What Good Are “Important Allies” Who Don’t Help Us?
As I was reading a snide editorial in the WAPO about Bush’s decision to cut nations that aren’t helping us in Iraq out of the prime Iraqi contracts, I ran across a couple of paragraphs that I thought were worth responding too because they’re echoed common themes we’re hearing regularly from the left. From the editorial…
“YES, OF COURSE, President Bush’s latest initiative on Iraq is arrogant and self-defeating. But that’s not the most remarkable aspect of his decision to exclude companies from a number of countries that are important U.S. allies from bidding on reconstruction contracts. After all, a spiteful unilateralism has characterized the administration’s handling of postwar Iraq all along, and it’s an important reason why the United States must now face daunting military and political challenges nearly on its own.
…Mr. Bush and his Pentagon hawks may believe they are meting out just punishment to countries that have opposed the mission in Iraq. But there will be little cost to Germany, France, Canada or Russia. Instead, the real price will be paid by Iraqis and the American soldiers and civilians trying to help them. They will have to continue an uphill struggle to stabilize and rebuild Iraq without substantial support from many of the world’s richest and most powerful nations.”
I’m sorry, but the WAPO is being willfully ignorant here. It’s all well and good to talk about our “important U.S. allies,” but if they’re our “allies” and they’re so “important,” where have they been?
When Bush spent month, after month, after month trying to get the UN to enforce their own resolutions, what were our “important allies” France and Germany doing? I’ll tell you what they were doing, they were doing everything they could to undercut us. Then when we went into Iraq, where was France, where was Germany? Where were the Canadian special forces, where was the Russian Spetsnaz? They were nowhere to be found. Moreover, the statue of Saddam was pulled down in Fardus Square back in April and it’s now December. Has Putin offered to send troops? What about Chirac, Schroeder, or Chretien? If they were really “important allies,” they wouldn’t have been sitting on the sidelines.
I point all this out not only because it’s true, but because it shows what piffle this line is,
“Instead, the real price will be paid by Iraqis and the American soldiers and civilians trying to help them. They will have to continue an uphill struggle to stabilize and rebuild Iraq without substantial support from many of the world’s richest and most powerful nations.”
The WAPO just doesn’t get it. These nations didn’t give us any “substantial support” and there was none coming. France and Germany weren’t “just about to help us out”. Russia wasn’t planning on doing us any favors. Canada wasn’t itching at the bit to send a couple of divisions over. They’re don’t share our goals, they’re not with us, they’re not on the same page, they’re not our “important allies” when it comes to Iraq, and they’re not going to be.
That’s why it’s so important to reward nations that are really our “important allies,” like Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain, & Italy. Since they helped us out, they DESERVE to be given perks that the nations that told us to take a hike aren’t eligible for. That’s how you keep “important allies” and convince nations that weren’t our “important allies” this time that they should get on board the next time we do something like this. That’s not a tough concept to get….well unless you’re an anti-war liberal or work for the WAPO.