Chris feels the rest of the world would come to our aid if we only requested assistance. I have my doubts. I can only look back on fifty years of UN intransigence as my support, and conclude that we can only count on two other nations when the going gets tough–Britain and Australia. Israel will join in as much as possible, but they are limited due to anti-semitism around the world. Anything they are involved in directly becames a cause opposed by many nations regardless of merit. We also have other nations with limited assets which assist when they can–Italy, Poland, Spain. And they have limits themselves.
One nation many Americans feel is an ally, but never has been, is France. This belief comes from knowing that the French assisted us in our break from Britain. Even that, however, was assistance which came only when the French believed we had a chance to embarrass their constant enemy, Britain. Since then, the US has been there to help France. The reverse has never been true.
“In the 1991 Gulf War, France sent troops to help.” Yes, they did. Do you remember how they were used? They held the left flank for the coalition, creating a blocking line between the US forces and Baghdad.
At the time, the French were not pleased with this role. They felt they “deserved” a more active place in the line. In fact, one reporter made mention of their position in a press conference with General Schwarzkopf, asking if the French were being banished to this position. Schwarzkopf’s response was that the French forces had a very important task, and that was to keep any forces in Baghdad from interfering with the operations down south. I think Norm had good reason to believe the French were the perfect force to secure that flank.
Knowing what we all now do about French cronyism with Saddam, I’m sure Schwarzkopf and Bush 41 were aware of the ties. To reach US forces from Baghdad, Saddam’s troops would have to go through the French. Probably not a difficult task, but not one Saddam was likely to attempt. Had he attacked French forces, all deals with France would be null and void.
When the US calls for assistance of any kind in the UN, what is the typical response? First, France’s ministers and ambassadors find a microphone and camera so they can talk about how important unity is. Then they do everything they can to ensure that never coalesces.
How about the UN staff? Same.
Russia and China? Well, let’s take a little time to see what’s in it for us before committing.
Britain and Australia? They ask if it is the right thing to do, then back it up.
One only needs to look at what has happened in south Asia in the last two weeks to get reinforcement of that view. Amazon.com raised more money for relief in 12 hours than France offered. Germany has since determined to join those helping. But Dubya immediately sent a carrier task force to the area along with C-130s and C-141s. Australia was there before we were. Japan sent money. A lot of money.
Kofi Annan finished his ski vacation, and finally went before the cameras. Has Chirac been on television lately? Any reporters seeking out his views?
I’m a patriot, and not ashamed of it. The far left have decided that “patriot” and “jingoist” are synonyms. They are not. I want to see American flags stenciled on every package we send into the relief area. If the people on the receiving end don’t like our flag, then they can ignore the aid. Just walk away from that bag of rice and leave it untouched. Go on. Instead, we have people–Americans–worried that those folks might be offended if we display our nationality, and that everything should appear to be coming from the UN.
No, I’m fed up. We do a pretty good job of taking care of our own, and ask nothing of anyone except respect. We can feed ourselves and the rest of the world if necessary. And we often do. Yet we continue to hear about all the ills of the world being our fault. They’re not. And it’s time to accept that. We make mistakes, but we don’t create the circumstances. I’m no isolationist, but I’m convinced it is time for us to withdraw from international organizations and focus on treaties and agreements with individual nations.
And France would be well down my list.
By the way, Chris has a good blog…go check it out.
Humanitarian and Military aid are two very different things.
On one hand you are dealing with the basic emotions of people.. and, I believe the common need that everyone has to help out those in need.
On the other you are dealing with what is mainly a political issue, and of course that is much more divisive and controversial.
If there was a tragedy great enough that the US could not deal with on its’ own I am absolutely positive that the world would lend a helping hand.
And before you started in on your attack against the French remember this.
President Chirac was the first foreign leader to survey the damage in New York after 9/11… he was, I believe the first to speak to President Bush personally.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/ret.bush.france/
Here’s a quote from Bush on Sept 19, 2001.
“”This war will require determination and patience,” Bush said. “People who love freedom, such as Jacques Chirac and the people of France, will join us. I am confident of that.”
And I might remind you again of the international coalition that supported, and continues to support, the operations in Afghanistan.
It is truly amazing to see just how sour things have gotten because of the Iraq war. It’s sad really.
Comment by Chris Alemany — January 12, 2005 @ 1:35 pm
It is sad. But you must also remember why. That leads right back to Chirac, Schroeder, and Putin.
Comment by Bunker — January 12, 2005 @ 1:41 pm
“Humanitarian and Military aid are two very different things.
On one hand you are dealing with the basic emotions of people.. and, I believe the common need that everyone has to help out those in need.
On the other you are dealing with what is mainly a political issue, and of course that is much more divisive and controversial.”
Politics prevents others from doing what is right. It has prevented the Chinese from helping, to any significant degree, after the tsunami, and its prevented the French and others from doing the humanitarian just thing and fighting in Iraq, both before Saddam was captured and since. For many the only time its politics is when we strike, forgetting that politics prevents them from striking just as often.
Comment by Marvin — January 12, 2005 @ 5:46 pm
“and its prevented the French and others from doing the humanitarian just thing and fighting in Iraq”
Iraq as a humanitarian mission is terribly debatable (especially considering how it was sold up until the last couple months before the war started). Not something for this comment thread…
that said, you’re right. To an extent humanitarian reactions can also be political in nature. But I believe that all things being equal we as people of the world share the need to give to those who are suffering.
Since you’re so focused on France, I present Le Monde. The quintessentially “French” newspaper.
Their website (www.lemonde.fr) has an excellent chart showing the public and private donations of countries in the world. Unfortunately I can’t link it here because it uses Javascript but if you go to http://www.lemonde.fr and click on:
“Infographie : Les dons aux pays touchés”
It’ll pop up the chart.
The currency is Euros.. blue is public, red is private, * means data not available.
France has so far pledged 50 million Euros (about $100 million)… the French public has pledged 95 million…
Point being the French, Canadian, US, British, German, Swiss, Dutch and many others have all responded in huge numbers no matter what they’re political view on other matters.
Comment by Chris — January 12, 2005 @ 9:14 pm
Good to see France has upped their pledge.
Comment by Bunker — January 13, 2005 @ 11:18 am
Ahhh,,,, the UN…. Don’cha just love it~!
I had made a New Year’s resolution to become a real pain-in-the-ass for my Congresspersons. I determined to write frequently, persistently, and, I had hoped, persuasively, about my concerns and feelings of our continued association with the United Nations. I asked myself; how could such good ideas go so terribly wrong? Then I answered my own question by remembering that nations do not have friends or allies, Nations only have interests.
I was beginning to think I was pretty much alone with my disenchantment with this most august world body until I started reading this web log, and seeing the responses in the comment section. Another Corpus Christi-ian, Michael Jones, wrote an excellent post the other day on his blog, http://www.armageddonproject.com, as I read it I found myself nodding my head and silently yelling assent to just about every point he made, well done, Michael. Another of my blogging heroes is Victor Hanson, http://www.victorhanson.com who has shown himself to be a true California intellectual, unlike the pseudo-intellectual wacko-nutbag drivel we mostly see coming from that State. Does anybody outside of Hollywood really take Michael Moore seriously?
Anyway, the bottom line is; I’m still pissed about 9-11-01. I consider the loss of the Twin Towers, a sizable chunk of the Pentagon, three fully loaded Boeing airliners, and the brutal, unprovoked murder of 3,000 plus Americans a serious problem. The UN is not a part of the solution. In fact, the UN has NEVER solved a problem. In fact, I’m firmly convinced the UN is indeed the at root of the problems. In emphatic point of fact, the UN simply has the Midas Touch in reverse, everything they’ve ever touched turns to crap; there’s nothing golden about the UN.
I’ve seen some of our friend Chris’ thinking, at http://www.murkyview.com, and I have to respectfully disagree, at least to the extent that it is/was well known that Saddam did have a sizable storehouse of WMD. He didn’t hesitate to use them against the Iranians, nor did he hesitate to use them again on his own population, (remember the Kurds?) That’s pretty rock solid, we know he had them, period, that part is not a subject for debate. Saddam also had 10 or more years for him to dig a hole and bury some those WMD. It is my contention that most of those were at least temporarily buried in Syria, and we also know that some were smuggled through Syria into the Sudan. We had on our side nothing but empty UN Resolutions, about a dozen of them. We also had UN Inspectors stumbling around in a Saddam induced fog while corruption was running rampant in the UN home office. We had the “Oil for Food” program, which we now know should have been more aptly named the “Oil for Guns and Palaces” program, or the “Oil for Putting Mega-Bucks in Kofi’s Cronies Pockets”. None of the above is acceptable.
This latest gig with Jan Egeland accusing the USA of stinginess is just the last straw. Do we need this kind of grief? I say it’s long past time to pull the plug on this organization, it has out lived its purpose.
Comment by John — January 13, 2005 @ 3:52 pm
Your right John.. Saddam did have huge stockpiles of chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war, and against the Kurds. It also had significant nuclear and bio weapons programs during that time. The thing is, it was all destroyed after the Gulf War. And ever since then we were always simply trying to confirm to ourselves that Saddam had, and we had, actually destroyed everything. Was Saddam cooperative in the process? No. And so starts the debate..
The Iraq Survey Group may not be able to say that post-Gulf War, Saddam didn’t have some sort of small weapons cash.. but what they definitely CAN say is that they certainly didn’t find anything approaching the “stockpiles” that we were told by Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, and Bush existed. And this time, there was no Saddam to impede their searching.
Yes, the UN is in desperate need of reform… but in the case of Iraq, I believe it was the US that made the mistake, not the UN. After all, the UN was specifically designed to avoid war… especially large scale war between countries. So in effect, the UN system acted exactly how it was supposed to in the runup to Iraq. Does that mechanism need to be changed? That’s a question that requires a huge amount of reasoned debate.
Comment by Chris — January 13, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
Chris, I’m not trying to be obtuse here, but I think you missed my point. The chief complaint by the US members of the weapons inspectors was that they were never allowed to choose the sites they wished to inspect at random. There were no surprise inspections of any place that was not on an pre-approved list. None of the so called Palaces were ever put on the approved list of places the teams could visit, nor were any of the Mosques or hospitals, which later proved to be favorite weapon hiding places, ever inspected. This was my reference to “a Saddam induced fog”.
In as much as the Iraqi link to terror groups had been well proved, before and after the invasion, I do not think that President Bush acted improperly. Certain members of the UN Security Counsel acted in a fashion to stall for time, and otherwise obfuscate issues directly related to American security and safety. Specifically France, Germany, and Russia were acting in their own interests to salvage huge oil deals with Saddam, to the tune of billions of USD, to say nothing of the debt he had run up with his on-the-cuff arms purchases. Didn’t you ever wonder how so many average Joe-citizens of Iraq managed to get their hands on so many very expensive, fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles, all the ammo he wants, RPG’s, and a seemingly endless supply of high explosives and other military goodies? This stuff does not grow on trees. Do the words “Oil for Food” ring a bell? I’m all in favor of giving the little guy the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty, etc., but in this case we need to get real. If it walks like a duck……
You are correct that the original purpose of the UN was to avoid war, I think Churchill said it best, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war”. However this premise presupposes good faith jaw-jawing on both sides of the table. I don’t think anyone would ever accuse Saddam of good faith bargaining.
Comment by John — January 13, 2005 @ 5:46 pm