Dealing With the Allies

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

There’s been a lot of generally sensible guffawing at Senator Kerry’s promise to win over the French and Russians in the war on terror. But there’s been less attention paid to how President Bush has dealt with America’s most critical ally, Great Britain. The answer is: Terribly. Every time I talk to pro-war British friends, they point out how they feel unconsulted, abused, and generally dissed by this administration. They remember Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s spectacularly stupid remark before the war that the Brits were dispensable; and Mr. Bush’s own radioactive personality in Europe means that any British leader who wants to support him must also consider political suicide. Look at what is happening now. A simple redeployment of a few hundred British troops to relieve American troops in Baghdad while they prepare to tackle Fallujah should be a no-brainer. Instead, it has led to parliamentary uproar. The lesson is clear: Mr. Bush has made any future military alliance with even the Brits a near-impossibility. The British people won’t allow it. The Tories are now anti-Bush; almost the entire Labor party is anti-Bush; the Liberal Democrats are pathologically anti-Bush. And this is the success story of Mr. Bush’s diplomacy. Again, the worst thing about this is that it undermines our ability to wage this kind of war in future. When you lose the Brits and half your own country in a vital war, you’re in trouble. I’m sorry, but it’s time the prowar camp began to deal with this.


Quote of the Week


“I will not kneel before these terrorists. If I don’t join the army, who is going to defend the country from the terrorists?” – An Iraqi recruit, after yet another hideous terrorist assault on an Iraqi National Guard building. He’s a hero – as are so many Iraqis trying to rebuild their country in the face of Jihadist and Baathist murder. I haven’t given up on Iraq. You have to believe that, given a real choice, Iraqis will vote for a democratic and free future, not the medieval depravity available in Iran and elsewhere.


The Missing Issue


It does strike me as astounding that in four debates lasting six hours, the horrors of Abu Ghraib were never mentioned. Remember when we were reeling from the images? They remain the most spectacular public relations debacle for this country at war since Vietnam. And we know the underlying reasons for the abuse and torture: the prison was drastically undermanned and incompetently managed, the Pentagon had given mixed signals on what constituted torture, the CPA had no idea that it might be dealing with an insurgency and was dragging in all sorts of innocents to extract intelligence in a ham-handed manner. Although the administration has clearly done all it can to stymie Congressional investigations, it has become clear that responsibility for the chaos ultimately stops at Mr. Rumsfeld’s desk. No, it wasn’t a systematic policy. It was a function of what wasn’t done, rather than what was done – and, in that, it remains a symbol of everything that has gone so wrong in Iraq. Mr. Bush, of course, barely mentioned it at the time. He has no ability to stare harsh reality in the face. And so his silence in the debates is not surprising. But Mr. Kerry’s is – and reveals a worrying lack of courage. Mr. Kerry is afraid that criticizing Abu Ghraib will make him look like a war critic, or anti-American, or somehow responsible for weakening morale. Vietnam hovers over him. It shouldn’t. What happened was unforgivable negligence and evil, a horrendous blow to American moral standing – as well as simply an outrage on a human and moral level. It didn’t affect Iraqis’ views: they tragically already believed we were as bad as these images portrayed. But it was a fatal blow to domestic morale. That’s why it should be a part of this campaign. And also why it isn’t.


E-mail From The Front


“I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:


“It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: What is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, ‘What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can’t even answer simple questions like 2 + 2 = 4.’ That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently ‘the answers obvious.’ But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.


“But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn’t take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win – win ugly if needs be – is priceless. One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WW II for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we’ve experienced so far in Iraq).


“Mr. Kerry doesn’t understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there – like the soldier in the movie – paralyzed by America’s mistakes.”



Mr. Sullivan writes every day for www.andrewsullivan.com.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use