Tuesday, August 10, 2004

Kerry’s plan for “peace” unravels, from the LA Times of all places:

"Kerry in recent appearances and interviews has been intensifying his effort to spotlight what he sees as the Bush administration’s mistakes in Iraq — especially the failure to broaden international involvement — as a fundamental difference between the two candidates. But Kerry’s proposals depend on changing the minds of foreign leaders who do not want to defy their electorates by sending forces into what many consider to be a U.S.-made mess."

“The French and German governments have made clear that sending troops is out of the question. British officials have made no such categorical statement, but they have expressed concern that their troops are overstretched.”

"Although Japan has supplied a 550-member noncombat force as a symbol of its international commitment, analysts there see little chance the nation would agree to send more."

"Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Andrei Denisov, ruled out a commitment of troops. “We are not going to send anybody there, and that’s all there is to say,” Denisov said."


“Senior Iraqi officials told U.S. officials this summer that they opposed the idea of bringing in additional troops from any foreign country.”

There is also the problem that NATO does not have the troops, logistics, and airlift capacity to deploy large number of troops for extended periods of time..

The fact is we are the only nation able to carry out large deployments for extended periods of time. If Kerry is elected, there is not going to be some magical hand that rebuilds European military power and grants them political will by divine providence so that they could deploy 80,000 troops to Iraq. It is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!