Germany is reconsidering the deployment of troops in Iraq, should conditions ‘change’. According to the FT, Peter Struck, the German defence minister, departing from previous declared government policy stated in an interview that while ?At present I rule out the deployment of German troops in Iraq. In general, however, there is no one who can predict developments in Iraq in such a way that he could make a such a binding statement [about the future].”
The FT also informs us that Struck welcomed Kerry?s proposal that he would convene an international conference on Iraq including countries that opposed the war if he were to win next month’s election. Now I have already suggested that I think EU leaders would be ill advised to get involved in the US presidential elections (not least because I think any such intervention might well boomerang). I see no harm whatever, however, in indicating that national policies would change under changing circumstances.
No continent is an island, and the EU cannot afford to sit back and watch a disintegration of Iraq. It may seem a long way off, but it could rapidly come to feel like it was a lot nearer.
Perhaps the most significant comments came from an unnamed ‘official’
A senior official said: ?When the situation in Iraq changes, when elections have been held, or there are other developments, then we will make decisions on this basis.? If a democratically-elected Iraqi government were to ask the UN for support, the international community, including Germany, must be in a position to respond, the official added.
Full Disclosure: I am British, I now think the invasion was a mistake, but I think Britain has an absolute obligation to maintain the troop presence. I also think that the debate about who was right and who was wrong is better left for history, since, in the light of what has subsequently happened we now have more pressing concerns. I personally welcome the Kerry proposal, and would also welcome increasing UN and other international involvement. We cannot afford to let this one go wrong.
Addendum: Spain is also reconsidering. Jos? Bono – Spain’s Defence Minister -issued a statement to that effect last week, and then a lightening retraction in the wake of the ensuing controversy. This sort of thing is not unusual in Spain. My reading is that Spanish troops would once more be there, under the right circumstances.
It depends on what the European countries mean by their commitment. If the US has to worry about a constantly on-again-off-again policy of lukewarm commitment one day and vehement opposition the next (as illustrated by the European actions in the sanctions of Iraq and their participation in the UN Oil-For-Palaces scam) it would be better for Iraq if the US continued with dependable allies
If it represented a new commitment to the long haul in dealing with the Middle East, I would welcome the troops.
I’m hopeful, but I am also skeptical that European public opinion has changed enough to allow for a long term and potentially expensive (in terms of money and lives) interest. My suspicion is that Europe will wait until the dangerous forces are almost entirely defeated before they will be willing to get substantially involved.
It is one thing, Edward, to say “issues of who was right and who was wrong is better left for history”, except that the only way this sort of nonsense will change is if those responsible are made to pay serious consequences. The same crew of idiots that brought us Iraq were generally involved in one or another of things like Watergate and general Nixonia, Iran-Contra, and various skulduggery surrounding Iran and Iraq in the 80’s. At every stage of the game, as those were wound down, a decision was made to “leave issues of right and wrong to history”.
My suspicion is that Europe will wait until the dangerous forces are almost entirely defeated before they will be willing to get substantially involved.
One couldn’t really blame Europe if they did wait until the dangerous forces were defeated. After all, there were no dangererous forces before this stupid war. (Yes, we all know that Saddam had the ability to think of starting to begin building something which might have threatened somebody if he ever tried to sell it to somebody who might have wanted to buy it.)
…this sort of nonsense will change […] if those responsible are made to pay serious consequences
Unfortunately, this sort of nonsense is common thoughout the history of powers that insist they are: “right, absolutely right, couldn’t be righter, and besides its in our interests”, along with having the power to try to dictate arbitary policy. That goes for the Greeks, Romans, British Empire, KGB and countless others long before the Americans reinvented righteousness. The US is already reaping the consequences of its actions in Iraq. However, I fear that these nonsenses will continue until the US reduces its ability to impose its ideas du jour on whoever is in its way.
>I also think that the debate about who was >right and who was wrong is better left for >history, since, in the light of what has >subsequently happened we now have more pressing >concerns.
I agree that we have more pressing concerns right now – and I reluctantly support the idea of sending German troops for nation building and democratic stabilisation. Yet we have to dispense with the idea of a moral superpower-prerogative. It’s important to avoid gloating but as Eric Alterman once wrote – this mess is a clear-cut “I told you so”-situation. Even Fukuyama has come to that conclusion. Sure, Kerry will change style much more than substance – given that the situation in Iraq is not exactly improving – but should he be elected things will have to be reconsidered. That’s what I think Struck signalled today (possibly in response to Kerry’s body bag statement) – the chancellor’s retraction seems to have been part of the plan. I bet the Bush camp wasn’t happy about it. We’ll see if he uses ti tonight.
“the only way this sort of nonsense will change is if those responsible are made to pay serious consequences.”
I should clarify, Maynard, that I was speaking here from a European perspective. Obviously the US situation is different. Responsibility for the war should be a major issue in the elections, but I’m not sure whether simply losing them would come under what you call ‘serious consequences’.
I also think that Tony Blair should be held accountable for the way he presented the arguments for the war in the UK. (Aznar, of course, has already been ‘held accountable’ in Spain).
My argument in this post was more addressed to those here in Continental Europe who opposed the war, and even don’t like what the US is currently doing in Iraq now.
If there were to be an international conference to significantly rewrite the agenda, we need to be aware that what happens next in Iraq will affect us all.
Who say that the German troops will be there to shoot at the resistance?