Iraq

Look. Very generally speaking, terrorism is pretty much a continuous religious war that started 700-800 years ago.

And the war in Iraq is more about crude oil than anti-terrorism, even my Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence admitted it eariler this year.

There is no right or wrong. Lots and lots of grey areas overlapping everywhere. We are not going to reach a conclusion here. So stop trying to convince the other person that you are right. Stop trying to disprove the other person's arguement.

 

Sorry this is probably too late to matter, but I've been busy elsewhere.

@ Paragon

Sorry I know this is the lounge, but this is one of those topics I can't get away from at school, so it's odd to see it crop up on a site devoted to a computer game.

There are multiple countries involved in the war in Iraq, yes, that is true. But the U.S. singled out Iraq and used it's power (through soft power and military aid spending) to form a coalition of countries willing to join us. The U.N. is a multilateral institution because it brings countries together as equals. While the P-5 group does have more power, in the general assembly the U.S. has no more legal power than Equatorial Guinea. Things are done by common consent and agreement and negotiation.
The action that the U.S. took in Iraq is seen as unilateral because the countries joining the U.S. are 1. of little or no help, 2. dependent of U.S. military aid, and 3. not viewed or treated as equals by the U.S. In short, they are more vassals than equals. They are told what to do in Iraq rather than consulted.

If you want to talk about the failures of the U.N. I suggest you read the federalist papers about how democratic governments are supposed to function. The U.N. is an attempt to democratize the way in which foreign states interact. In the General Assembly (GA) of the U.N. each nation is allotted one vote to use on each proposal. While the Security Council (SC)'s permanent membership system isn't exactly democratic, the U.N. wouldn't be allowed to exist without it. Democratic systems like the U.N. or the U.S. federal government have built in inefficiencies which prevent action from occurring. There is a greater ability to veto action than to create action. It's built into the very structure of a representative democracy. Further exacerbating this is the fact that the U.N. is made up of almost all the countries on earth (closing in on 200 here) and many of them have very different opinions of what should be done on a certain matter. Moreover, countries have territorial sovereignty with the U.N. is not allowed to impose on unless there is a very dire situation as per the U.N. Charter.

Institutionally, the U.N. is not made to facilitate quick action. But it would've prevented the U.S. from going into an unnecessary war unilaterally (which would have been a good thing in retrospect). Sadly, it also allows many bad things to happen as well. Yes, it's a problem, but it has helped and is continuing to help diffuse many situations around the world. The failures in Darfur and elsewhere serve to highlight flaws in the system, however, there are many successful peace keeping missions all over the world, such as in Lebanon, Haiti, etc.

Ever before in history? Or what exactly do you mean? Please back this up.

They just have to say they are co-operating to be co-operating? A major problem here is that you are missing the qualitative difference in many instances of co-operation in the war on terror and co-operation that would have occurred anyway outside of the war on terror.

Instance 1: NATO. Nato countries would be co-operating and drilling together anyway despite there being a war on terror. Contacts would still be raised. Troops would still interact. Nato co-operation has not really increased because of the war on terror. They acted together in afganistan (actually with minimal resources) because they were legally obligated to. Many of these countries have little or no impact strategically or tactically in Iraq or any other theatre in the war on terror.

Instance 2: ASEAN co-operation. ASEAN is a south east asian institution (not quite like the EU) which is becoming increasingly focused on military regional matters such as stopping and preventing pirate attacks on vulnerable shipping lanes in S.E. Asia such as the straight of Malacca. This is often mistaken for part of the war on terror because many of the pirates are in fact muslim and are pirating goods. However, this really has nothing to do with the war on terror. The fact that they are muslim is mostly coincidental. The U.S. often claims this as an area of co-operation in the war on terror, despite the fact that this would be going on regardless of any global jihad. The international co-operation of ASEAN members against these pirates would likewise also continue whether or not the war on terror was going on.

As for France, not my favorite country, but they do have a relatively sizable army, with good combat/peacekeeping experience in third world nations and the ability to project that force internationally. They make a much better ally than China, who's defense budget is just now catching up to France's while their equipment is incredibly substandard, they have no combat experience since 1979 and have no force projection capabilities.

Also, globalization will continue to make inroads because of the nature of the phenomenon. Growth and trade ties will follow local stability, which the U.S. really hasn't been good at creating in Iraq (the Kurds secured their part of Iraq without significant U.S. military intervention after the fall of saddam. I'm sure that there are people in Pakistan (10+ times larger population wise than Iraqi Kurdistan) who would love to join in on globalization, but can't because their dictator is supported by the U.S. Lovely.

In regards to S.E. Asia: It's not my specific area of expertise, but as far as I know, outside of Pakistan, Indonesia and the Philippines, not much IS going on regarding S.E. Asia. Excepting Pakistan's involvement in Afganistan and (dubiously) Japan, S.E. Asia has contributed little or nothing significant to the war on terror. They are not helping seriously in Afganistan or Iraq, nor are they helping in other areas such as Israel/Palestine. In fact, China and India are respectively aiding Sudan and Iran economically, which counters U.S. efforts in Darfur and the Mideast.

However, the U.S. through military aid has been successful against islamic militants in both Indonesia and the Philippines. That's about it for S.E. Asia other than a few S. Korean missionaries ending up dead in Afganistan and Iraq.

Also I bypassed S.E. Asia, because there was no real support for their aiding the war on terror to contradict.

 

Pakistan is right next to Afghanistan, they are helping fight against the war on terror and they are their own front on the war on terror. They cannot provide significant amounts of aid outside their own country because of all the islamist terrorists they have to deal with inside their country. Also, Pakistan's military prides itself in staying professional and not having people who are radical islamists. If they catch anyone like that in their military that person is expelled from the military. They are in the position to provide a lot of help in the war on terror and so far have been doing so.

Remember, most countries cannot provide a lot of military aid because they do not have a large military. Some countries are helping as much as they can and while it is not as much as the US, it is still significant for them.

I'll get to the other parts of your post later but I have to go back to work now.

 

I actually excepted Pakistan from the other countries of S.E. Asia as one of the few who do actually help the U.S. in Afganistan I said:

Also, yes many S.E. Asian countries have small militaries, but regardless they are not significantly impacting the war on terror. That's why I mostly skipped over S.E. Asia in my previous posts, not much is going on there. (Again except Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippenes). Also compare the amount spent on the war on terror from these countries and the amount they receive in American Military Aid. You'll find that most of the countries don't help that much more than they receive. It's not really a major increase in co-operation.


Also one more point:

They also are a haven for the Taleban outside of Afganistan. ...oops? The FTA (Pakistani Tribal Areas) are fairly ungoverned and a hot bed for islamic activity in the region.

 

Which is why cooperation with Pakistan's government will be critical in controlling those regions in the future. Many islamist terrorists have been apprehended in south east asia. It's a more important area than, say, south america. If you want to shun their cooperation then that's fine by me. But they are cooperating and things are getting done (some things slower or faster than others). Remember that all aid is not military aid. Countries have frozen the assets of terrorists and shut down corrupt charities used to fund terrorists. important Saudi religious leaders have spoken against the religious justifications of the terrorists. These are things the US could not do.

 

my contention is not that there is no (zip, zero) co-operation happening in the war on terror. My contention is that it has upset many more useful areas of co-operation (namely U.N., E.U., potentially ASEAN) where deepening co-operation has been set aside or delayed because of American unilateral operations in Iraq. It has had a net negative effect on global co-operation instead of the intended net positive effect that was intended.

These aspects of co-operation can't just be quantitatively counted (i.e. this country and this country and this country) but must also be qualitatively measured (as in, how much co-operation, on what levels, is co-operation mutually beneficial to both parties, how does the co-operation help or hinder either party, what is the opportunity cost of co-operation vis-a-vis non-allignment or co-operation in some other organization). The cumulative analysis (so far the war is going on so there can't be a final analysis), the net contribution to global co-operation has been negative.

You also have not really critiqued or negated my arguments on the E.U. or U.N.


Also Pakistan's FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas {I apologize for previously referring to them as the FTA) are autonomous from the main federal government and have some measure of independence when dealing in local matters. More than just the government of Pakistan has to be considered there.