-{SpoonmaN}-

America's biggest problem in trying to win over people in a PR conflict such as an insurgency is that they are so powerful. To many people, the larger and more powerful combatant is always going to be looked down upon as at worst imperialistic and more frequently as a bully.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

-{SpoonmaN}-

lol... it was pretty obvious to everyone that the US was going to go to war in Iraq, the only thing that was up in the air was the how and the long-term result. It's probably quite likely that the result would have been the same if France had participated, except that the US would likely have one more wavering ally.
And do not ever forget that alliance with Saddam is a crime that the USA, the UK, indeed pretty much all the major players in the Mid-East except for Israel have been guilty of at one time or another. He was always the murderous despot everyone saw him for in the lead-up to the Second Gulf War, the only difference was whether or not major powers thought it was convenient to act like this was a problem to them.

crooks

I love the way you put that man, and to a certain extent your right.

But what is this thing with how every american thinks because most of Europe will not fight in Iraq, they must be coward, gutless or have no military strength?

The French do not fight because they knew how big a screw up this war was going to be.

Not Spineless.

Smart.

Stan187

Americans are very much divided on the issue. I don't think that the reason the French didn't fight was just because they thought it'd be a screw-up. They had many more. Saddam owed them millions, and was a profitable partner. I think Europeans for the most part didn't fight because they want that oil to keep flowing, and they don't have too many alternative sources besides the Middle East.

The response to that is that of course, with their military strength, they could have gone in and secured that oil for themselves, theoretically. However, that would have set a precedent for military intervention on their part every time they felt their oil supplies were "insecure". Every one of these interventions would have a body count too high for them to tolerate, going back to my initial point.

Furthermore, European countries didn't feel threatened by Saddam. They have large Muslim minorties they didn't want to set off. I could keep going for days with reasons why the Europeans didn't participate for the most part.

I think an even better question (one OoE could probably better cover) is that even if they wanted to participate so much, would they have the capabilities to project forces in huge numbers outside of Europe? Meaning, could they have been sorta 'equal' partnerrs with the US, or would their contributions have been like that of Poland? Either way, I realize that this is off topic, and this discussion probably belongs in the Iraq forum.

Confed999

Laugh all you want, it's true.
Obviously not the French, or they would have at the least abstained. You know, to protect their investments.
While under sanctions? Either way, I never ever said that was not the case.
Yep. Sad huh?

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Confed999

No, greedy...

Officer of Engineers

What would you like to know?

Every ally directly or indirectly was involved and some even covertly. Officially, those allies who did not want to be involved relieved American commitment elsewhere including taking up the slack in Afghanistan.

Don't tell anyone this but CENTCOM didn't distinquish between naval commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq. French and Canadian ships were protecting the flanks of American CVBGs attacking Iraq.

As for possible ground forces, the ISAF commitment should be the indicator.

__________________
Chimo

Stan187

But a lot of the ISAF don't really go outside of the protected areas. In fact people are getting pretty pissed about it now, considering the Americans, Canadians and Brits are doing all the work. A friend who was in the 82nd told me that he never saw any French forces outside of their bases when he was deployed. I think the Germans participate(d) in some ops, but could be wrong.

As far as peacekeeping, I guess I just kind of want to hear the stories. What you did, what you saw, overall perspective, what was your experience.?

Officer of Engineers

I was not commenting on national policy, only on the available forces.

And the Dutch. However, up until this year, only the Americans were in direct combat while all other ISAF forces, including the Canadians and the Brits concentrated around Kabul. The 3 PPCLI BG and the RM 4Cmdo Grp did see combat with the Americans but they were with the US 187 Regt at the time.

French SOF are active but they answer to SOCOM, not CENTCOM. I don't know who the 82nd are assigned under.

Those are through out this forum and I think WAB has had enough of my bellyaching about the UN. Let's just I have very little use for those suits coming from NY.

Bluesman

Not ME, leader-of-men. I am at your knee for as long as you want to write. Seriously, I've learned a pretty fair deal from this forum, and YOU, professor, are a mentor and a sage to me. I say this having just come away from SOCOM, where I was surrounded daily by our best warriors, and while firmly glued presently to CENTCOM, where I'm challenged daily by the hardest-working, most dedicated and selfless team I've ever stood on the wall with - I just wish I could keep pace with 'em.

DAYUM, I sure wish you'd come down here - there are people here I'd be proud as Lucifer to introduce you to, and they'd think more of me for having you call me 'comrade'.

Write about what you'd like to say - we're reading it, and benefiting from it.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

ArmchairGeneral

Amen to that.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

-{SpoonmaN}-

No argument here, but thats politics for you. And I don't argue that France thought America was going to war no matter what, but I suspect the French knew the USA wanted to move in, but were more prepared to wrangle with them and Russia before doing do than they really were. In all honesty I don't see why the Bush Administration didn't flex some more of that financial muscle and bought the French and Russians off with aid and trade benefits etc., but I guess everyone was a little too cocky about their position before about the middle of 2003.

Stan187

Yeah, I second Bluesman on this one Colonel, please, write away!

Julie

I think so because France had alot to lose if we invaded Iraq, and they did call our bluff. Do you think France is oppositioning IAF jets to piss off the US in a point to make for the Iraq endeavor?

troung

An election in France is coming up; so one has to look tough. Can't have people buzzing French soldiers.

And another point is what happened a couple of years back in the Ivory Coast when 9 French Marines were killed on peacekeeping by a FACI airstrike. They want to ensure bombs don't fall on their soldiers by accident.

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway