In cooperation, say, with NATO or the UN or the coalition. If they decided to take a big share of the load (and how would we define that in a positive fashion; aside from present contributions such as the division led by the Poles, what role and in what numbers exactly would we most welcome further growth of members of the coalition?
Would we really want any Russian, Pakistani, Indian, Chinese, Malaysian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Bostwanan, Ghanaian, Malian, SA/Zim, other Eastern European or Central Asian troops?
Good Lord, I suppose French troops might be the best we could hope for, in terms of partners we have not yet with us. I might say Japan, though it must be that those hostages were all released alive and unharmed, because I had not noticed an expeditionary force arriving as hoped from JSDF. Or others I have yet to mention.
The Russians and possibly any mix of former Eastern Bloc states might (Russians surely could) provide reasonably valuable services to the coalition mission in Iraq. One function they might serve, of course, is in sheer numbers and short commutes. But a) can they interoperate, b) are they stand-up and/or talented individuals, c) can they really be trusted?
Say Putin comes to Washington and tells Bush: "Hey tovarishch, you can go home now. I have great news! The Duma has authorized me to offer 200,000 troops. When do you want 'em and how are they gonna eat? Or at least we can stay and keep you company. Damn if former Soviet troops can't run convoys like anybody else. We got a zillion guys speak the language...Hey, we'll translate for you! Want to give us some intelligence files to work on? Maybe we can sort out some of these bustards for you the old-fashioned way as long as you can keep the media off of us (or won't miss 'em)."
What does President Bush say?
Comments welcome.
|
