Allies Lukewarm on U.S. Request for Troops

Associated Press ^ | Sat May 15 | WILLIAM J. KOLE

[mark502inf]

VIENNA, Austria - Allies of the United States are giving a lukewarm response to quiet requests that they send more troops to Iraq (news - web sites), amid escalating violence and public outcry over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

Washington asked Albania to increase the size of its 71-soldier non-combat unit patrolling the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, and the Albanian government is receptive, Defense Ministry spokesman Igli Hasani confirmed Friday.

"Albania is ready to respond to such a request" and had already offered additional troops, Hasani said. He said the mostly Muslim country, a staunch U.S. ally, may boost its contingent to 200 soldiers if parliament approves.

Denmark will extend the mission of its 496 troops in southern Iraq by six months, and Norway will maintain a small military presence after it pulls out its main contingent next month. The Philippines is sending 45 more soldiers and police to strengthen its humanitarian effort, restoring the total to its original 100.

"Our government has made a very categorical statement on this matter — that we stand pat on our commitment to the coalition," said Lt. Gen. Rodolfo Garcia, the Philippines vice chief of staff.

But those numbers do little to compensate for Spain's abrupt withdrawal of its 1,300 troops last month.

Most other allies appear far more cautious, given worries over mounting coalition casualties and disgust over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by some U.S. troops.

Even Britain, the United States' chief ally with 7,500 soldiers, has said only that it is keeping its troop levels under constant review. And Poland, which has 2,400 troops and commands a multinational force in south-central Iraq, says its soldiers will stay "as long as needed and not a day longer."

Thailand's Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Palangun Klaharn, said the United States has not yet requested more troops, and that its 443 troops are expected to wrap up their mission in Iraq in September.

The Dutch are considering whether to extend the stay of their 1,300 soldiers beyond June 30, when an Iraqi administration is due to take power, but there is no talk of sending more troops.

Although the conservative government in the Netherlands had leaned toward an extension, one party in the ruling coalition has broken ranks, saying it will support keeping soldiers in Iraq only if there is broader United Nations (news - web sites) involvement and a greater handover of power to the Iraqis.

Japan has agreed to replace 500 non-combat troops on a humanitarian mission in southern Iraq. But it has no plans to send additional forces; opposition at home has grown because of the escalating violence and the kidnappings of five Japanese citizens by insurgents. The five were released unharmed.

The Czech Republic, which has 120 military police officers in Iraq, has no plans to send more personnel or extend the mission, Defense Ministry spokesman Vladimir Sticha said Friday.

Nor does Slovakia, which has 105 soldiers in Iraq, or Bulgaria, whose infantry battalion of 454 soldiers has come under heavy fire in recent weeks.

Hungary is prepared to keep its 300-member transportation contingent in Iraq through year's end — its current parliamentary mandate.

But as attacks on coalition forces increase, so have calls from opposition politicians to bring the troops home.

Hungary's leading opposition group, the Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Party, is pressing the government to recall its troops unless the United Nations takes over responsibility in Iraq by June 30.

On Friday, the defense ministers of Hungary and Germany called for a strong U.N. resolution on Iraq to stabilize the country. Hungarian Defense Minister Ferenc Juhasz said a new resolution also could pave the way for NATO (news - web sites) to take over some security duties in Iraq.

Recent polls show that eight in 10 Hungarians oppose keeping the troops in Iraq. But the leadership won't budge, government spokesman J. Zoltan Gal said.

"This is not a government which adjusts its policies based on the result of opinion polls," he said.

[mark502inf]

We know who our friends are.

[CWOJackson]

Perhaps it's time to just blow off Europe and concentrate on the Pacific Rim.

[Blue Highway]

Wusses.

[LiberalBassTurds]

Their definition of "allies" = We're there for you... when we need your help. Cut off aid to all but those who participate. I'm sick of bankrolling ingrates.

LBT

-=-=-

[spetznaz]

Before calling these nations names remember that they did something that bigger stronger countries like France and Germany did not do .....they joined the coalition of the willing. That is a big deal, especially considering virtually each and every country that did so was under great pressure from its populace not to do such a thing. Furthermore, even though most of their contributions were tiny, they were still taxing for them once you consider the size of their military budgets and state coffers.

Calling the 'p^ssies' and wusses and all that stuff is actually quite unfair.

A good analogy is let's say your house is burning and you send out a call for help. Your local fire department (the UN) snubs you, and your most capable 'friends' (France and Germany et al) conveniently decide to go play poker that night. Now, some neighborhood kids in their early teens rush out and come to your aid. They cannot carry huge buckets of water, but they can at least carry one bucket or at least help hold the hose nozzles.

However some get weary, others are caught up by their curfew. Hence they go home. You'd be a very callous person to start calling them names because they could not continue offering you assistance. Why? Because they did what they were able to do, and even though they may not be able to do what you are able to do at least they did their part and their best.

My point is this ....don't criticize nations for doing their best and not being able to go further. Criticize those that would have helped, but did not.

Calling these nations names is like the wounded man in the Bible calling the Good Samaritan curses because he only took him to an inn instead of a bigger better hostel.

I wonder what a Bulgarian national would say on reading this thread ....especially since his country's small battalion came under crippling fire in Iraq. Not every nation is a super-power, and most can only do something for so long. The very fact they did something is cause for being pleased with them. Save your curses for the French and Germans.

[mark502inf]

Not every nation is a super-power, and most can only do something for so long. The very fact they did something is cause for being pleased with them. Save your curses for the French and Germans.

Thanks, Spetnaz (BTW, are you guys really 10 feet tall?). That was my point in posting this--these are the nations helping us; and some are getting ready to do more.

[elfman2]

Just completely withdrawal from Europe and rebuild in Iraq. Better yet, rebuild in Israel.

[Blue Highway]

I was going to post exactly the same thing as slicingfoul. 71 soldiers? Come on... That's not an alliance that's about as good as sending over the Dallas Cowboys which if you count just the players and coaches its more than 71. geez.

[CWOJackson]

I hold out some hope for the newly emerging eastern European nations and for a few of the old European nations which are now EU states. The problem for the emerging nations in the east is that they will eventually have to take a firm side, not just in this issue but in general.

They can either allie themselves with the old Europe, which I believe will not stimulate their growth and only absorb them into a stagnating union, or they can forge their destinies.

I have long advocated moving all of our military installations currently in Germany to these nations; not just to reward them and help in their development, but also to retain forward deployed bases for our own protection and to keep an eye on NATO.

Personally I hope those nations look to their own futures and potential and we should help them in return...but they are going to have to make a firm and decisive choice soon.

[spetznaz]

Well, for a nation like Germany (or even us for example) 71 troops is nothing. For many of the nations that came to our side in Iraq as part of the Coalition of the Willing that is not a pittance. Not every nation can spare an aircraft carrier or several battalions of tanks ....because most nations don't have the budgets to even think of having such stuff.

I still think many in this thread are in essence being the wounded man cursing at the Good Samaritan for not doing 'more.' Hey, thsoe nations did what they could. And I believe that is all we should expect from them.

If you want to curse at nations direct it at France and Germany, since we protected them during the Cold War from Soviet invasion, and they cannot even blink to our assistance. Have some appreciation for these small countries that came to our assistance even when it was political imprudent, and economically taxing.

[spetznaz]

See post no.13.

[spetznaz]

Oh, and one more thing to add to post no.13. For many of the nations, the soldiers they sent were primarily for political reasons. To show that there were nations that were willing to support the US in Iraq. Some like Poland and Bulgaria have been shot up and killed in Iraq, but most were mainly to show that there is support for the Iraq effort (and it worked since the UN was effectively shut-up for quite some time, and still is in some ways).

However, even if they are 'token' troops (and most of their armies can be destroyed by one Marine contigent), what they did still:

1)Came to our aid when we most needed them, albeit political aid if not necessarily military. But still extremely valuable.

2) They are being politically killed at home since many of their citizens don't want them in Iraq.

3) Took courage to do.

4)Was far more than nations like France and Germany did .....which, being richer and stronger militarily, could have provided real 'oomph' but instead decided to not only stay outside the war, but to actively try to sink our efforts in Iraq.

Once again, you cannot fault a person for doing what they can do.

[Normal4me]

Bump. I agree with you completely. I have much more respect for Albania than I do for Mexico, France, Germany, etc. I thought this was a "Unilateral" war anyways, what are all these foreigners doing in Iraq helping us?

[GregB]

Stop sending money to them!!!!!!!!

[El Conservador]

AMEN!!!

I think many FReepers are way off in their ingratitude dosage. They expect every ally to commit the whole of their armed forces for the WOT. And if they legitimately say that's as much as they can do, they'll be reviled as pussies or cowards.

[Blue Highway]

I read post # 13. Germany and France not helping is no surprise, they are a lost cause. The idea we still have troops in Germany bothers me.

We take the troops we have in Germany and France and redirect them to Iraq and still have more troops from either one of those 2 countries than France and Germany combined would have sent.

Thats assuming they even had a backbone.

[Pedrobud]

I agree 100 % ALLIES ?????