Please explaining the reasoning of the NY Times

[Ned]

In an editorial today, the NY Times runs through a litany of security problems in Iraq and then concludes,

"The way to deal with all that is going wrong in Iraq remains as clear as it was on the day that Mr. Bush declared an end to major combat operations. No amount of razor wire around villages, secret spy agencies, tearing down of Saddam Hussein statues and money for American contractors can fix the problems. Instead of driving away France, Germany, Russia and Canada with financial sanctions, the president should be creating the room for compromise that will lead to those countries' sending money and troops to Iraq. That would help to create a secure enough environment for the United Nations to come in and take over the nation-building responsibilities, giving the occupation an international face."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/13/opinion/13SAT2.html?th

I understand that bringing in France, etc., would put an international face on things in Iraq. What I do not understand is just how the presence of Franch troops, etc., will improve the security situation - especially since the Times noted the major problem in combatting Saddam is lack of intelligence. Wouldn't the French troops occuppy quieter spots in Iraq just as do all the other non US troops? Wouldn't US troops continue to be the front line troops in the combat areas?

Or does the Times really believe that France will now take on a serious combat role in the Sunni triangle?

[korn469]

Maybe they believe that if it is an international operation it would be more difficult for Iraqi insurgents to portray this as an example of US imperialism. Then the insurgents would have less success in recruiting new fighters.

[mrmitchell]

1. Repeating 469, perhaps a few of the Iraqis will quiet down if it's multinational imperialism instead of only US imperialism.
2. If the French occupy minor towns, that's more US troops to handle the big resistance instead of keeping those minor towns.
3. What, don't you want to hinder the French by pouring their money down that hellhole? And you call yourself an American!

I wouldn't trust the French to the frontlines though. Hell, trusting them to the minor towns is a difficult choice to make.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by korn469
Maybe they believe that if it is an international operation it would be more difficult for Iraqi insurgents to portray this as an example of US imperialism. Then the insurgents would have less success in recruiting new fighters.

No, they'd just portray it as a sign of the growing power of US imperialism -- nations that were standing up against the US now falling in line behind them, the west uniting in a grand crusade, etc.

[Dis]

the NY Times is a liberal newspaper. Might as well accept it.

No I'm not some right wing whacko who thinks all the media is liberal. But you have to be blind not to see the left slant of the NY and LA times.

[Lord Merciless]

UN will chicken out whenever things get hot. Now they are thinking about quiting Afghanistan.

[Ned]

Originally posted by korn469
Maybe they believe that if it is an international operation it would be more difficult for Iraqi insurgents to portray this as an example of US imperialism. Then the insurgents would have less success in recruiting new fighters.

It is already an international operation with the forces of countries other than the US holding positions across the country. Their presence has done nothing to affect the recruitment that we know of. The problem is that US forces still have to have a presence and/or occupy the area of combat, the Sunni triangle.

Without more explanation as to how the presence of a French troops here and there would dramatically alter the situation in any fashion, I don't see how the NY Times position can be taken seriously.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
the NY Times is a liberal newspaper. Might as well accept it.

No I'm not some right wing whacko who thinks all the media is liberal. But you have to be blind not to see the left slant of the NY and LA times.

Is the NT Times backing up Hillary Clinton by repeating her mantra in its Editorial, or is Hillary repeating the NY Times mantra in her daily pokes at Bush?

Whatever. But they do seem to be on the same page.

[GePap]

Yawn!

The rationale is simple- the roots of the violece might be the slowness of the US rebuilding of some sectors and the political situation up in the air..two sectors in which support from France, Germany, and Russia would matter-and not a purely military matter, which is what the Bushes seem to imply, specially by saying that only states that have sent tropps can participate thought i fail to see the great contribution ot the effort some of the microstates in that list have made to te coolition, beyond giving it the appearance of a "coolition".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
...i fail to see the great contribution ot the effort some of the microstates in that list have made to te coolition, beyond giving it the appearance of a "coolition".

You gotta throw the dogs some bones.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dissident
the NY Times is a liberal newspaper. Might as well accept it.

No I'm not some right wing whacko who thinks all the media is liberal. But you have to be blind not to see the left slant of the NY and LA times.

sure, the editorial pages... but I don't think their regular news stories are necessarily biased. But even though the NYTimes might have a liberal slant on the editorials, it certainly isn't as biased as some of the right wing sources. And the NYTimes, except for Krugman, certainly isn't the stereotypical liberal in terms of economic issues. They are mostly "free-trade", etc...

Ned: That piece doesn't necessarily say that French troops will make the security situation better. It says "internationalizing" the occupation would decrease anti-American attacks. And they are right.

But then again, those who want to bash France will always see what they want to see regardless of what is actually said.

[Ned]

Well, I too would want the French and Germans cooperating on Iraq. I see that both Germany and France sent warm, congratulatory letters today to Bush. Their ambassadors were on CNN just now saying all the right things. Perhaps it is time to move on for everyone.

Baker will meet with the French and Germans soon on debt issues. I am sure that we can reach a deal if both sides are willing to compromise.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dissident
the NY Times is a liberal newspaper. Might as well accept it.

No I'm not some right wing whacko who thinks all the media is liberal. But you have to be blind not to see the left slant of the NY and LA times.

No, you have to be blind to see it, and listen to talk radio to tell you what to think.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Without more explanation as to how the presence of a French troops here and there would dramatically alter the situation in any fashion, I don't see how the NY Times position can be taken seriously.

The US military has said repeatedly it needs twice the number of troops in Iraq. We can't put more Americans in, they aren't there. Putting in French troops, then, helps us raise the overall troop level. Or don't they teach you math in the right-wing mis-education camps?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The US military has said repeatedly it needs twice the number of troops in Iraq. We can't put more Americans in, they aren't there. Putting in French troops, then, helps us raise the overall troop level. Or don't they teach you math in the right-wing mis-education camps?

Che, please provide a link to this statement by the US military. What I have heard is that the troop levels are determined by Centcom and that Centcom thinks they are adequate. Your statement flies in the face of everything I have heard about this.

What I have heard, though, is that we would like one more international division to replace one of our divisions in Kurdistan - a quite area by all standards. Placing a French division there would do nothing to change the facts on the ground in the Sunni triangle.