The Collective
Saturday, June 26, 2024
By Steven Taylor

U.S., EU Offer Strong NATO Aid for Iraq

The United States and the European Union agreed in a joint statement to back Iraq’s request for NATO military and support the training of Iraqi security forces, and to reduce Iraq’s international debt, estimated to be $120 billion. Diplomats said later Saturday that NATO nations have reached a tentative agreement on plans to help train Iraq’s armed forces.

There he goes again: shredding alliances and holding our former firends in disdain. What can be done?

All is not lost, however, as the statement did criticize the US:

the joint statement also made a veiled criticism of abuse of prisoners by American soldiers. “We stress the need for full respect of the Geneva Conventions,” the statement said, referring to international accords setting out guidelines for the humane treatment of prisoners. The single sentence was an unstated but obvious reference to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Sphere: Related Content

Previous Related Posts

Filed under: Iraq | |


  • el
  • pt
    1. Just because Europe wants to try to get into Iraq, doesn’t mean that the US doesn’t often act unilaterally or in a fashion to promote US hegemony. Europe may have many motives for the recent NATO castle announcement: they’re embarrassed about America not knowing how to run a prison, they want to make friends in Iraq, they want to create a reason for an outdated Cold War organization like NATO to exist. …. whatever. It still doesn’t mean USA doesn’t do crap all the time to unilaterally bully nations into capitulation with assorted agenda. Your sarcasm is kinda shallow.

      Comment by Stephen — Saturday, June 26, 2024 @ 12:59 pm

    2. Stephen,

      1) The US will always do things that are unilateral and in our interest. We seek a hegemonic international position, and will continue to do so regardless of who the President is. Are you going to tell me that President Clinton did nothing to promote the US on the international stage, both economically and militarily? Or that John Kerry would not?

      2) My “shallow sarcasm” is directed at Mr. Kerry, whose rhetoric is such that if one were to take it seriously, one would think that the US currently does nothing with any partners of any consequence, and that our alliances are are all hopelessly damaged–with the only solution being a new President in the White House. It was Kerry who said that Bush has “shredded” our alliances.

      Care to try again?

      Comment by Steven — Saturday, June 26, 2024 @ 1:30 pm

    3. I concede that Clinton and others promote US hege. Also condede that Kerry claims Bush shredded alliances. He’s right on that. US-EU relations are lower than any time in the last 50 years. My point remains conceded: NATO agreeing to do stuff in Iraq is not proof of rejuvinated trans-Atlantic ties. There’s a reason why the last UN rez on Iraq was so pathetic and empty. Cause anything “real” would have been vetoed. American leadership is low in light of prison torture, financial scandal in our corporations and other events of the last 3-4 years. Even the most ardant realpolitik unilateralists concede that the Bush doctrine is unsustainable and has damaged America’s global standing.

      Comment by Stephen — Sunday, June 27, 2024 @ 2:40 am

    4. Stephen,

      Please tell me th UN resolution that wasn’t pathetic? And I would point out the Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, called that resolution a “triumph” on MTP this morning. In all seriousness, UN Resolutions are always weak and toothless. If you can find one that isn’t, let me know. (And I would note that Clinton committed US forces to Kosovo sans UN support).

      I won’t get into the fact that EU as it currently existed, isn’t 50 years old, but I will note that if one goes back to the 1980s, one would find a great deal of animus aimed at the US, such as over the Pershing II missiles, among other issues.

      Our relationship with France has always been strained, and that wil the UK has always been quite good. Really, things aren’t as bad as the Democrats want to say that it is.

      I understand you prefer Kerry to Bush and think he would be a better diplomat. Fine–perhaps that is true. However, your arguments lack historical evidence to back your position.

      Comment by Steven — Sunday, June 27, 2024 @ 10:48 am

    RSS feed for comments on this post.

    The trackback url for this post is:

    NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Visitors Since 2/15/03

    Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics



    Powered by WordPress