Cry "Unilateral Quagmire" - Two

Cry "Unilateral Quagmire" - Two months ago, the left was up in arms (so to speak) about the lack of other countries willing to send troops to help in Iraq.

As we predicted in this space last summer, now that liberation is a fait accompli, a good chunk of the rest of the world is signing up under a new US plan to split Iraq in to three and possibly four zones, controlled by US, UK, Polish and possibly Indo/Pakistani troops:

Under the planning, the British would maintain a headquarters to command a multinational division to be based in Basra and elsewhere in southern Iraq. That division would be made up of a British brigade and possibly forces from other nations, including Spain and Italy, which are expected to send troops.

Poland would also command a division and has offered to contribute a brigade of troops.

Let's stop right here.

That has to gall the French. During the war proper, the Poles contributed a commando company, a logistics ship, and a chemical warfare unit - maybe 300 men and women all told. The Poles defied French orders to close ranks with the Franco-Belgian EU against the war.

Now, they've leapfrogged into the position the French (and the UN) thought would be rightfully theirs.

The Australians, who have sent special forces to Iraq, are expected to keep a small military presence in Iraq. Other nations that are expected to contribute troops include Bulgaria, Denmark, Ukraine and the Netherlands.

Three more nations — the Philippines, Qatar and South Korea — have agreed to make other contributions, including field hospitals, engineers, and civil defense and mine-clearing specialists, the official said.

What do these nations - Poland, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Ukraine, the Philippines and Quatar? All are nations that have been forced to play regional second fiddles to nations that have faced off economically or politically against the US. The opportunity is now here for each of them to join the Anglosphere - and they're takign it.

A senior allied official said today there had been discussions about the possibility of troop contributions from India and Pakistan, creating yet another division of troops.

A recent and largely symbolic contribution is the deployment of some 200 Albanian soldiers.

Not entirely symbolic, though - they're from a European Moslem nation that has benefitted from westernizing without losing its faith. If the contribution is symbolic, one hopes the symbolism isn't lost on the locals.

As of now, however, the American-led effort pointedly excludes France, Germany and Russia, three nations that actively opposed the war.

A fierce fight over the role the United Nations will have in postwar Iraq is expected to be fought in Washington, New York and the capitals of Europe and the Middle East over the next few weeks.

So would someone tell me why the UN's presence is actually needed to "internationalize" this action?

Posted by Mitch at May 4, 2003 08:06 PM