noteworthy wrote:

] How much does he think the addition of French and German
] soldiers would have improved things?

That, btw, is a very stupid question. Countries like France, Germany, and Canada are not terribly useful in terms of the amount of actual soldiers and military hardware that they provide. The equipment and troops they do provide are not useless, and the sacrifices made by those men and women should be respected as one would respect any soldier's sacrifice. But ultimately, its about money.

Those countries provide significant amounts of financing to cover the operational costs of large U.S. troop deployments that they support. Lack of solid international support for Iraq ][ has significatly increased our national deficit. And an unlikely future scenario (which Al Q certainly hopes for) would be a rift between Europe and the US which was so deep that anti-terror efforts would loose international financial support. The U.S. would have significant difficulty paying for operations without causing major impacts on livelyhood back home. The economy would suffer. Flexibility would be limited.

noteworthy wrote:
] How much does he think the addition of
] French and German soldiers would have improved things?

Decius wrote:
] That, btw, is a very stupid question.

I disagree, but maybe the question has been taken out of context at this point.

The original question to Kerry was: knowing what you know now, would you still have voted to give the President the authority for war in Iraq?

Among the "things you [we] know now" is that, a year on, we'd still be struggling with an insurgency, with no drawdown in troop strength and no "out" in sight.

Kerry has said that he still would have authorized the war, but as President he would have done things differently. Well, okay, but what might have been the impact of those "different" actions or methods?

] Germany, and Canada are not terribly useful in terms of the
] amount of actual soldiers and military hardware that they
] provide. The equipment and troops they do provide are not
] useless, and the sacrifices made by those men and women should
] be respected as one would respect any soldier's sacrifice.

This is absolutely true, and is worth making explicit.

] But ultimately, it's about money.

This is worth some thought. If Kerry could have "done things differently" and convinced more of Europe to finance the occupation, reconstruction, and counterinsurgency, that would definitely qualify as a Good Thing from a US perspective.

However, more money, or Euros instead of dollars, would not have brought about the defeat of the insurgency or defused the tensions in Iraqi politics. It would have improved the American balance sheet by spreading the pain of the war bill more widely.

But the real pain to the Europeans may well have been far more than just financial. Consider Al Qaeda's response to Spain's involvement. If the French had participated in the war or funded the occupation, it's hard to tell how bin Laden might have responded, but one cannot discount the possibility of a Madrid-style attack in Paris or Berlin. Germans are quite well aware that the 9/11 plot was hatched in Hamburg. Bin Laden has specifically warned the nations of Europe that any involvement will make them the target of attacks.

noteworthy wrote:
] Kerry has said that he still would have authorized the war,
] but as President he would have done things differently. Well,
] okay, but what might have been the impact of those
] "different" actions or methods?

OK. This is a good discussion to have. I think its at the heart of this election.

] This is worth some thought. If Kerry could have "done things
] differently" and convinced more of Europe to finance the
] occupation, reconstruction, and counterinsurgency, that would
] definitely qualify as a Good Thing from a US perspective.

Thats one.

] However, more money, or Euros instead of dollars, would not
] have brought about the defeat of the insurgency or defused the
] tensions in Iraqi politics.

Its possible that a force that was considered broadly international would be less resented as an "occupier." The leaders of insurgency movements don't have resentment of the US as a motivation, but they certain feed off of it in recruiting support.

The way that people in the middle east in general perceive the nature of the war also has an important impact on Al'Q recruiting. If the international community, Arabs included, was "doing something" about Iraq, its a different story then if the United States is defying the UN to invade. It communicates a different message. If would have been more difficult to spin the idea that the Christian Infidels were attacking the holy land if the effort had broad international support. As it is, people in the Arab word are pissed off about it, and it feeds Al'Q.

] But the real pain to the Europeans may well have been far more
] than just financial.

Thats true, but those attacks would have been less strategically effective. The rift between the U.S. and Europe has driven Europe left. BL certainly seeks to take advantage of that. If he can whittle away at European support for anti-terror efforts (ironically by terrorizing them) then it gets more difficult for the U.S. to operate.

A Europe and US who were soundly united on international security and operating resolutely to handle it would be both stronger and more legitimate.

noteworthy wrote:

] How much does he think the addition of French and German
] soldiers would have improved things?

That, btw, is a very stupid question. Countries like France, Germany, and Canada are not terribly useful in terms of the amount of actual soldiers and military hardware that they provide. The equipment and troops they do provide are not useless, and the sacrifices made by those men and women should be respected as one would respect any soldier's sacrifice. But ultimately, its about money.

Those countries provide significant amounts of financing to cover the operational costs of large U.S. troop deployments that they support. Lack of solid international support for Iraq ][ has significatly increased our national deficit. And an unlikely future scenario (which Al Q certainly hopes for) would be a rift between Europe and the US which was so deep that anti-terror efforts would loose international financial support. The U.S. would have significant difficulty paying for operations without causing major impacts on livelyhood back home. The economy would suffer. Flexibility would be limited.

[ Agreed, but it's not Iraq v2.0 in isolation that boosted the defecit... all those tax cuts we made, concurrent with a vastly expensive war (and much more than projections) that really turned it to 11.

Also, on top of what decius said, I think the involvment of other nations was as important for the issue of credibility as any tangible aid. If the was had been executed under the auspices of NATO, the UN, all of Europe, etc. it'd deflect some of the rampant anti-americanism, even within the region. Just an opinion I have, though, and we'll never know at this stage. -k]