SondraK snapped this great image at Ft. Lewis, Washington. It’s a wonderful visual reminder that when someone refers to the mission in Iraq as "unilateral" they obviously don’t understand what the term means.
Unilateral?
Published
SondraK snapped this great image at Ft. Lewis, Washington. It’s a wonderful visual reminder that when someone refers to the mission in Iraq as "unilateral" they obviously don’t understand what the term means.
Fort Lewis!
D’oh!
Fixed.
Yeah, except the extent of the participation of many, many of those states is pretty much just letting us put their flag next to ours at Ft. Lewis.
We’ve lost over 500 soldiers in Iraq–can you remind me again how many soldiers or dollars Nigeria and Uzbekistan have given?
JR, who are you? You’re like the Bizarro-world Jay Reding or something – the Anti-Jay. 🙂 (You don’t have to tell me who you really are. I was just curious if your initals really were JR, or if you were just trying to mock Jay. 😉
unilateralism…you’re blaming the persons who use it without knowing what it means…DO YOU?!?
besides the fact that most of the countries represented here are not real countries (how many people live in the Marschall Island?), or are just obligated to be here if they don’t want to lose the aid that the US provide them (totalitarism at some point), or just want to get some funding, or had no power to say no (Netherlands for example), this picture clearly doesn’t prove that the war in Irak wasn’t unilateral.
First of all, let me remind you that W just stated in his last speech to the Union that the US intended to act unilateraly each time the lives of americans would be endangered, which can mean in any situation, if you consider that the US are in Irak even though the threat was only imaginary…So, your will of showing the US as multilateral is at best pure propaganda.
Second, multilateralism doesn’t mean “with all the people thinking like us”, but more, “with ALL the different partners”, and this is not the case as all countries are clearly not represented in this picture. This is still unilateralism. “With or against us” is the base, “the coalition of the willing” is the practicality.
Once again, you’re blaming others of ignorance when you are so obviously wrong!!!
-If someone just takes into account the persons who think like him, while disregarding others, it is unilateralism.(win-lose situation)
-If someone tries to listen to everyone, and reach an agreement where everyone benefit from, is is multilateralism.(win-win situation)
THUS, the mission in Irak was desesperately UNILATERAL, no matter how many countries are involved !!
Got it?
Photograph, Fort Lewis. I love flags, i’m counting 32 flags out of 193 possible. Plus, if my eyes are correct I see the state flag of Texas twice — I don’t recognize the state of Texas as a country, as much as Texans think they are independent. So, 30 flags are legit out of 193. Sort of reminds me of my minority status.
JR
You said: Yeah, except the extent of the participation of many, many of those states is pretty much just letting us put their flag next to ours at Ft. Lewis.
Really? You know what each of these nations have contributed? In terms of men and material and money?
I’m willing to bet you have no idea how many troops the Dutch have in theatre, or which troops, or what they can do. I have a serious (as in wagerable) hunch you’re clueless as to what the Poles or Danes or South Koreans have in theatre, and what they do, and why.
Furthermore, while you (and most liberals) may titter at the small contributions of, say, a Lithuania (110 men), that’s a large contribution for a nation that is not only small, remote, and relatively poor; it’s a huge contribution for a military that is not designed to deploy overseas at all.
We’ve lost over 500 soldiers in Iraq–can you remind me again how many soldiers or dollars Nigeria and Uzbekistan have given? No, and either can you. And it doesn’t matter – because:
Democrats should be required to take a proficiency test before commenting on these sorts of things.
Uni means one.
One nation.
Multi means “more than one” as in the US, UK, Australia, Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, Bulgaria, Japan, Mongolia, Spain, and about two dozen others.
Multi does not mean “with France.”
End of grammar lesson.
I don’t consider someone a coalition partner unless they’re forking over at least 5,000 troops or $1 Bil cash. Which means we’ve got a few partners, but not many.
It wasn’t unilateral, but it was pretty damn far from unanimous among the democracies of the world.
Ah. Where once there was confusion, Nicholas has spoken – and now, all is light.
Voila!
So Poland – which has sent virtually the entire modern, transportible, NATO-compatible portion of its Army and Navy to Iraq, isn’t partner because it doesn’t meet some arbitrary “5,000” soldier mark? Hardly reasonable, is it?
Or Norway and Denmark, whose militaries are on purpose NOT designed to be portable – but who sent their special forces (among the world’s best) anyway? Their contribution doesn’t count?
Quick, Nicholas: how many nations do you suppose would provide 5,000 troops or a billion dollars to a UN operation? Do yourself a favor and run down the list of contributors (especially in terms of troops) to nearly every UN operation in history; the only nations that EVER contribute over 5,000 troops are – yep, the US and the UK, and very intermittently France. In EVERY UN deployment, most nations contribute companies (100-160 men) or battalions (500-800 men). Just like in Iraq today.
The anti-Bush left is skittering among conditions like a toddler on Cherry Coke. First we needed international cooperation – so we got 34 nations to send troops (more than would typically respond to a “Multilateral UN” operation!). So now that the “Unilateral” trope is dead to all the cognizant, suddenly the left wants to recognize an arbitrary, not-of-the-real-world threshold on “partnership”. History refutes that approach.
Finally – Mr. McDonald says “It wasn’t unilateral, but it was pretty damn far from unanimous among the democracies of the world.”
Among democracies that matter militarily or economically (don’t be nattering about neutral nations like Ireland or Sweden) it’s about three nations shy of unanimous. We meet the burden of “unanimity” far more than the Germans or the loathsome Frogs.
jay,
your last comment is just stupid. Where did I say wha you wrote(e.g. with France…)? You really should read AND understand what people write before posting your “teachy” comments!
Mitch,
“Among democracies that matter militarily or economically” and did not support this war, what do you think is: France+Germany+India (half of the world), and one could add China and Russia to get to 3/4 of the living population of the world if those were democracies. It’s more than all the tiny island you can abuse of.
and for the “History refutes that approach”, just go backto ’91, and see how many nations sent how many mens to Irak…history soon will refutes YOU!!
“JR” is a nickname I picked up in high school–an abbreviated version of “Jerald”. I’ve used the name for several years and use it professionally.
Mitch, since you are apparently God’s gift to political analysis, perhaps you’d care to explain why Lithuania, a founding member of the Partnership for Peace in 1994, would have a military ten years later that is unfit for deployment to other countries. Ten years of integration is a long time to still be unable to fulfill the outline of Section 3 subsections C D and E of the PfP Framework. I think you’re not giving Lithuania enough credit for its modernization program.
You know, Mitch, it’s kind of funny that you ignore the question I posed by posing an almost identical one to me. But, to shut you up, the Brits reported 1178 Dutch peacekeepers deployed, though the Dutch sent no troops before the fall of Baghdad, and at least one Dutch soldier has been removed from duty following an incident where an Iraqi was killed. South Korea, again a state that sent no troops for the invasion, has about 3000 peacekeepers in Iraq and a few hundred noncombat personnel that are confined to bases. The Polish military is ostensibly an integrated member of NATO, and thus its forces should be prepared to deploy for NATO or UN operations on short notice. Poland has sent about two thousand troops to Iraq and supported military action there since March 2003, but sent no troops until the US offered to pay for them. Poland, it should be pointed out, is trying to avoid the criticism leveled on Hungary following its accession into NATO’s integrated military structure, and participation in Iraq is a good way for the Poles to stay on the US and UK’s good side. If you’d like me to write for you a memo concerning the methods employed by the US to change the mission of NATO since Sept 11. and how NATO has since adjusted, you’re going to have to ask much, much nicer than you’re used to.
The fact that you so gleefully ignore, Mitch, is that while the occupation of Iraq might NOW be a multinational affair, the invasion itself was done by two countries, and the initial decision to invade was made by one. One country, acting on its own and in its perceived interest at the expense of established procedures and international law? Yeah, I’d call that unilateral.
JR,
Sorry, lil’ fella – I’m not God’s gift to analysis. I’ve merely read more than the policy boilerplate on these issues. I encourage you to do the same.
“Just to shut” me “up”, you cite statistics that are already old news on my blog – not only numbers (of Dutch and ROK troops), but the actual units involved. Tell you what – when you are qualified to “shut” me “up”, I’ll let you know. OK?
Militaries are designed – if their leadership is smart – with a goal in mind. For most European nations, especially the smaller ones, that goal is self-defense. Making a military capable of moving a large part of itself overseas on short notice (the US military jargon is “Projecting Power”) is neither cheap nor easy. It takes a commitment to infrastructure that the US has spent over 100 years developing (and the Brits a good 200 before that). That Lithuania (or Hungary, or Albania or Macedonia or Denmark for that matter) haven’t fit that into their agendas or budgets yet is hardly surprising, unless your perspective is purely academic.
Poland has sent about two thousand troops to Iraq and supported military action there since March 2003, but sent no troops until the US offered to pay for them.
Who do you suppose pays for the vast majority of deployments of ALL UN troops? Who paid for German troops to go to the Balkans, for that matter?
Write all the memos you want. It’s fairly clear your understanding of this issue isn’t even skin-deep.
Oops – almost forgot:
I don’t care that none of these nations were involved in the invasion. It doesn’t matter, because:
a) Very few nations in the world are capable of fighting at the same pace that the US maintains – they’re neither equipped nor trained to keep up, and that can be dangerous in action. Only the Brits, in terms of regular mechanized and infantry units, can seriously claim to be able to fight alongside the US in the type of action we just finished last April. The exception would be special forces, which is a whole ‘nother thing – and that was the biggest contribution of the other nations in the invasion (Australian SAS, Polish GROM, Danish Jegerkorpset) anyway.
b) It doesn’t matter if you’re alone, if you’re doing the right thing. It doesn’t matter if you’re the majority, if you’re wrong. The US and UK (and Oz, Poland and Denmark) were right. France, the UN and the Democrat Party were wrong.
What is it with you guys and being unable to write the “ic” on the end of “Democratic”? Is it a genetic defect or what?
Okay, Mitch, time for you to prove a point. I personally don’t care what’s old news on your blog. You asked me if I knew the figures, I gave you what I’m pretty sure are accurate figures, and you’ve gotten petulant rather than responsive.
Also, that “Projecting Power” you’re so proud to mention is nice, but you seem to ignore that 1.) NATO and PfP states ARE actually meant to deploy overseas and in theatres away from their homeland (they sign on to defend the sovereignty of ALL signatory states, not just themselves), and 2.) there’s a hell of a difference between sea power and air transport. The US and Britain used strong navies to protect their interests, but now rely much more on a technology that is barely 100 years old for transportation and warmaking.
Also, US funding for the UN is a nice gesture on our part, but you conveniently ignore the two reasons WHY we fund operations for the UN:
1.) The UN’s best interests are usually the US’s best interests, believe it or not, and 2.) we don’t pay dues, and haven’t for several decades.
The whole point of an integrated military alliance like NATO is that all the members CAN deploy in a way that is compatible with American strategy. That’s why we developed those organizations in the first place–to provide us with allies should we need them.
And blindly stating that it was “right” to invade Iraq is cute and all, but unless I hear you advocating an attack on Uzbekistan to promote regime change I’m not going to buy the argument that the invasion was for humanitarian purposes. You supported a war to get weapons that Kay no longer believes existed after Clinton bombed in ’98 and depose a ruthless asshole who never attacked the US at the expense of operations in Afghanistan that could have, you know, actually caught the guy that did attack us on 9/11. You remember him, don’t you? Gray beard, funny hat, perverse view of Islamic teachings?
Now make a snide comment, fail to answer any of my points and ignore any substantiative debate in favor of partisan rantings that offer no insight or analysis.
Go on, I’ll wait.
That does not mean that every NATO country has an independent capability for projecting power. The Poles have virtually no airlift capability and no long-range air power whatsoever. To argue that they are a military designed for projection of military power isn’t true.
Furthermore, just because they signed a document saying they would defend any signatory, that doesn’t translate into having the ability to actually do so in practice. What Poland is giving to the operation in Iraq is about the maximum they could give – they are not a military designed to fight long-range conflicts.
There are only two militaries that can sustain a theatre-level long range conflict: the US and the UK – which is why the conflict in Iraq is mostly staffed by US and UK troops.
NATO has been instituting more methods of pressure on its members to keep fully compliant with the requirements of Articles 3 and 4. The Treaty requires that each nation keep and maintain a military capable of individual and collective defense.
Since the invokation of Article 5 on Sept 12, 2001, the integrated military command has insisted that members maintain full readiness to assist in operations related to that (e.g. Enduring Freedom). Hungary especially has come under fire from NATO leadership for slagging on their integration.
Your point that these individual countries don’t have the singular capacity to project power on the level of the United States and the UK is taken, but that does not mean that they had NO capacity to provide force assistance during the invasion.
And–lest we forget–there were many countries that were fully capable of projecting power but elected not to provide forces for the invasion they saw to be misguided and dangerous.
Of course all of this is just a sideline. If I were back in my debate days, I’d give a closing argument like this:
“We were trying to determine if the invasion of Iraq was unilateral or not. While we’ve learned quite a bit about NATO force structures and military power projection, none of those arguments answer the initial question. The definition of unilateral means an action taken by one nation, not a coalition of dozens of nations as in the case of the war in Iraq. Clearly the argument that Iraq was a unilateral conflict is unsustainable.”
I miss debate…
And my closing would look something like:
“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
– White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
– President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
– White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
– President Bush, 7/2/03
“Absolutely.”
– White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
– President Bush 4/24/03
“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
– Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
– President Bush, 3/19/03
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
– President Bush, 3/16/03
“This is about imminent threat.”
– White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”
– Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”
– Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”
– Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
“Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
“Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction…That’s why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”
– President Bush, 1/3/03
“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.”
– President Bush, 11/23/02
“I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”
– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
“Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.”
– President Bush, 11/3/02
“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”
– President Bush, 11/1/02
“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
– President Bush, 10/28/02
“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”
– President Bush, 10/16/02
“There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
– President Bush, 10/7/02
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
– President Bush, 10/2/02
“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
– President Bush, 10/2/02
“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
– President Bush, 9/26/02
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
“Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.”
– Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
…because I don’t care about winning the debate. I care about getting an administration that would overplay evidence to justify an illegal preemptive invasion held to account and out of office, if not for deception then for incompetence and dereliction.