| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| Jordan to send troops to Iraq | |
| 2004-07-02 | |
| Jordan’s King Abdullah II said Thursday his country would be willing to send troops to Iraq, potentially becoming the first Arab state to do so. The statement marked a major shift in Jordan’s policy toward Iraq. Abdullah had initially refused to send troops. In an interview Thursday with the British Broadcasting Corp. television "Newsnight" program, Abdullah said he wanted to support Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s interim government, which recently assumed control from the U.S.-led coalition. "I presume that if the Iraqis ask us for help directly, it would be very difficult for us to say no," he said during the interview in London. "Our message to the president or the prime minister is: Tell us what you want. Tell us how we can help, and you have 110 percent support from us." There was no immediate reaction to Abdullah’s comments, which will likely be welcomed by the U.S. government. It was unclear if the Iraqis would take Abdullah up on his offer. "If we don’t stand with them, if they fail, then we all pay the price," Abdullah said. Abdullah said he had not discussed sending troops with the new Iraqi government. "I would feel that we are not the right people," he said. "But at the end of the day, if there is something we can provide, a service to the future of Iraqis, then we’ll definitely study that proposal." Abdullah said he was encouraged by improvements in Iraq’s security, but he acknowledged it was still the greatest problem facing the new administration. Jordan is dependent on Iraqi oil. "I feel optimistic we have strong, courageous leaders in Iraq ... but the challenges that face them on security is going to be their major problem, and they are going to need everybody’s help," he said. Syrian Information Ministry official Ahmad Haj Ali has said that what the interim Iraqi government should do is strive to get the U.S. troops to leave. Despite the promise of assistance, Abdullah said he perceived Iraq as a "sideshow." "The main problem that feeds on all the instabilities that we see in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian problem," he said. "Until you solve that, then we’ll never have the type of stability that the Middle East hopes for."
| |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #18 More nonsense. The new Iraq government does not want help from Jordan or any other ME country. They are attempting to mitigate differences between Shia, Sunni and Kurds already. Why invite more problems in an attempt to solve a problem? |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-07-02 3:52:45 PM |
| #17 It might work... the Jordanian army is probably man for man the second best army in the ME. It used to (still?) be officered by British ex-pat types. I'll bet the army is pali free too. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-02 2:46:56 PM |
| #16 Whoa - slow down! Sheesh - I should never have mentioned Israel! The comparison was only brought up for the purpose of demonstrating that official recognition is overvalued BS - and I stand by my statement. Iraq could happily exist without any UN legitimacy just fine - it might be a decent debate whether it's worth their involvement at all, in fact. Remember that the Iraqis know the UN, and on a more personal level than we do - and are not fans. Threats from neighbors - there is actually only one: Iran. By the time push comes to shove, that threat will cease to exist - wouldn't you agree? None of this is in a vacuum - Iran must and will be dealt with, either by nuke emasculation or regime change. Period. The Iraqis, once the elections are held, will not be inclined, IMHO, toward tolerating interference from Iran, Shi'a or not. Debts? Lol! What debts? This is where the real fun begins! Everyone will deal with the new Iraq, imprimatur of UN or no. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 1:57:12 PM |
| #15 havent we had a bunch of posts here lately about Israeli arms deals with China, India, etc?? The fact is that the "black balling" of Israel, outside the muslim world, is more a matter of words than of actions. And even inside the muslim world, to a surprising extent, IIUC. Theres more connections between Israel and Qatar, Morocco, etc than those countries care to admit in public. And of course Jordan has had a strong relationship with Israel for years, more or less under the table, even when Jordan was nominally at war with Israel. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 1:36:44 PM |
| #14 thanks for the compliments Dot com. Points though 1. Israel has never had serious issues of internal legitimacy. I dont think you can compare Allawis political position today to Ben Gurions in '48 2. Israel certainly has cared a lot about external legitimacy - FROM the West. Israel was born with a UN resolution - unilateral independence without that would have been a far bigger mess than the '48 war was - no weapons from Czecho and elsewhere, more open UK support for the Arabs, etc. Afterwards Israel cultivated support of US, France, Germany and (reconciling) the UK. Also put LOTS of effort into getting recognition from Latin Americans and Africans - in the '60s Israel had extensive foreign aid programs in africa, teaching about irrigation, communal farming, etc. A big deal. And beleive me, the gains in international recognition after Oslo were considered important by many Israelis, and the loss with the second intifadah is also important. Theres some dispute about how much thats effected the Israeli economy - the Intifada came at the same time as the tech downturn which hurt Israel pretty bad. So its not the MOST important thing, but its not unimportant. Iraq is less economically dependent on international legitimacy than Israel, since it exports a fungible commodity, not the mix of services and high tech goods Israel does. OTOH in just about every other way Iraq is more dependent on legitimacy - its less able (at this point) to protect itself from neighbors, it needs aid on a large scale, it has huge debts, it is more subject to subversion in ways Israel was not, etc. Again, im inclined against binary thinking. Its not UN based legitimacy is crucial, or its of zero value. It can be of enough value to offset a (limited) risk of subversion by muslims troop assigned to guard it. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 1:33:46 PM |
| #13 LH - Okay! I was (more or less, no more!) kidding you since you mentioned so few other missions. And therein lies the real problem. So few tasks that Arab / Islamic troops could be trusted to perform without making things worse, instead of better. Iraq does not need more of the same, it needs a break with the past more than any other single thing. Our US & UK troops certainly offer an example worthy of emulation. Some Iraqis get it and some don't. You're thinking things through, and making a good case - with certain assumptions (addressed below), so I won't argue against the uses, assuming the Iraqis decide to let any of them in. Personally, I hope they don't. The UN is a barely tolerable entity with much the same unacceptable baggage as those Arab / Islamic troops. Legitimacy is a farce. Reality just is and acceptance, or not, is a silly game fit only for the likes of Chirac & Co - and I mean every word of that. Every country in Europe and the Arab world could pretend that Iraq wasn't "legitimate" or didn't exist - and it wouldn't mean dick. Need I point out Israel as an example of a nation which has been thoroughly black-balled for 50 years, far worse than Iraq would be treated, yet flourishes when not being attacked by fuckwits? Just my $0.02. Raw opinion differences aside, lol!, your comments are well-considered and appreciated! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 1:18:52 PM |
| #12 dot com, im not, but thats where the urgent need for troops comes in. Basically the existing coalition troops are holding on, if overstretched, and the ongoing plan is to stand up more and better Iraqi forces. Same as the plan has been for months. The new UNSC resolution adds a wildcard - the UNHQ in Baghdad - which i know y'all dont like, but is widely considered important to gaining (at least external) legitimacy for the Iraq govt, and to providing technical help on reconstruction and elections (and yeah, before you get all snarky, there ARE UN folks who have lots of experience at doing this sort of thing - in East Timor, Cambodia, etc) But theres no troops for that, locals arent really considered acceptable, and there was real nervousness that Coalition forces would have to be pulled from more urgent task to do this sort of thing. Putting in Jordanians, Yemenis releases the better coalition forces to do more important stuff. The logic is this - UN protection is at the BOTTOM of the task list, though it MUST be done. So you put the least desirable troops - the third world troops - on that detail. The Jordanians are the best of the worst. Now if we get enough Yemenis, Pakis, Bangladeshis etc to guard the UN, then by all means release the Jordanians somewhere else, and Id say the Syrian or Iranian borders sound good. But lets NOT put US troops around UNHQ while we have Jordanians available. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 12:52:28 PM |
| #11 Wow, I agree with all you have said on this thread, LH. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-02 12:40:36 PM |
| #10 LH - Why not to bolster / back the Iraqis on the Iranian border - there would certainly be no love lost in that neighborhood. You certainly seem rather excessively concerned with the UN, lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 12:38:42 PM |
| #9 1. IIUC, the infiltrators are coming via Syria, Iran, and Saudi. Jordan border not the problem. 2. Put them on the Syrian border - maybe. But thats a REAL military problem, more so than standing guard outside a UN building. Im not sure the Jordanians are THAT good, that I want them on the border, and US troops guarding the UN. And thats anbat province - US Marines there swing between aggressive work on the border, and work in Ramadi and Fallujah. Way too sensitive to put Jordanians in (well the Fallujans might prefer Jordanians to Yanks, but im enough of a hardliner on Fallujah that I wouldnt trust anyone other than A. Yanks or B. The best Iraqis available to take care of it) OTOH one could post Jordanians to routine border work, and switch Iraqis to UN guards. I think its preferred that the Iraqis police their own border, while foreigners are preferred for UN guard duty, obviously a natural for outsiders. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 12:29:11 PM |
| #8 I think Dr Steve has bridged the gap for us, LH! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 12:21:06 PM |
| #7 So put the Jordanian troops to work securing their border with Iraq. Or better yet, Syria's border with Iraq. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-07-02 11:55:18 AM |
| #6 1. Of course Abdullah thinks the Israel - Pal problem is the main problem - he is next to door to it, and half his population is of Pal descent. This is obvious, not a sign hes a baddy. Note that he seems to be cooperating with attempts to isolate Arafat 2.AFAIK the Jordanian army is primarily of Beduin origin, not Pal, is not Islamist, and is quite loyal to the royal family. Its also the best army in the arab world - the one that least "fight like arabs". In particular in '67 it was the one that, man for man, fought best against the Israelis. 3. There wont be enough of them sent to Iraq to install a new ruler, and they may well be given a task that keeps them away from politics. In particular the US wants the UN there to help run elections, etc and there will need to be guards for the UN - and we sure dont want to divert coalition troops for that task. Jordanians could serve for that. 4. This breaks the ice - Yemen has already offered, and we should get other offers soon. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-02 10:13:25 AM |
| #5 hmmm...and his father rode a Hallaby. The coincidence is eerie! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-02 9:23:15 AM |
| #4 .com said: He also rides a Harley DF says:So does Kerry! |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-07-02 9:03:59 AM |
| #3 This would be the bad idea of the decade. Jordan is not a moderate state, its people are just as indoctrinated with anti-West and Jooo hatred as the Paleos and Egyptians, and Abdullah is merely riding the tiger - he's not in control. He also rides a Harley, okay, that's nice, but it doesn't mean dick. Jordanian troops. Right. Next! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-02 9:02:32 AM |
| #2 Remember that the Jordanian royals are related to the former Iraqi royals. I'm sure the King of Jordan would like to help, and I'm sure the Iraqis will gently turn down his offer. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-07-02 8:29:23 AM |
| #1 Brigades, right? |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-07-02 4:13:30 AM |