Mark Steyn: Blair is right on troops

The Australian ^ | 02/21/07 | Mark Steyn

[Pokey78]

Eighty per cent of the violence in Iraq takes place within 50km of Baghdad

ACCORDING to my dictionary, the word "ally" comes from the Old French. Very Old French, I'd say. For the New French, the word has a largely postmodern definition of "duplicitous charmer who undermines you at every opportunity". For the less enthusiastically obstructive NATO members, "ally" means "wealthy country with no military capability that requires years of diplomatic wooing and black-tie banquets in order to agree to a token contribution of 23.08 troops." Incidentally, that 23.08 isn't artistic licence on my part. The 2004 NATO summit in Turkey was presented as a triumph of multilateral co-operation because the 26 members agreed to contribute between them an additional 600 troops and three helicopters to the Afghan mission. That's 23.08 troops and a ninth of a helicopter per ally. In fairness, Turkey chipped in the three helicopters single-handed, though the deal required them to return to Ankara after three months.

And these days troops is something of an elastic term, too. In Norwegian, it means "fighting men who are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, as long as they don't have to do any fighting and there are at least two provinces between their shoulders and the American ones". That's to say, Norway is "participating" in Afghanistan, but, because its troops are "not sufficiently trained to take part in combat", they've been mainly back at the barracks manning the photocopier or staging amateur performances of Peer Gynt for the amusement of US special forces who like nothing better than to unwind with five acts of Ibsen after a hard day hunting the Taliban.

[Pokey78]

Steyn ping!

[Earthdweller]

"For the New French, the word has a largely postmodern definition of "duplicitous charmer who undermines you at every opportunity".

Stop! You're killing me..LOL!

[End Times Sentinel]

"Anybody who studies Iraq for five minutes," he said, "knows that controlling Baghdad is infinitely more challenging than controlling Basra in the south. That is the reason why the Americans are increasing their numbers and the reason why, because of the relative improvement in Basra, the British are reducing their numbers." (John Howard)

Spin as some might, this is the quickly observable truth. 

Owl_Eagle

If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.

[Mister Da]

Hmmmm! I don't like leaving the shiite terrorists a safe haven, nor al-Sadr a potential new HQ site. Too close to Iran to be left "unattended".

[Bommer]

Still don't see why they just don't "relocate" their troops to Bagdad to help out. Lord knows we send ours to help them.

[Jalapeno]

I think Diplomacy has been a huge failing of the Bush admin. There seems to be an inability, whether it is with Europe or South America or other sections, to really get traction and have those guys moving with us. Somehow they have been unable to show what _needs_ to be done.

In the end it may not be Bush's fault for the failing though, as you know if you take the Steyn perspective, most other countries are essentially suicidal at the moment.

[leilani]

this is the quickly observable truth

Oh, how I wish we could get Howard over here to bitchslap some plain-spoken, aussie-style common sense into our clueless keystone congress & their servile flunkies in the MSM.

(Sigh) Australia & the Steyn household seem to be the last two places on earth where real men get to speak aloud, unconstricted by any verbal "burqas" requiring all this relentlessly stupid, deliberately obscure PC pussy-footing we have to slog through to hear the truth.

[alwaysconservative]

Wonderful, wonderful Steyn! Thanks for the ping!

[Tolik]

Mark Steyn:

... In other words, it's not the war, it's the home front. If their job is all but done in the Shia south, why could not Blair redeploy British troops to Baghdad to share some of the burden of the Yankee surge? Well, because it's simply not politically possible. Not even for a leader who shares exactly the same view of the Islamist threat and the importance of victory in Iraq as President Bush.

In that sense, the Blair reduction is not a withdrawal from Iraq so much as a withdrawal from the assumptions of the broader Anglo-American relationship: the Prime Minister's successor, Gordon Brown, is likely to prefer something a little more distant, not as distant as those Norwegians in Afghanistan but a little closer to the default NATO model of being supportive without being helpful.

Thus, even for reliable allies with capable militaries, the political price of marching into battle alongside the Great Satan is steep and getting steeper. This does not bode well for the general health of the planet. When the wilier Democrats berate Bush for not maintaining an adequate military, they have a sort of crude point, albeit not the one they think they're making: if the time, money and energy expended in getting pseudo-allies to make pseudo-contributions were to be spent instead on the Vermont National Guard, you'd get more troops more quickly with more capability. Yet for wealthy countries to deny Washington even the figleaf of token multilateralism is, in the end, to gamble with their own futures.

Howard is perhaps the last Western leader to understand this. If he is a pathetic Bush poodle, he was a poodle long before most folks had even heard of Bush. He first committed Australia to supporting American military action against Iraq in 1998, back when Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office. All that's changed is the scale of the threat: an American defeat - or perceived defeat - in Iraq would embolden all kinds of forces around the globe, including in Indonesia and the Pacific.

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[colorado tanker]

Still don't see why they just don't "relocate" their troops to Baghdad to help out. Lord knows we send ours to help them.

As Steyn said, it's not politically possible for Blair. He's in this bizarre twilight zone he put himself into by promising not to fulfill his full term, but not being very precise as to when he'll turn the job over to Brown; hence, his power is slowly draining away.

[alwaysconservative]

That's to say, Norway is "participating" in Afghanistan, but, because its troops are "not sufficiently trained to take part in combat", they've been mainly back at the barracks manning the photocopier or staging amateur performances of Peer Gynt for the amusement of US special forces who like nothing better than to unwind with five acts of Ibsen after a hard day hunting the Taliban.

This one had me choking with laughter, because there are few grimmer and more joyless playwrights than the (overlong) Ibsen. Steyn is PRICELESS!

[xzins]

they've been mainly back at the barracks manning the photocopier or staging amateur performances of Peer Gynt for the amusement of US special forces who like nothing better than to unwind with five acts of Ibsen after a hard day hunting the Taliban.

Steyn!

Hysterical, rational, bullseye

[happygrl]

HOWARD BUMP !!!!!!!!!

[goldstategop]

The big mistake America made was not to have withdrawn our troops from Europe and shut down NATO at the end of the Cold War. This simply re-enforced European dependency upon the United States and left them free to be Allies In Name Only. The Europeans have atrophied militaries because we wouldn't let them grow up and assume responsibility for their own defense. That's an unhealthy relationship and it has got to change.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[gonzo]

"...Still don't see why they just don't "relocate" their troops to Bagdad to help out. Lord knows we send ours to help them..."

We don't actually know where the Brits are being re-deployed to. Some R&R, of course, but then, where?

I suspect we'll know in a coupla weeks ........... FRegards

[prairiebreeze]

Your second sentence is accurate and answers the question you pose in your first sentence.

[kabar]

Still don't see why they just don't "relocate" their troops to Bagdad to help out. Lord knows we send ours to help them.

Steyn's response: "If their job is all but done in the Shia south, why could not Blair redeploy British troops to Baghdad to share some of the burden of the Yankee surge? Well, because it's simply not politically possible. Not even for a leader who shares exactly the same view of the Islamist threat and the importance of victory in Iraq as President Bush.

[kabar]

We have and continue to reduce our force levels in Europe significantly after the end of the Cold War.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Thanks, Pokey. Always a pleasure to read Steyn. :)