury.com/

France "benefits from global cooperation, but is not willing to do any of the work"?

Who do those cheeky whiners think they are having elite troops fighting the Taliban and al Queda in Afghanistan for the last year? The gall is incredible! And it only compounds the audacious selfishness of having committed a respectable military force to the Gulf War too. The nerve of some people... And to top it off one of the premier NGOs on the planet is none other than the France-based Doctors Without Borders. Who incidently have lost a number of staff people in Afghanistan.

Yep... that's exactly what I'd expect of self-centered brats.

Kevin,

Docters without Borders is a private, non-profit, international organization that has nothing to do with the French government or it's policies. I have profound respect for this organization and the work they do.

I will give the French credit for sending troops to Afghanistan, but keep in my mind that it was politically expedient for them to do so. I also doubt that the troop levels they have committed are anywhere near their fair sure, as is the case with most UN operations.

This is a government that throughout history has a clear record of backing down when the rest of the world has stepped up to the plate. They voted with a majority in the United Nations on security resolutions on Iraq, and when it came time to enforce those resolutions they ran for cover in the name of their own economic interests. If anything, France is responsible for making the world less secure by invalidating the UN and international law. If the UN survives at all, it will be because of the leadership of two nations: the United States and Great Britian.

Spare the sarcasm.

Oh c'mon, Matthew. How many actions on the international stage are NOT based on political expediency at some level? Virtually none... including those of the United States.

The fact of the matter is that many in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" have a few dozen or so "troops" doing warehouse work or some other menial task which could be performed just as easily (arguably more easily) by hiring local civilians. Some don't have ANY troops there. The French troops in Afghanistan are elite fighting forces on the front lines in the most dangerous parts of the countryside. Why don't you single any of those other nations out for criticism? Surely they're not doing their fair share by leaving the dangerous work to the French and Americans.

Forgive my sarcasm but I think it's deserved in this case.

Oh... and it bears stating that the French troops are fighting the people who are directly responsible for 9/11. Meanwhile Bush has the lion's share of our forces bogged down playing nation building in Iraq. France is at least focusing it's few troops on those responsible for 9/11. That's more than we can say!

Last I looked there was about a full combat brigade worth of US combat troops in Afhganistan. That's about 6200 troops. There's a few thousand US support personnel as well. The Canadians have about 1600 there as part of the ISAF Force, the Germans nearly 2000. The brave and enthiusiastic French have sent about 500. Woo hoo! All hail the Fighting French!

However, I would dispute that the French are not willing to do any work for benefits received from "international cooperation." The two top beneficiaries from Saddam's Oil-for-Food corruptions were France and Russia, and they certainly did their internationally cooperative part to help out their benefactor....

The French have not been completely inactive at the world level. They currently have 4000 troops in the Ivory Coast to keep the peace there. It took a lot of international pressure before we would send any troops to our former colony Liberia, and they stayed mostly on a boat offshore.

The French are also currently leading an international force in Congo to quell ethnic violence there. Just this year, they (along with us) sent troops to Haiti to secure parts of the city when Aristide stepped down. And I believe they will be sending more troops to Afghanistan in time for the elections there.

I fail to see how the French are invalidating the UN or international law. I would argue we're the ones trying to invalidate the UN. It seems to me we would've attacked Iraq with or without any UN support, and our sole reason to go there was to make a show of international diplomacy (and we probably had to be convinced of that by Great Britain). I don't think it mattered whether Saddam complied or not to weapons inspectors, we were determined to attack them regardless.

I agree the French are self-serving, but so are we. It's hypocritical of us to criticize them for that. I find it sad that politicians---in both countries---will stir up so much anger toward another country, so much so that the mere mention of the country seems like an assault on your own identity. And we get silly reactions like changing the name to "Freedom Fries".

The only country that has gained my respect in the past few years has been Great Britain. They seem to be the only ones trying to work (seriously) for any sort of international unity on the issues.

Our "former colony Liberia"? Liberia was never, at any time, a colony of the United States of America. America has never ruled Liberia. It was established by African-Americans returning to Africa, with the help of private American Quaker abolitionist societies, partially subsidized by slave states that wanted their free African-Americans to go away and not corrupt their slaves.

In any case, in 1847 Liberia severed all ties with the private companies that established the Liberian colonies, after less than a decade of involvement by those companies from founding to departure. By contrast, the Belgian Congo became independent in 1960, as did the Ivory Coast, both after more than a century of actual foreign rule. And yes, there are several thousand French troops in those nations, fighting to keep Parisian espresso and coca cheap.

The French troops that went to Haiti (all 200 of them!) mostly stayed on the boats. The additional French troops slated for Afghanistan (another 200) will only arrive when the French take their turn at command of the ISAF, and will mostly be command staff and security for same.

Whether or not the US or the Coalition would have invaded Iraq had Saddam complied with the resolutions is an utterly moot point that can't possibly be proved, as he didn't comply. I truly doubt it. But he didn't live by the agreement he made, and the UN resolutions were enforced as written.

It wasn't a lack of UN support that we had, it was a lack of French, German, and Russian support on the Security Council for enforcing their own clear resolutions. We had all the legal reason to invade we needed from the UN, in the form of several Security Council resolutions that called for the Coalition to do exactly what they did. Some followed through, and came with us. Some took their Oil-for-Food bribes and tried to back out of their own promises, doing their damndest to keep Saddam in power and their bribe money flowing. Which group was France in, Mitch?

Not to defend the French--they are about as cynical as they come--but it was the US that backed out of the Kyoto Treaty, it was the US that refuses to endorse the ICC, it was the US that is seeking to contravene the ABM treaty by building a missile defense system. All of these actions might be justified by themselves, but they hardly reflect a country that wants to work with the rest of the world. France is an easy target and I have no great love for them, but maybe they are just less hypocritical. France invented the concept of realpolitik and that is what they have consistently practiced, ie, they do what they do to benefit themselves. No different than any other country, including the US. I think the rest of the world would find US dominance less annoying if we would recognize that our actions are designed to advance our own interests. Nothing wrong with that and I doubt that France and Germany would act much different if they were in our position. But maybe our foreign policy would be more coherent if we admitted that our policies are not taken strictly out of altruism, but to benefit the US. And that other countries might have legitimately different interests and ideas. Then maybe we would not expect the rest of the world to just automatically fall in line with whatever we say and we could actually try to persuade other countries that our actions make sense for them. And, maybe, we could calibrate our policies so that they have more support in the world. That would be real leadership rather than the blustering that passes for it under this administration (but not only this administration).

It seems the French have had a presence inside Afghanistan from the very beginning of the conflict: http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/oct/08ny16.htm

Yes, that means that they were there taking risks before the Canadians or the Germans. But that's not the relevant point here.

Matthew has charged that France "benefits from global cooperation, but is not willing to do any of the work." That is an objectively false assertion.

Further, it is also relevant that France is far from the only nation which opposed Bush's War on Iraq while openly and willingly supporting the War on Terrorism. Not just with empty rhetoric like the Chickenhawks give but also by deeds... by putting boots on the ground where and when it counted most.

I'm not a Francophile. I lived there briefly when I was younger and I came away with a markedly lower opinion of the French then I had before I went there. What I'm saying isn't about being a Francophile or a Francophobe. It's about being intellectually honest with objective reality.

RE: Kyoto, ICC, ABM. Lessee, a treaty we didn't write that went down in flames in Congress is one we "backed out" of, a court we never supported that would require us to give up sovereignty over our own citizens wihtin our own borders and that directly contravenes the Constitution, and a treaty that can't be violated, because it was made with a nation that no longer exists?

"International cooperation" does not mean rolling over, kissing anatomy, and lying limp. It also does not mean subscribing to the agendas of self-proclaimed "internationalists." If these positions are justifiable in and of themselves, there is no debate about them adding up to "not cooperating"--they do not become less justifiable or even reprehensible by summing them. For the sake of getting Jacques Chirac to love us? Puh-lease!

Further, it is also relevant that France is far from the only nation which opposed Bush's War on Iraq while openly and willingly supporting the War on Terrorism.

That's really only relevant in pointing out that France is not the only weasel in the sack--that's not a defense, that's blamestorming. Of the Security Council members who voted on all those resolutions, then refused to enforce them, how many are on the Oil-for-Food bribery lists?

If France were just playing realpolitik but was treating honestly and openly with its long-time allies and perpetual saviors, even while opposing them, I would salute them for it! I respect standing on principle, and I respect their right to national self-determination. I even respect their right to restrict their "global cooperation" to supporting their own economic interests, and to token gestures required for diplomacy's sake. But I refuse to praise them for dishonesty, or hold them up as an example of anything other than, well, the French.

Non serviam!

Kyoto: We could have tried to get it fixed rather than simply backing out. Sovereignty: any international agreement may constrict us from violating it. But we will continue to sign treaties. (Funny, I came here right after posting this: http://civicdialogues.org/comments.php?id=798_0_1_0_C)

But the real issue Mathew raises is somewhat of a straw man: "the President's inability to create international coalitions". I think those critical of this administration are looking more at a willingness to engage in general and whether we acting as one of a community of nations or as the top dog. We tend to be perceived as top-dog-and-the-heck-with-you.

Of couse, some believe that's the way it should be. Personally, I don't.

This is a positive development, but we shouln't forge the larger context.

Whoops, sorry. My bad on calling Liberia a former colony. You're right, they did become independent in 1847, but they kept very strong ties with us even as late as the 1980s.

It wasn't just French, German and Russian support that was needed at the UN. True, the French had threatened to veto the resolution if it passed, but the US and UK withdrew it as they were not confident in getting the 9 of 15 votes necessary from the security council (they only had the support of 4 other countries). Most countries supported continued inspections. And, I believe there is disagreement on the legality of the iraq war.

Anyways, as some people have already mentioned, my point is that every country (or i should say the government of every country) looks after its own interests, primarily economic. France is guilty of it, so is Russia, so are we. And most of the time, all countries are dishonest about it, even us.

I'm glad Saddam is gone, and I think it is irresponsible for France to be stubborn about sending troops to help rebuild the country. I believe the stability of the region has global consequences.

Bottom line: Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, it was the Taliban-protected al Queda that attacked us on 9/11, not Saddam. There were a lot of Americans who thought it foolhardy to distract ourselves with Iraq while Osama and the rest of the big rollers were on the loose. Bush's insistence on dividing our goals/focus and resources to go after Saddam divided both the international community and the American people.

The profound logical fallacy proffered by Bush apologists is that any and all reasons for opposing the timing of the Iraq War are all one reason - an opposition to doing anything about Saddam. It is a premise so lacking in merit that it's not worth the trouble of addressing even this much.

Further, if the fraud involved in the Oil for Food program was such a horrendous thing, where is the outrage over the Halliburton/KBR fraud in Iraq?

Me thinks it's not about fraud or kickbacks at all. But rather is about opposing the UN and certain foreign countries because that's the only view the blinders afford. Fraud is only a bad thing when others (countries, international institutions, domestic political parties) do it. Refusing to go along with the international community is only a bad thing when others do it. Insisting on going along with the international community is only a bad thing when others do it. Acting preemptively is only a bad thing when others do it. Etc., etc., etc... ad nauseum. IOW, none of those are the real reason for the opposition to the UN and to certain foreign countries. They're simply convenient demagogic tools with which to berate the perceived enemies.

Just so we're clear here... The hypocrisy bothers me. (g)

Kevin, Halliburton lost money on those KBR contracts, and so did KBR because the suspicious ones weren't paid until audited--and the ones that didn't pass audit didn't get paid. Halliburton is providing much the same services they've provided to the US military for a few decades, back through Vietnam. We used the people with the experience and the services available instead of time-outing for a year or two to let it out for competitive bidding.

So show me the corruption. Where's the bribes? Where's the paper trail? There's a coupla hundred plus Congressional Democrats looking, and thousands of media flacks, and they'd be happy to hang it all over the western world if they could find such things. But Dan Rather still hasn't played it for a lead story, or even a bit one. Innuendo is not evidence. Accusations are not evidence. Echo-chamber reinforcement and repitition is not proof.

We have a paper trail on the Oil-for-Food corruption. We can follow the money. We can show the bribes. From the man who headed the program to Chirac's best buddy and protege, the evidence is there. Even Dan Rather had to go with it a few times.

Iraq attacked our forces on a regular basis for over a decade. Do attacks on Americans only count when civilians in New York die? Even leaving al Qaeda out of it, Iraq sheltered, trained, rewarded, and supported terrorists who targeted and killed Americans and American allies with startling effectiveness and regularity. Abul Abbas--killer of Leon Klinghoffer, captured in the Iraq invasion. Abu Nidal--killer of hundreds, based in Iraq for years. The list goes on. Are only the terrorists involved in that one attack in New York to be considered in a war on terrorism?

You say "Bush apologists" have blinders on. Is anyone who doesn't see things in the anti-Bush echo-chamber view blindered? Is it apologism to consider and weigh the verified and obvious evidence when it contradicts with the prevailing anti-Bush propaganda? Or is it only apologism when someone reaches a different answer than you do?

I think you get my point.

Tully - http://graham.senate.gov/pr101002.html

And the two-year-gone floor blusterings of one Democratic Senator and would-be Presidential candidate are relevant how, Kevin?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, as it's true. We could no more have assembled a "multi-national coalition" to invade Iraq that included France, Germany, and Russia than we could have convinced Fidel Castro to abdicate in favor of Ronald MacDonald and Donald Trump. Why? Because the French, the Russians, and the Germans were getting rich off of Saddam Hussein, and had absolutely no desire to see him out of power. They were reaping windfall profits out of Iraq because of the sanctions. Their signing of U.N. resolutions for those sanctions was hypocritical, when they were actvely assisting Hussein in violating them, and receiving billions for doing so.

So (the broader question) how exactly are we to form new coalitions with them, when they have shown they can't be trusted? It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback. It's a lot tougher to call the next play, and be right, when the stake isn't a game, but a nation.

Whether we could or could not have assembled a broader coalition is -- like it or not -- speculation. One's JUDGMENT may be that we could not have done so -- as many do -- but it remains speculative. There are simply too many variables in this.

One thing I'd say is that I'd rather have an administration with a preference for cooperative ventures than one that doesn't. If the former fails in its efforts at least we're pretty sure that best efforts were made. When the latter fails (as it did), well -- that's why many believe a stronger effort could/should have been made.

Erasmus, I agree with you. Joe Biden wrote a good op-ed in Mar2003 pushing for a second UN resolution on Iraq:

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Feb/12-695954.html

Nice blog, really enjoyed it.