Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: Should europe send 50-60.000 troops to Iraq ?

  1. #1
    yehudi
    Guest

    Should europe send 50-60.000 troops to Iraq ?

    Since a few days there is a debate emerging in France wether we should send troops in Iraq or not.

    There is an excellent point of view in Le Monde about this, "Irak : l'Europe dans l'après-guerre" by François Heisbourg.. I've been struggling to find it translated somewhere, but to no avail.

    It could do it myself, but I'm not sure enough people are interested to discuss about this consequences of a europeans intervention. (Only Mil seems).

    So I'll just propose we read a related article from The Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/world/200...2353-4255r.htm) and debate on that basis - if there are enough people here interested, of course.


    France refuses role without U.N. control

    PARIS — Risking another showdown with the United States, France is standing firm on its insistence that the United Nations take control in Iraq before it will consider sending troops to help embattled American soldiers.

    France remains adamant that the international body must have absolute and complete control over Iraq's political, economic and civilian reconstruction.

    "What would ultimately determine whether the French will support sending peacekeepers to Iraq is going to be the answer to the question: Who would be politically in charge?" said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, an independent think tank.

    "Is it going to be [senior U.S. administrator L] Paul Bremer or [U.N. Special Representative in Iraq] Sergio Vieira de Mello? The French would like Vieira de Mello to take charge of the political transition. That's where the dividing line lies."

    "The prevailing feeling in Washington is that France would ultimately send troops, come what may," said Guillaume Parmentier, a government adviser and director of the French Center on the U.S. at the French Institute of International Relations or IFRI.

    "That's ridiculous. If people think France is going to join an occupation force with a fig leaf, they're in cuckoo land. It will never happen."

    With American soldiers coming under daily attack in Iraq, Bush administration officials who once seemed eager to manage Iraq on their own are now speaking openly of the need for assistance from Russia, Germany and even France. Countries like Spain, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia and Lithuania have already pledged a limited number of peacekeeping troops.

    While France has repeatedly expressed concern over the deteriorating situation in Iraq, it has refused to help out without approval by the U.N. Security Council, a stance backed by Germany, Russia and India.

    And despite President Bush's international appeal last week for financial and military assistance, French government officials, so far, are not budging:

    "We have always explained to our American friends the conditions that for us are indispensable — there must be principles. Above all, that the United Nations take clear and whole responsibility," said Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin on local radio last week.

    "To go and add other forces today without improving the framework, without legitimately reinforcing the action, is to risk seeing the actual situation perpetuate itself."

    Mr. de Villepin also said the recent killings of Saddam Hussein's two sons could spark revenge attacks, further justifying the need for the United Nations to take over peacekeeping duties.

    "One can also imagine resistance to the coalition forces intensifying. That's why for France the key is to press ahead with the political process," he said.

    That does not necessarily mean France will initiate a Security Council resolution that would authorize the deployment of international troops — a step that the United States is itself considering.

    "I think France probably wants to keep a low profile," said Philippe Moreau Defarges, one of IFRI's international relations experts. "The high profile it received in the beginning of the crisis was already much criticized. For it to introduce a resolution would be to return to a high-profile role."

    Most people in France support President Jacques Chirac's refusal to deploy troops without a new U.N. mandate, just as they backed his opposition to the war itself. According to Stephane Rozes, head of CSA-TMO, a local polling firm, recent events have had little effect on Mr. Chirac's popularity.

    "He experienced a dip during the height of France's conflict with the U.S. before the war. But the ratings have since gone back up and have not been affected by what's going on. In fact, I would say that for most ordinary people in France, Iraq is not even on the radar screen."

    Indeed, for many in France, the war in Iraq was not theirs, so neither should the aftermath be their responsibility. "The prevailing feeling is indifference," Mr. Moreau Defarge said.

    Despite the much-publicized rift in U.S.-French relations, few French would admit to any ill will toward Americans today.

    "Most of us feel sad for the U.S. soldiers who are in Iraq," said Mariline Compain-Tissier, a 48-year old financier. "It is a tragedy they are being killed. We do not blame Americans for what is going on in Iraq. We blame George Bush."

    Indeed, pro-American sentiment was very much alive yesterday in Paris, where tens of thousands of French cheered as American cyclist Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France.

    In other parts of the country, support for the United States has never wavered. On the northern coast of Normandy, where American forces landed to fight Hitler 60 years ago, most people believe France should be doing more for its longtime ally.

    "Some people are saying, 'We never imagined a day when we would say no to America," said Magali Glon, a 27-year-old tour guide in Val-sur-Mer, a half-hour drive from Omaha Beach.

    "The U.S. helped us, and we feel we should now help the U.S. But at the same time, we also feel that it was a decision that was made for us. We'd like to help, but not with these politics."
    In short Heisbourg's argument is Europe should not succumb to Schadenfreude and should intervene because stake are too high.

    The proposal is to back off sending a force under UN authority to avoid humiliating the US, but do it under the european flag instead. The european fast action force, which is operational this year has 50-60.000 men.

    .

  2. #2
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    Clearly that is the case. EU states should compile a charter listing all of the hundreds and thousands of cases, philosophies, rationales and dictat the circumscribe their refusal to use any force anywhere at any time.

    Then what the EU states need to do is establish a common EU Security Council that determines under what circumstances they may vary from their own charter.

    Next, since they are ostensibly bound by at least pretending to share values with one another there needs to be a deliberating body - because that is something they are good at, to discuss specific punishments levied against countries like France who go off unilaterally in Africa.

    I think this is really what NATO has to evolve into. Toss out the RRF and use NAto as more of a legal body, a mini UN that serves EU interests alone. If NATO wants to bolster the C.A.R or Congo or either depose or protect Mugabe then clearly that is the structure that should be employed. This way we leave the UN to do what it does best: watch civilians get hacked to bits, run terrorist schools and scream about the evil Jews all day.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    N Carolina
    Posts
    30,616
    Oh and the specific question re: Iraq? No. Europe should not send any troops to Iraq. They clearly have a political problem with it and are only discussing it in the context of how it can change the balance of power with the US. Iraq is merely a proxy in this matter and therefore it would simply result in inaction, atrocities, white papers and blue helmets. Something the EU is fabulous at.

  4. #4
    SteveMetch
    Guest

    Peace will come to Arab world when the Arab becomes part of the world.

    The United States already has its hands full protecting 20 million Iraqis. Adding the burden of protecting 50,000 European “Soldiers” with rules of engagement so thick and complicated that if printed they would crush a horse is a bad idea. Besides the French have an extremely poor record on nation building. All there former colonies are either communist or brutal dictatorships.

    The biggest problem for the United States in Iraq is that we are intermingled with Muslims. This is a perfect environment for Muslim terrorists to attack US troops and civilians as we go about our diabolic task of improving life for ordinary peaceful Muslim Arabs. I think in the coming years the average citizen in the US is going to have a significantly improved understanding of the situation in Israel.

    Peace will come to Arab world when the Arab becomes part of the world.
    Last edited by SteveMetch; 07-29-2003 at 08:12 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Mil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,242
    Posted by Steve:


    The United States already has its hands full protecting 20 million Iraqis. Adding the burden of protecting 50,000 European “Soldiers” with rules of engagement so thick and complicated that if printed they would crush a horse is a bad idea.



    HA-HA-HA. I like it!!!!!!!!!!! Given that the Arabs want a European force inside their myst even less then an American force.


    Besides the French have an extremely poor record on nation building. All there former colonies are either communist or brutal dictatorships.


    Actually only two countries in the world have any experience in nation building - USA and Russia (formerly USSR). Of the only USA has been 100% successful and especially in rebuilding Europe.

  6. #6
    SteveMetch
    Guest

    England

    Originally posted by Mil
    Posted by Steve:


    The United States already has its hands full protecting 20 million Iraqis. Adding the burden of protecting 50,000 European “Soldiers” with rules of engagement so thick and complicated that if printed they would crush a horse is a bad idea.



    HA-HA-HA. I like it!!!!!!!!!!! Given that the Arabs want a European force inside their myst even less then an American force.


    Besides the French have an extremely poor record on nation building. All there former colonies are either communist or brutal dictatorships.


    Actually only two countries in the world have any experience in nation building - USA and Russia (formerly USSR). Of the only USA has been 100% successful and especially in rebuilding Europe.
    England?

  7. #7
    yehudi
    Guest

    Re: Peace will come to Arab world when the Arab becomes part of the world.

    Originally posted by SteveMetch
    The United States already has its hands full protecting 20 million Iraqis.
    closer to 27M if I remember well.

    Originally posted by SteveMetch
    with rules of engagement so thick and complicated that if printed they would crush a horse
    Important point : rules of engagement should not be UN, Heisbourg argues. His arguments are similar to your.


    Originally posted by SteveMetch
    Besides the French have an extremely poor record on nation building. All there former colonies are either communist or brutal dictatorships.
    Do I dream or Bush just visited Senegal ? Please tell me of other such long lasting stable democraties in Africa? Liberia maybe? ex-Colonial powers did build many nations, not always for the best, but they definitely build many.... 15 to 30 I would say for the UK and france.


    Anyway what are the examples where the US build nations from scratch? Rebuild nations yes, but build... Liberia?

    .

  8. #8
    yehudi
    Guest
    btw since I see there is some interest for the question, I will try to translate Heisbourg for the discussion.

    I won't translate it all, just the main ideas. If you want I can send you the original paper in french if you wish, of course.

  9. #9
    yehudi
    Guest
    Originally posted by Mil
    Actually only two countries in the world have any experience in nation building - USA and Russia (formerly USSR). Of the only USA has been 100% successful and especially in rebuilding Europe.
    I guess you know the USSR infinitely better than I do, but you have to be more precise.

    My vision of USSR building nations is very limited: the warsaw pact behind the iron curtain? More like slave nations to me...

  10. #10
    L@mplighterM
    Guest
    Pull the Americans out and if the Iraqis get out of line send them a dozen MOAB’s now and then. Behavior modification can be had with enough reminders and it’ll be cheaper than maintaining a force there.

  11. #11
    yehudi
    Guest

    Irak : l'Europe dans l'après-guerre

    Before I start translating note:
    1/ The original article is "Irak : l'Europe dans l'après-guerre" par François Heisbourg - LE MONDE - 25.07.03. I can provide no link since it is archive and so only open to subscribers, but I can send you the article (per request)
    2/ The POV is European, so it's naturally provocating for you. It's more for internal debate than it is a "message" so consider it as such
    3/ I did not write it, but I find most arguments "reasonable"
    4/ This is not a real quality translation, much more a subjective summary.

    François Heisbourg is a researcher and director at an independent French think tank called "Fondation pour la recherche stratégique"



    The daily difficulties encountered by the occupying forces in Iraq strengthen the opinion the "old Europe" countries that refused to back the American war. The "anti-war" sees a confirmation of the pre-war analyses about the difficulties to militarily occupy and try to democratise a country at the same time.

    In this situation, human nature being what it is, it is not surprising that these countries feel some kind of satisfaction or "Schadenfreude" in the manner of "we told you, you should have listened". As understandable as this attitude is it would be a grave error to use is as a guide for our future policy on Iraq.


    Far from rejoicing, Europeans must understand that a failure of the Americans wouldn't be in their interest, whatever shape this failure takes: precipitated withdrawal of occupying forces, continued occupation without emergence of a democratic Iraqi government or occupation leading to another dictature.

    - Today, a precipitated withdrawal is unlikely, but beyond a certain threshold of losses, the trend could be as irresistible as it was in Beirut after the 83 bombings. A withdrawal of the key-country for ME that Iraq is would have dramatic consequences for the whole region. It would profit the most anti-western forces like Al-Qaida as well as other forces hostile to the peace process between Israel and Palestine.

    - The persistence of a "pure occupation" regime would be almost as grave. It would mean an increased polarization between an Iraqi population on one side, and the occupants who would be perceived as representing all the western countries. The perspectives of appeasement or democratisation in the ME would become void with predictable consequences. This "shock of civilization" would affect us all unless we promote a lasting rupture with the US like the one started last winter.

    - The hypothesis of an Iraq falling back under the rule of a dictator would be less dramatic in the short term, but it would lead us back to a status quo ante, which we already experienced, with the results we know.

    So the Europeans must examine closely the contribution they can bring to prevent any failure in Iraq.


    The European initiative could take the following shapes.. (to be continued)
    Last edited by yehudi; 07-29-2003 at 02:41 PM.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Mil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,242
    Posted by yehudi:

    Anyway what are the examples where the US build nations from scratch?


    West Germany, Japan and South Korea. From scratch literally.

    USSR rebuilt East Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia - basically the entire East block.

    Europe was totally devastated following WWII and all had to be done completely from the beginning including putting together political and economic systems.

  13. #13
    yehudi
    Guest

    Irak : l'Europe dans l'après-guerre (cont')

    Irak : l'Europe dans l'après-guerre (cont')

    _____________________________________
    The European initiative could take the following shapes..

    - Firstly, a European military presence can be accepted by the European public opinion only if the political role of the UN is strongly enhanced. All the political reorganization measures, most noticeably the instauration of a Provisional government and elections must be submitted by M. Paul Bremer to M. Sergio Vieira de Mello, the special envoy of the UN in Iraq.

    - Secondly, a European force should be deployed, with the approval of the UN Security council in the main cities, including Bagdhad with a mandate similar to the SFOR that is deployed in Bosnia. This force would intervene to support efforts for the rebuilding and the stabilization with UN authorization, but with engagement rules beyond those of a blue-beret force.

    However, it would be a stabilization force similar to the one lead by the Germans and the Netherlanders in Kabul, not a coercion force. As a matter of fact, it would not be a substitute for the 160 000 brits and Americans who would still have the rights and the duties of occupying powers as in SC resolution 1483 of 22 may 2003.

    - Thirdly this Europeans force should operate under the UN flag, this solution being preferable. As a matter of fact, a blue-beret force placed under the peacekeeping department of the UN would be unlikely to have appropriate rules of engagement and would also be rejected by Washington. A NATO force would not have this drawback, but would run the risk of appearing locally as too linked to Americans interests and would stir up reservations of several SC members.
    An intervention based on national troops would be like the present situation of the polish sector with spread forces (Italians, Spaniards, lettons, hondurians…) of which none has enough weight to appear as anything else than a second-rank auxiliary of the occupying powers. (..) moreover, this choice would consistent with the will of "old Europe" countries to develop a common European defence policy.
    From the US point of view, this solution would not differ from the one already in place in Afghanistan (where the international force operate under a separate command than the force fighting Al-Qaida) and it would avoid Washington the "journey to Canossa"…

    A European force could gather 50 000 to 60 000 men, like the European fast reaction force which is operational this year. Like for KFOR and SFOR in ex-Yugoslavia other partner could join in, like Russia. The political and military mechanism for operating such a force already exist as per Europeans decisions of 1999-2000 and agreements between EU and NATO.

    This design might seem ambitious, given not only the difficulty of the task itself - leading Iraq from occupation to sovereignty without leading to a dictator - but also given the wound to the transatlantic relations of the last months. It is possible that Washington will not want to give an important role to the UN and the EU, whatever the problems of occupation. And it possible too, that the country of "old Europe" maintain their policy of abstaining themselves or even yield to the bad delight to watch the Americans sink into the quicksand.

    However for Europe, for transatlantic relations and for the evolution of Middle East we should be available to a policy of constructive engagement in Iraq.
    If the American war against Iraq was not necessary, the success of peace in Iraq is general interest.




    Ok that's done! I got to satisfy someone's bloodlust now..."Live free or die" as the say in Greece (or rather as Nikos Kazanzakis had written on his tombstone ""I fear Nothing, I want Nothing, I am free").

    I am a bit grandiloquent there

  14. #14
    porcupine
    Guest
    Originally posted by Mil
    USSR rebuilt East Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia - basically the entire East block.

    Europe was totally devastated following WWII and all had to be done completely from the beginning including putting together political and economic systems.
    Yes, if installing Communism in a country, which have to be freed in the end is what you call building a nation.

    If I were Russia I would be ashamed to put "experience in building nations" in my resume just yet. But then, if I were Russia, my resume would be so short I wouldn't have any other choice. Ha Ha!

  15. #15
    Senior Member Mil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,242
    posted by porcupine:


    Yes, if installing Communism in a country, which have to be freed in the end is what you call building a nation.


    This is not an ethical question. Do you know what nation-building is all about?


    If I were Russia I would be ashamed to put "experience in building nations" in my resume just yet.


    Russia did rebuild and stabalized Eastern Europe - that's a fact.


    But then, if I were Russia, my resume would be so short I wouldn't have any other choice. Ha Ha!


    Yep. I can think of many-many-many things that I can put on that resume. Specifically being the nation that single-handedly defeated Hitler and an is almost solely responsible for saving the world from the Nazis. That's a fact.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What to do about Iraq?
    By cerulean in forum In The News
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-12-2005, 12:14 AM
  2. let's remember
    By takeo in forum War In Iraq
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07-03-2004, 01:44 AM
  3. Where is the outrage?
    By ibrodsky in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 09-24-2002, 06:13 AM
  4. A letter to the Palestinians
    By IsraelAdvocate in forum Peace Think Tank
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 06-25-2002, 06:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •