Reality Intrudes
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 13,356
- Points
- 1,260
CivU said:
So, what is the level of consensus required to not be "unilateral" - it seems to get broader everytime it gets brought up. Now NATO also needs to be consulted? Anyways, lets look at the 26 members of NATO and see what they thought of the invasion:
NATO members who supported in the Invasion of Iraq (bold countries made some sort of troop commitment):
- United States
- United Kingdom
- Netherlands
- Denmark
- Italy
- Portugal
- Spain (flip-flopped after election)
- Poland
- Czech Rep
- Iceland
- Estonia
- Slovakia
- Bulgaria
- Hungary
- Latvia
- Lithuania
- Romania
- Turkey
NATO members that didn't support the Invasion of Iraq:
- France
- Belgium
- Canada (Wow, looking at this esteemed group sure makes me proud :
) - Germany
- Greece
NATO members who were uncommitted:
- Luxembourg
NATO members who were ambiguous (initially supported the invasion but later came out against when the UN resolution failed):
- Norway (which has since sent troops for the stabilization of Iraq)
- Slovenia
Lets see, 18 members of NATO, out of 26, supported the Invasion of Iraq, with 16 actually sending troops to the region.
Now, there are States outside of NATO that count as well in terms of international relations. Russia and China were against the war, along with scads of developing nations. But then again, Australia, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea were in support - and these are all fairly important states and valued allies.
I'm not trying to debate the war, I'm pointing out that the claim of "Unilateralism" and hinging a Foreign Policy on a "Do Nothing if Unilateral" approach is, quite simply, ridiculous. You further define "Unilateralism" as gaining UN and NATO support. Well, clearly from the facts above, UN and NATO support were merely geopolitical rubberstamps that had no real credibility in the long run as at least half, if not more, of the states that really mattered supported the war and eventually decided to wade into Iraq.
Anyway you cut, Iraq or American Foreign policy in the Middle East is not "Unilateral". It appears that there really is a "Coalition of the Willing" that is determined to get things done, with or without the blessings of antiquated Cold-War political structures.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Let's see... the UN Security Council passed how many resolutions calling for Iraq to drop all opposition to inspections, and to respect the actual UN conditions imposed on the 'Oil for food' programs (as opposed to the French and Russian oil companies' conditions)?
As I see it, the UN voiced their support for US actions long before the troops hit the ground.
Let's put it this way: Imagine a situation where a thug is keeping a neighbourhood in terror. Finally, the neighbourhood watch decides to do something. It goes something like this.
Neighbourhood Watch: "Don't steal any more, or the Neighbourhood Watch will call the police. This is your last warning."
Thug: "OK, I won't steal any more."
(Thug continues in his horrible ways).
NW: "You were warned. We will call the police if it happens again."
(Thug continues to steal. Some NW members call for immediate police action, as that was what was promised if the thug didn't stop. One founding member of the NW tells the others to give him one more chance.)
NW: "This is your last warning, and we really mean it. If you continue to steal from us, we will call the police."
Thug: "OK, I won't do it any more. I promise."
(Thug continues to steal. It turns out that the dissenting member of the NW is buying stolen property from the thug. Instead of calling him on this, and embarassing a friend, one of the other members goes ahead and calls the police about the thug. The police come and arrest the thug. Is everyone happy? No; the founding NW member (who was buying stolen property) points to the guy who called the cops and accuses him of going it on his own, after the NW had agreed to give the thug one more chance...)
If this scenario sounds ludicrous, I believe it is... but only at the local level. At the international level, it sounds familiar.
Does it make what the US did right? Not by itself, but if one member of the NW does the right thing, we would all cheer him, and the guy buying stolen goods would probably also face prosecution, not so?
(my rambling 2 ¢)
As I see it, the UN voiced their support for US actions long before the troops hit the ground.
Let's put it this way: Imagine a situation where a thug is keeping a neighbourhood in terror. Finally, the neighbourhood watch decides to do something. It goes something like this.
Neighbourhood Watch: "Don't steal any more, or the Neighbourhood Watch will call the police. This is your last warning."
Thug: "OK, I won't steal any more."
(Thug continues in his horrible ways).
NW: "You were warned. We will call the police if it happens again."
(Thug continues to steal. Some NW members call for immediate police action, as that was what was promised if the thug didn't stop. One founding member of the NW tells the others to give him one more chance.)
NW: "This is your last warning, and we really mean it. If you continue to steal from us, we will call the police."
Thug: "OK, I won't do it any more. I promise."
(Thug continues to steal. It turns out that the dissenting member of the NW is buying stolen property from the thug. Instead of calling him on this, and embarassing a friend, one of the other members goes ahead and calls the police about the thug. The police come and arrest the thug. Is everyone happy? No; the founding NW member (who was buying stolen property) points to the guy who called the cops and accuses him of going it on his own, after the NW had agreed to give the thug one more chance...)
If this scenario sounds ludicrous, I believe it is... but only at the local level. At the international level, it sounds familiar.
Does it make what the US did right? Not by itself, but if one member of the NW does the right thing, we would all cheer him, and the guy buying stolen goods would probably also face prosecution, not so?
(my rambling 2 ¢)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Let's look at it again, and see which of these nations supported the UN Security Council's ultimatums regarding opening doors to inspections, oil for food, etc. It might be an interesting case study, no?
- Reaction score
- 13,356
- Points
- 1,260
I don't really want to turn this into an Iraq War debate. I'm seeking to find the discontent with US Foreign Policy, whether it be Iraq in particular or the Middle East in general. So far, it seems the answer (complaint) of Unilateralism isn't really all its made to be ("uni" imples "one")
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
OK - I agree. Like the old story about mudwrestling with a pig - you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it...
My point is that multilateral statements (i.e., the UN Security Council's multiple unanimous resolutions imply multilateral action. Therefore, any action taken to fulfill those resolutions cannot be truly said to be unilateral.
It's the same way that a criminal lawyer can argue that, if several parties make an agreement and only one acts, all can be prosecuted. (but as we've seen, rules that apply to individuals do not apply to nations...)
My point is that multilateral statements (i.e., the UN Security Council's multiple unanimous resolutions imply multilateral action. Therefore, any action taken to fulfill those resolutions cannot be truly said to be unilateral.
It's the same way that a criminal lawyer can argue that, if several parties make an agreement and only one acts, all can be prosecuted. (but as we've seen, rules that apply to individuals do not apply to nations...)
C
CivU
Guest
"Lets see, 18 members of NATO, out of 26, supported the Invasion of Iraq, with 16 actually sending troops to the region"
This hardly speaks to the contributions made, outside of American and British troops, to the campaign in Iraq...
It's specious to think of the War in Iraq as anything more than an American intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...
This hardly speaks to the contributions made, outside of American and British troops, to the campaign in Iraq...
It's specious to think of the War in Iraq as anything more than an American intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...
- Reaction score
- 8,653
- Points
- 1,360
Quote,
It's specious to think of the War in Iraq as anything more than an American intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...
.....so what? He presented you some cold hard facts and this is your retort? Maybe they outweighed everyone else BECAUSE THEY CAN!.....and of course now we go back to the root of the[your] problem as I mentioned long ago.
Too hard for some to handle that we are not the biggest dog on the street, so I will hold my breath untill I turn purple.......... :crybaby:
It's specious to think of the War in Iraq as anything more than an American intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...
.....so what? He presented you some cold hard facts and this is your retort? Maybe they outweighed everyone else BECAUSE THEY CAN!.....and of course now we go back to the root of the[your] problem as I mentioned long ago.
Too hard for some to handle that we are not the biggest dog on the street, so I will hold my breath untill I turn purple.......... :crybaby:
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,716
- Points
- 1,260
WARNING! WARNING! SENSORS DETECT THE RANDOM TANGENT DEFENCE!
You have argued that the US actions in Iraq have been unilateral (as in done without the consent of other nations). You've now been provided with a list of nations that did support the US actions. That those nations provided soldiers or not (comparable in number to the US or not) is irrelevant.CivU said:
- Reaction score
- 11,510
- Points
- 1,040
>It's specious to think of the War in Iraq as anything more than an American intervention, their contributions far outweigh all others combined...
The UN could've passed a resolution supporting the war and exactly the same nations could have participated and other than the resolution, what would have been the difference? Really?
The UN could've passed a resolution supporting the war and exactly the same nations could have participated and other than the resolution, what would have been the difference? Really?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CivU said:
The same could be said for Korea, Gulf War I, Kosovo Air War.... Anytime the US shows up in serious way, their contributions will far outweigh all others combined.
In the end, four of the top eight economies in the world participated in OIF - a far better average than most UN endeavours.
- Reaction score
- 13,356
- Points
- 1,260
CivU said:
Pretty lame, don't you think. I thought you could have come back with something better then that.
First of all, what do troop contributions have to do with the issue. As Brad Sallows stated: "The UN could've passed a resolution supporting the war and exactly the same nations could have participated and other than the resolution, what would have been the difference? Really?" You claim that American strategy is flawed because it is unilateralist - which implies that it requires some form of political consent. Where does troop contributions become equated with political concent? Better try again.
Anyways, since you want to, lets consider the troop contributions. Does the absolute weight of the troop contribution correspond directly to the level of political support a state gives? If this is the case, Canada's contribution to WWII is invalidated because of relative weight was small - Canada raised 5 divisions to fight the Germans in WWII while the British raised 60, the Americans 90, and the Soviets 400; is WWII simply nothing more then Soviet Intervention?
Let's take a look at these puny contributions of troops to the actual war:
http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html (interesting page I stumbled upon)
Iraq Troop numbers March 2004
1 USA - 130,000
2 United Kingdom - 9,000
3 Italy - 3,000
4 Poland - 2,460
5 Ukraine - 1,600
6 Spain - 1,300
7 Netherlands - 1,100
8 Australia - 800
9 Romania - 700
10 Bulgaria - 480
24 countries have had more then 100 soldiers in Iraq (which for many of them is a significant contribution). The top 7 had over 1,000 troops - which represents a respectable projection of military power.
Both Poland and Italy contributed more soldiers then we in Canada have managed to send to Afghanistan, while other countries have sent troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan. These represent countries from all continents of the world and, as Enfield pointed out, four of the top eight economies in the World.
So the American's represent a significant number of the combat troops - care to find any other military that can strategically project over 100,000 soldiers around the globe? Do these numbers invalidate the political and military support that other nations offered in the Iraq Invasion, indeed relegating America's actions to "unilateral adventurism"?
Look at the first Gulf War, one that had the rubberstamp of the UN (and seems to meet your criteria of multilateral and therefore, correct).
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309065801/html/95.html
Coalition Forces and Force Strength
Total U.S. forces deployed: 697,000; peak personnel strength: 541,400
Total other coalition forces: 259,700 at peak personnel strength
So, even in the first Gulf War, America sent more then twice the amount of soldiers then all other states combined, and this was at the end of the Cold War when world Military Force Structures were still quite large. It seems that Canada sent 2,000 soldiers to the Gulf while the US sent over 500,000. Does this mean that Canada's support, both political and military, is specious and invalidated because our troop commitment was relatively insignificant?
So, "Unilateralism" seems to be a farce when one cares to look at the facts, as specious as you may find them. No one here, and these are some fairly intelligent people who have commented, seems to be convinced that you've offered a better strategy with "do nothing if the action is unilateral"; rather they've shot your counterclaims to bits and revealed your entire argument to be lacking a rational leg to stand on.
I'm still waiting for something from your end of the rink that can give anyone here a substantial pause with regards to either the operational or strategic actions of the US led Coalition (and yes, there is a coalition). Are you going to give us something with substance, or are you just going to fall back on "numerous streams and disciplines relating to issues of the history and current critical debate on foreign policy."
Your peers are waiting, sir.
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
Once again, we see the contortionists in action (that is the point of this thread), despite the "Ground Truth" being brought up again and again, we see contant evasions, straw man and ad homineim attacks in attempts to deny or obscure what is actually happening.
There is a corresponding movement in the greater world outside our forum, the MSM is attempting to deny that the outbreaks of democracy in the Middle East have anything to do with the successful outcomes of Afghanistan and OIF, it is just some sort of bizarre coincidence that the first elections in Saudi Arabia, the first opening of elections to opposition parties in Egypt, the spontaneous demonstrations of over 800,000 people in Lebanon demanding the withdrawl of Syrian occupation troops etc. etc. are all happening now. After all, it is the "revealed wisdom" of the MSM that the end of the Cold War wasn't caused by President Reagan's cranking up the military and economic competition with the USSR until the system was overwhelmed by its internal contradictions; rather old Micheal was just such a nice guy and was in power when, by odd coincidence, the Soviet system collapsed because its internal contradictions finally overwhelmed it.
I will be interested to see what the history books say 20 years from now...will they still be trying to play up CivU's "points" or will they report what the "Ground Truth" was in the first decade of the 21rst century.
There is a corresponding movement in the greater world outside our forum, the MSM is attempting to deny that the outbreaks of democracy in the Middle East have anything to do with the successful outcomes of Afghanistan and OIF, it is just some sort of bizarre coincidence that the first elections in Saudi Arabia, the first opening of elections to opposition parties in Egypt, the spontaneous demonstrations of over 800,000 people in Lebanon demanding the withdrawl of Syrian occupation troops etc. etc. are all happening now. After all, it is the "revealed wisdom" of the MSM that the end of the Cold War wasn't caused by President Reagan's cranking up the military and economic competition with the USSR until the system was overwhelmed by its internal contradictions; rather old Micheal was just such a nice guy and was in power when, by odd coincidence, the Soviet system collapsed because its internal contradictions finally overwhelmed it.
I will be interested to see what the history books say 20 years from now...will they still be trying to play up CivU's "points" or will they report what the "Ground Truth" was in the first decade of the 21rst century.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
CivU said:
My opinions tend to contrary to the majority of which you are a part.
I think the UN is a corrupt joke.
I think Chretian/Desmarais should be in jail (and the media punished for not covering the blatant conflict-of-interest)
I was for the war on Iraq regardless of WMD (democratization was my bigger issue).
I am for missile defence although I believe the current model of trying to hit incoming warheads (as opposed to targeting missiles during launch phase) is flawed.
I am for aggressive promotion of democracy in Lebanon/Syria/Iran.
I am for bombing the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities if they do not cease & desist with construction of the facility.
I would recognize Taiwan immediately and put in place punitive trade sanctions against China for its bullying tactics.
I believe our demands for higher social spending on ourselves as opposed to support for failing states proves how selfish we are as a nation (although we delude ourselves very well)
....and I think your ideology is fundamentally flawed because you never you take any of your policies and compare then against the litmus test of history.
You want to feel stupid? Take your arguments in this thread and run them against the pre-amble to WWII including the 1938 Munich Agreement.
Welcome aboard Neville....
Matthew. :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CivU said:
BTW, I think I pointed you to the wrong page of the Brookings Institution survey (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf): Page 39 contains results concerning THEIR view of quality of life ... even though the majority feel that their lives have gotten better and the vast majority feel that it will be better in a year, I suppose they aren't smart enough to know that they are now permanent victims of American Hegemonytm and thus worse off than when they had
- Reaction score
- 13,356
- Points
- 1,260
I am still going to await CivU's justification of his claim that multilateralism is defined by a level of relative troop contribution. It seems to underline his theory of a faulty "unilateralist" strategy. If the UN had rubberstamped the deal and France and Germany had sent contingents to the fight, the situation would still be one of US preponderance in military power (ie: 50-75%). How does this all the sudden shift from being "American Intervention"?
So if this doesn't work, then CivU must be basing "multilaterial" off of some other criteria and is simply being facetious with regards to military commitments. But, in that it has been shown that the US led-coalition had representation of a good percentage of the international community (18 of 26 NATO members, 4 of 8 G8 countries, etc, etc), I'm struggling to find his definition of a requirement for "multilateralism" based upon political rather then military support.
Regardless of overall political support, is the "green light" from France and Germany required for a policy to change from "unilateral" to "multilateral"? If this is the case, I suspect there is some sort of underlying bias for criticizing US policy for not being "multilateral".
Maybe CivU has shares in TotalFinaElf?
Dave, the link I provided above has these figures already layed out:
http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html
So if this doesn't work, then CivU must be basing "multilaterial" off of some other criteria and is simply being facetious with regards to military commitments. But, in that it has been shown that the US led-coalition had representation of a good percentage of the international community (18 of 26 NATO members, 4 of 8 G8 countries, etc, etc), I'm struggling to find his definition of a requirement for "multilateralism" based upon political rather then military support.
Regardless of overall political support, is the "green light" from France and Germany required for a policy to change from "unilateral" to "multilateral"? If this is the case, I suspect there is some sort of underlying bias for criticizing US policy for not being "multilateral".
Maybe CivU has shares in TotalFinaElf?
PPCLI Guy said:
Dave, the link I provided above has these figures already layed out:
http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hey check it out: yet another (no doubt totally bogus) survey that show Iraqis are positive about the direction in which their country is going!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=1&u=/usatoday/20050316/ts_usatoday/mostiraqissayfuturelooksbrighter
When will these fools wake-up to the disaster they're in?!?
I wonder why I've never seen a survey that shows Iraqis agreeing with the Western left ...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=1&u=/usatoday/20050316/ts_usatoday/mostiraqissayfuturelooksbrighter
When will these fools wake-up to the disaster they're in?!?
I wonder why I've never seen a survey that shows Iraqis agreeing with the Western left ...
- Reaction score
- 13,356
- Points
- 1,260
I'm really not trying to turn this into some left/right spin-cycle - I think real and effective statesmanship leaves that stuff for academia to bun-fight with. As I said before, I really want to get to the root of discontent with the strategy that the US in taking towards the War on Terror. I'm beginning to sense that the "Unilateral" argument is something based more upon emotion or "numerous streams and disciplines relating to issues of the history and current critical debate on foreign policy" rather then critical thought.
Similar threads
