Bush Gets NATO To Train Iraqis In Baghdad
Captain Ed
In a coup that will act to deaden John Kerry's latest Iraq broadsides, like calling the visiting Prime Minister of Iraq a liar, George Bush won agreement from NATO to supply training for new Iraqi security forces in Baghdad:
"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization agreed Wednesday to expand the training of Iraqi security force officers at a facility outside Baghdad in preparation for planned elections in January.
The compromise agreement, overcoming resistance from Germany and France, will expand NATO's training mission in Iraq from about 50 officers to as many as 300 personnel, the alliance said. The accord, announced at NATO headquarters in Brussels, was reached after weeks of debate and opposition from members who have opposed the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. ...
France, Germany, Belgium and Spain have said they would not contribute personnel to the training program. Among those countries, Spain had a 1,300-member troop contingent in Iraq, but its Socialist government withdraw the force after taking power in April.
France expressed particularly strong opposition to the training. President Jacques Chirac and top cabinet officials declared that the addition of more foreign troops in Iraq would not solve the country's security problem. France had offered to train Iraqi police officers, but only outside of Iraq. Germany had made a similar offer to conduct training in the United Arab Emirates."
Neither France nor Germany explain why Iraqi security problems would show no improvement with the addition of more forces but that removing them for training would somehow be more effective. I suppose that's the EU version of "less is more". In reality, the four countries offered nothing more than excuses. None of them have any interest in helping Iraq to its feet and would love nothing more than to see the US fail in its attempt to use democracy as a solution to terrorism. In fact, they made NATO stipulate that non-participants would pay none of the cost of the official NATO mission, a petty and somewhat cowardly act.
One of the more interesting developments in the story appears in the last paragraph, and it should be required reading for those, like John Kerry, who think that European participation in Iraq would resolve the purported troop shortage:
"In addition to worries about getting dragged into Iraq's violence, some NATO members expressed concerns that the alliance was overstretched, with ongoing missions involving 7,500 NATO troops in Afghanistan and 18,000 in the former Yugoslavia."
We have over 150,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and all of the NATO members have just 25,500 deployed anywhere ... and they're overextended. And the other dirty little secret is that the NATO countries lack the transport capabilities to get much more of their troops anywhere else in the world; they rely on the US for that. Simply put, outside of training, NATO involvement in Iraq or anywhere else only has political use. Militarily, involving NATO would be pointless.
Front Lines: Afghan Perspective On American Election
I received this e-mail today in response to my earlier post from the Army Captain in Iraq. This reader is an Army officer in Kandahar and offers his perspective on the earlier message and its implications in Afghanistan.
Captain Ed,
Just read your blog post from the Army Captain in Iraq, regarding the
insurgent's reaction to Kerry's announcement that he would pull out of Iraq.
I am also an Army Captain, and was recently involved in a similar discussion while visiting with some Afghan military/business leaders near Kandahar. They asked us "who was going to win the American election" and we told them that the latest indicators were favorable to a Bush re-election. Their response was very positive, and they expressed deep concern for their country if Kerry were to win. "The Afghan people are praying every day that George Bush is re-elected", they said.
There is a real fear that were Kerry to be elected, he would return us (American soldiers) to the United States and leave Afghanistan to the remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaida. Just as my peer in Iraq pointed out - these "Anti-Coalition Militia", if encouraged by such a development, are quite capable of biding their time and waiting for us to leave.
I too would have choice words for Mr. Kerry. It seems like every time he opens his mouth, aid and comfort to the enemy comes pouring out. The right thing is always hard to do, and there are thousands of soldiers over here doing the right thing every day - even when simple commitment and encouragement is too hard for some who would profess to be our "leaders".
Thanks for the chance to sound off - but I do need to ask you not to use my name if you post this. You keep up the good work on your end, and we'll keep it up on ours.
Just to be clear and fair, I don't think I've ever heard John Kerry talk about pulling out of Afghanistan. However, the retreatist/defeatist attitude that he espouses on the stump hardly gives confidence to our troops and allies in Afghanistan that Kerry will remain steadfast through difficulties, should they arise there. In fact, a retreat strategy in Iraq likely will increase the pressure on Western forces in Afghanistan, as the terrorists will know how to push the Americans out of the region and will not hesitate to use a successful strategy anywhere and any time.
captainsquartersblog.com |
