Mark Kleiman is but one of many Democrats who gleefully noted that Germany may be re-thinking involvement in Iraq should Kerry win in November, so it is probably unfiar to single him out. But what the hell- I am tired of being fair:
The idea that listening to what other people want might lead them to cooperate with us is hoplessly naive. There’s no way to get the allies who have refused to help us in Iraq so far to help us from now on.
Except, as always, Peter Struck was talking out of his ass:
The Government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder played down the remarks, made by German Defence Minister Peter Struck in a newspaper interview and in a briefing to reporters at a Nato defence ministers summit in Romania.
“There will be no German soldiers sent to Iraq. That will not change,” a Government spokesman said.
Why the Democrats continue to think thatas soon as Kerry is elected France, China, Russia, and Germany will all become willing to start sending troops to Iraq and receiving coffins draped with a flag of a different color is beyond me. It just isn’t going to happen.
Furthermore, I fail to understand why Democrats continue to think that the average American voter is going to be impressed or moved by obvious attempts by our overseas counterparts to impact elections.
Steve
You are ignoring another salient point that these Lefty dingbats are ignoring: How many troops can they send?
Germany could proably send a couple of thousand, and lets be generous and assume France sends a similar number. Russia on the other hand does have a large army, but (and it is a very big but) Russia has problems with Chechnya as well as not alot of resources for those troops. So lets say all total 6,000 troops.
Is that a good thing? Sure, but will it result in a massive change in the situation in Iraq? I serously doubt it. The U.S. will still have to do most of the heavy lifting. Even if all of NATO sends troops I can’t imagine more that 20,000 going. Sure it’d help, but it wouldn’t allow the U.S. to reduce its troop levels.
This plan of Kerry’s isn’t a plan at all. It is complete and utter bullshit and the Left Wing Whackos are hoping beyond hope nobody looks behind the curtain at the numbers of troops. They just aren’t there.
And do we really want 100,000 PRC troops in the region that has the majority of the world’s oil supply? China is starting to run into a wall in terms of its economy and energy.
Kerry’s plan is utter bullshit from begining to end.
Noel
Those nations would welcome Kerry as a useful tool in order to help them undermine American power. But they must also know that, in any crisis, he would stab them in the back the instant it became expedient to do so.
Honor among thieves and all that.
Gary Farber
“Furthermore, I fail to understand why Democrats continue to think that the average American voter is going to be impressed or moved by obvious attempts by our overseas counterparts to impact elections.”
In no way offered as any attempted contradiction to the above point, which I think is well-taken, and largely tend to agree with, but just for the sake of friendly conversation, and because it occurs to me, what are your expectations, as a rule, of obvious attempts by the United States to influence foreign elections? Say, in Afghanistan or Iraq, or Iran? (And, yes, obviously the power differentials are vast.) I’m just curious.
Incidentally, it’s not clear to me what the German policy under a President Kerry would be. I think it’s pretty obvious that they’d be idiots to tip their hand before our election that they’d change policy if that were their intentions, given that they might wind up with a very, very, very, angry President Bush. It seems to me that they’d say what they’re saying no matter what their intentions are, so long as they are remotely competent diplomats/politicians. Would you agree or disagree?
And I’ll stress, I’m not interested in extending that question into any larger questions of policy debate — not here and now, anyway.