Centerfield

And I suppose the Iraqis will happily just ignore the fact that every member of the Arab League (except Kuwait, IIRC) did everything that they could to keep Saddam in power (and would probably happily turn the reins right back over to him)? At least France and Germany were willing to make pro-forma noises about Saddam being a bad guy....

John Kerry has an opportunity to make a fresh start with these countries. It's in their interest too that Iraq not devolve into a terrorist or radical state. The "street" in these countries opposed the US invasion, but if its a question of getting the US troops OUT of Iraq, then their participation might be acceptable to their public.

Of course, we'd have to come across with more foreign aid, and maybe make some overtures to the Palestinians, but it's an avenue to explore.

Given France's record of evading the sanctions to help keep Saddam armed and in power, I can't see why anyone in Iraq would be too wild about France returning. Nor does Chirac have any interest in helping America right now, if ever. Russia is a potential ally of practicality, but many of the same objections apply. Germany is neither here nor there--German domestic politics are in turmoil right now, and it is unlikely that the coalition government would commit any aid of any kind to Iraq.

The Arab League proposed helping months ago. At the time there substantial objections from the Iraqis themselves. But as the ISF gets stronger and the new government takes hold, that may be much less of a problem. Particularly with Morocco and Egypt. If not for the border paranoia, Turkey would be an ideal ally, but as is there's too long of a track record of conflict for Iraq to accept Turkish troops on Iraqi soil.

I agree that it's unlikely that adding additional allies in the war on terror is going to add many or any troops, and maybe not much direct aid money either.

But I don't think the primary value of allies must necessarily be concrete measureable goods and services. I think there's a lot to be said for the value of widspread consensus that the west as a group needs to "git er done" against islamic fundamentalists. And that we have some way to go there.

And yup, it's true that gittin er done is important enough that if not everyone is on board, the ship still needs to leave the station sooner rather than later. That doesn't mean that more widespread policy cooperation has no potential to be helpful.

Rick,

For alot of the countries in the Arab League I'm not sure the popular will matters that much. Many of them are autocracies just like Iraq was.... and even the ones that are nominaly democracies aren't particulary good examples of representitive government.

I suspect that the reason why alot of Arab League governments didn't support regieme change in Iraq is because alot of them draw on the same basis for governing that Saddam Hussien did (i.e. they rule by fiat not by popular will) and removing an autocracy and replacing it with a functioning democracy presents an uncomfortable example that thier own populace might take notice of.

In essence, it may be in the interests of the COUNTRIES of the Arab League to see Iraq evolve into a stable, functioning, democracy.... however it is not neccesarly in the interests of the GOVERNMENTS of those countries. I'm not sure that it would be prudent to trust the Arab League to take over responsibilties in Iraq, anymore then I would trust Iran to do so.

On a quick check I find that without my noticing it that Jordan, the UAE, Egypt, and Turkey are already helping train Iraqi police forces, and have been for months. Under German supervision no less! OK, it's a small step for the Germans, but an important one for Iraq. (Note to self: re-assess Germany's role.)

Iraq has turned down offers of peacekeeping troops from Jordan and Egypt for the time being. This may change, but the general sentiment is that Iraqis want to handle things themselves. They're not wild about either the French or the Russians at this point.