It Makes a Difference to the Sheep

Cartoon courtesy of Kevin Kallaugher


"Diplomacy" 

Can anyone explain to me why France, Germany, Russia, China et al are going to be more likely to send troops to Iraq just because Kerry asks them nicely? Given that these nations generally make foreign policy decisions based on perceived interests and not on personal pique, given that Kerry stated in his DNC speech that any additional U.S. troops that he would muster would be "not for Iraq," and given that Kerry has also characterized Iraq as a quagmire, a mess, a situation that is worsening, can anyone explain to me why I should expect more international cooperation in Iraq to be the result of a Kerry Administration? Anyone? .... Anyone? Note that this is a case in which I actually hope that I am wrong.

UPDATE: If this Financial Times article is correct, Kerry's hopes are fading fast (thanks to Daniel Drezner for the link)

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Mr Kerry, who has attacked President George W. Bush for failing to broaden the US-led alliance in Iraq, has pledged to improve relations with European allies and increase international military assistance in Iraq.

"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

I wonder what Kerry's response to this will be?

UPDATE II: An anonymous comment on this post takes me to task for not reading the more equivocal language that appears later on in the Financial Times piece. Mea Culpa. The caveats contained therein do make it less certain that a Kerry Presidency might fail in its quest to get French and/or German troops on Iraqi soil.

On the other hand, I stumbled across this International Herald Tribune article that seems fairly unequivocal, at least in the case of Germany:

But last week, just after Kerry's major speech on the war in which he insisted that the United States "must make Iraq the world's responsibility" and that others "should share the burden," Schröder's sense of courtesy collided with reality and he drove a spike into the notion. He told reporters, "We won't send any German soldiers to Iraq, and that's where it's going to remain."

.

More later on in the article:

So, suggesting that with Kerry's big Iraq statement under their belts it was now a good time for the Allies to ask themselves who would be a better American president for them, Süddeutsche pointed the question rhetorically at Gerhard Schröder, and then responded in his stead.
.
"The answer: Bush," the newspaper, a constant critic of the president, wrote.
.
As for the Democrat, Süddeutsche said Kerry "is suggesting that he can produce a little miracle and seduce America's battered friends into high-yield performances along the lines of Washington's wishes." For all of Kerry's opportunity to create a foreign policy with greater credibility and legitimacy, that was not realistic, it said. Schröder couldn't send Bundeswehr troops to Iraq, and there would be "no morning-after special gift for a President Kerry."

.

As for France?

Similar considerations also work for France. It would take exceptional sophistry for President Jacques Chirac to explain putting French lives on the line in Iraq. Besides, sidling up to any American president would not appear to have much appeal to Chirac at a time when Le Figaro says he's busy promoting himself as successor to Nehru and Nasser in leading the "nonaligned world."

I conclude that the burden of proof is still on Kerry to demonstrate how he can overcome these significant obstacles.