Tweet
IRRITATING ALLIES
By Doug Bandow
American Spectator -
Feb 14 2007
How very nice. Australia wants America to stick around in Iraq. So
do Turkey and Egypt. Many conservatives likely agree with them on
this particular issue, but there's a larger point at stake.
U.S. allies should stop being generous with American lives.
Getting the most ink was Australian Prime Minister John Howard,
who took the unusual step of attacking Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) by
name. Obama is the only leading Democratic presidential candidate who
opposed the war all along and he advocates a withdrawal from Iraq by
next March.
Howard responded by attacking Obama's position as "not in the security
interests of the USA or Australia." He claimed that Obama's position
"will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and
destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to
hang on and hope for an Obama victory." Indeed, stated Howard: "If
I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March
2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only
for Obama but also for the Democrats."
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul recently visited the U.S. to
protest legislation pending before Congress condemning the genocide
of Armenians in World War I. As a sidelight, he noted that, "We
support President Bush's new strategy and think it should be given
a chance." At about the same time, Egypt's Foreign Minister, Ahmed
Aboul Gheit, brought "a similar message" to Washington, reported
Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland.
It's very nice of these three allies to offer their opinions about
what America should do in Iraq. After all, they've done so much to
help the U.S.
Turkey has offered precisely zero soldiers. Indeed, in 2003 the
Turkish parliament refused to allow American forces to invade Iraq
from the north. Moreover, Ankara has threatened to intervene against
the Kurds in northern Iraq, which would spark a wider conflict.
Egypt also has done nothing to aid Washington. Though an ally, this
undemocratic state remains a serious problem for the U.S., stoking
anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world because of its
repressive policies.
To its credit, Australia has provided some troops in Iraq -- but not
many. As Sen. Obama archly observed: "Mr. Howard has deployed 1400
[men], so if he is [ready] to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would
suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them
to Iraq."
Howard naturally defended Australia's contribution. Adjusting for
population, however, it is about one-seventh the size of America's
garrison. Moreover, Canberra has no other global and few other regional
military commitments.
Washington maintains hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Europe,
Japan, and South Korea; tens of thousands more are afloat in carrier
groups and other ships that traverse the globe. Many more are based
in America, awaiting deployment abroad in an emergency.
The U.S. devotes twice the share of GDP as does Australia to the
military. Roughly 2.5 million Americans serve in the active and reserve
forces, in contrast to 71,000 Australians; the U.S. rate of service
per population is about 2.5 times as great. In 2005 Americans spent
$1675 per person on the military. Australians spent half as much.
Moreover, Washington is seen by everyone everywhere as the military
guarantor of last resort. If the Iraq war is to be brought to a
satisfactory conclusion, it is up to America. If anyone can stop
Iran from building nuclear weapons, it will be the U.S. If diplomacy
ultimately fails with North Korea, Washington will be expected to take
the lead. If Russia resorts to force against one of its neighbors in
the Baltic, Caucasus, or elsewhere, America may find itself at war. If
China acts aggressively against Taiwan, Taipei's emergency call will
go to Washington. If the Philippines ends up in a scrape with Beijing
over the Spratly Islands, Manila will look far away to the U.S.
If Australia finds itself facing military aggression from Indonesia
or China, Canberra will press Washington for aid. Only in this case
would Australia likely be involved, standing by America's side.
Allies can be useful, but only if they are willing to back up shared
interests with manpower, money, and other resources. Advice is cheap,
especially when it is Americans who are doing the dying.
What should Washington do in Iraq? There is no good answer, since Iraq
already has been destabilized and is sliding towards chaos. Like Obama,
I favor an expeditious withdrawal, which in my view is inevitable,
so better sooner than later. Many good conservatives disagree, of
course. But the decision is up to Americans, who are doing the bulk
of the dying and paying.
Doug Bandow is Vice President for Policy of Citizen Outreach and a
former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author
of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon Press).
By Doug Bandow
American Spectator -
Feb 14 2007
How very nice. Australia wants America to stick around in Iraq. So
do Turkey and Egypt. Many conservatives likely agree with them on
this particular issue, but there's a larger point at stake.
U.S. allies should stop being generous with American lives.
Getting the most ink was Australian Prime Minister John Howard,
who took the unusual step of attacking Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) by
name. Obama is the only leading Democratic presidential candidate who
opposed the war all along and he advocates a withdrawal from Iraq by
next March.
Howard responded by attacking Obama's position as "not in the security
interests of the USA or Australia." He claimed that Obama's position
"will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and
destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to
hang on and hope for an Obama victory." Indeed, stated Howard: "If
I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March
2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only
for Obama but also for the Democrats."
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul recently visited the U.S. to
protest legislation pending before Congress condemning the genocide
of Armenians in World War I. As a sidelight, he noted that, "We
support President Bush's new strategy and think it should be given
a chance." At about the same time, Egypt's Foreign Minister, Ahmed
Aboul Gheit, brought "a similar message" to Washington, reported
Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland.
It's very nice of these three allies to offer their opinions about
what America should do in Iraq. After all, they've done so much to
help the U.S.
Turkey has offered precisely zero soldiers. Indeed, in 2003 the
Turkish parliament refused to allow American forces to invade Iraq
from the north. Moreover, Ankara has threatened to intervene against
the Kurds in northern Iraq, which would spark a wider conflict.
Egypt also has done nothing to aid Washington. Though an ally, this
undemocratic state remains a serious problem for the U.S., stoking
anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world because of its
repressive policies.
To its credit, Australia has provided some troops in Iraq -- but not
many. As Sen. Obama archly observed: "Mr. Howard has deployed 1400
[men], so if he is [ready] to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would
suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them
to Iraq."
Howard naturally defended Australia's contribution. Adjusting for
population, however, it is about one-seventh the size of America's
garrison. Moreover, Canberra has no other global and few other regional
military commitments.
Washington maintains hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Europe,
Japan, and South Korea; tens of thousands more are afloat in carrier
groups and other ships that traverse the globe. Many more are based
in America, awaiting deployment abroad in an emergency.
The U.S. devotes twice the share of GDP as does Australia to the
military. Roughly 2.5 million Americans serve in the active and reserve
forces, in contrast to 71,000 Australians; the U.S. rate of service
per population is about 2.5 times as great. In 2005 Americans spent
$1675 per person on the military. Australians spent half as much.
Moreover, Washington is seen by everyone everywhere as the military
guarantor of last resort. If the Iraq war is to be brought to a
satisfactory conclusion, it is up to America. If anyone can stop
Iran from building nuclear weapons, it will be the U.S. If diplomacy
ultimately fails with North Korea, Washington will be expected to take
the lead. If Russia resorts to force against one of its neighbors in
the Baltic, Caucasus, or elsewhere, America may find itself at war. If
China acts aggressively against Taiwan, Taipei's emergency call will
go to Washington. If the Philippines ends up in a scrape with Beijing
over the Spratly Islands, Manila will look far away to the U.S.
If Australia finds itself facing military aggression from Indonesia
or China, Canberra will press Washington for aid. Only in this case
would Australia likely be involved, standing by America's side.
Allies can be useful, but only if they are willing to back up shared
interests with manpower, money, and other resources. Advice is cheap,
especially when it is Americans who are doing the dying.
What should Washington do in Iraq? There is no good answer, since Iraq
already has been destabilized and is sliding towards chaos. Like Obama,
I favor an expeditious withdrawal, which in my view is inevitable,
so better sooner than later. Many good conservatives disagree, of
course. But the decision is up to Americans, who are doing the bulk
of the dying and paying.
Doug Bandow is Vice President for Policy of Citizen Outreach and a
former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author
of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon Press).