Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (99225)	2/8/2005 1:53:50 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793914

Rice, so far, is looking like a real find. Other countries knew Powell was not trusted by Bush. They know that dealing with Rice is the same as dealing with Bush. Can anybody say "Sys Admin?" "We have a lot of experience with the building of functional institutions for countries," said Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. "This is a kind of assistance that we would like to make available to the Iraqi government." THE WESTERN FRONT The Cows Come Home Suddenly, France and Germany support democracy in Iraq. WSJ.com OpinionJournal BY BRENDAN MINITER Tuesday, February 8, 2005 12:01 a.m. If George W. Bush is a cowboy, then one of his most trusted hands just brought in a stray. Thanks to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent trip to Europe, Germany is now promising to rejoin the herd migrating toward Iraqi democracy. This was not how it was supposed to be. Last year John Kerry claimed only he could bring in the wayward European cattle. It turns out, though, that one of the chief architects of President Bush's "unilateral" policy is also a good diplomat. Ms. Rice won applause in every European country she visited. "We have a lot of experience with the building of functional institutions for countries," said Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. "This is a kind of assistance that we would like to make available to the Iraqi government." He added: "I very much am of the opinion, and we both, I think, know that the international community of states is now called upon to come in and help, and Germany certainly will do so." The "international community" is now behind the policy of building a stable and peaceful democracy in Iraq. What a turnabout this is from just a few months ago. Expect President Bush to find a warm reception on his coming European tour. It should be said that this was the likely result for whoever won the White House last November. Europe cannot long afford to isolated itself from the United States. Yet let us not discount Ms. Rice's magnanimity. Her poise, grace and eloquence make it easier for Germany to do what it would do anyway. But the bottom line is that Mr. Schroeder is promising to train Iraqi troops (albeit outside of Iraq) and provide other assistance, all while praising the recent elections there, because he thinks it is in his nation's best interests to do so. And he's right. Nation's are not second-graders, even if they sometimes act like it. Refusing to share one's military toys or threatening to not be their friend is not enough to create a vast trans-Atlantic rift. In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington noted that there are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests. The speech has often been used to justify an isolationist foreign policy. But in fact, Washington advised the nation to get involved in foreign affairs only when it is in this nation's interests to do so, while expecting the same from other nations. The original George W. didn't have a U.N. to proclaim irrelevant, so he simply said, "The period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance . . . when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel." That's no less true today. Even without a certain French-looking Democrat in the White House, France and Germany will align themselves with the U.S. when it is in their interests to do so. And the truth is, in the world today, it is in their interests to not be unaligned for very long. Two elections have forced "old Europe" to reconsider where its interests lie. Mr. Schroeder is burying the hatchet because he knows he must now deal with President Bush for another four years. At the same time, it is now undeniable that the U.S. is not fighting a popular insurgency in Iraq and is successfully helping a people liberate itself from tyranny. With the terrorists declaring war on the democratic process and eight million people voting anyway, the Iraqi people clearly want democracy, not another strongman. As Iraq stabilizes, look for Europe increasingly to back the government that emerges. After all, European nations need oil too and won't benefit by having chilly relationships with the new democratic Iraq. Of course, the forward-looking component of President Bush's foreign policy--liberating oppressed people through constant pressure (diplomatic at first) on tyrannical regimes--will continue to be opposed by France and Germany, among other nations. Old Europe isn't able to muster the military might to be much more than a symbol of unity in this struggle anyway. Besides, it's much easier to enjoy the peaceful world the U.S. creates, then it is to fight to secure that peace. In economics, this is called the free-rider problem--old Europe is taking advantage of America's success while avoiding risk. In confronting Iran and Syria or pressing for democracy in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, President Bush can expect little support from either France or Germany. But when American policies begin to succeed, when the U.S. leads the world to greener pastures ahead, we can expect all the wayward cows to return. Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays. Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

To: LindyBill who wrote (99225)	2/8/2005 2:16:30 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

Maj. Lechner found that his unit was capable of training Iraqi soldiers how to go into battle, but lacked the resources or time to train Iraqi officers to lead them. It will take time for relatively young, inexperienced Iraqis promoted to leadership positions to learn the basics of command and control, and to earn the respect of their men. These kind of skills are not acquired quickly. If we want to speed up the process, we ought to be applying more effort to training Iraqis to lead. Not a new problem. This isn't the Saddam model that they are fighting; it's the Arab model. Saddam merely had a more extreme and corrupt form of it. The most effective Arab armies in history were British officered, as the British did for the Transjordanian army pre-1948. I would not be surprised to see a core of American "advisors" (read: officers) left in place in the New Iraq Army as the American troops begin to go home.