Åslaug Haga from the agrarian-left Centre Party wants to withdraw the Norwegian forces from Iraq, (150 people or so), following the attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad. This isn't news, she was never enthusiastic about sending them in the first place, and neither is it very important, as her party is small and superflous. What's funny is her arguments - you really have to admire this:

- If the situation doesn't improve, Norway should withdraw its forces from Iraq, says Åslaug Haga. [..] Haga believes that the government must increase its pressure on the American government to increase the security of the forces. She demands they must get in touch with the American government with concrete demands to improve security.

Ok, so unless the American soldiers can protect the Norwegian soldiers from harm, they're not safe and we have to withdraw them? Admittedly, they're there to do humanitarian work, not to fight the really bad guys, but we did send soldiers, right, not bureaucrats? And I hope they remembered to pack their guns?

The whole point is moot anyway, as the Norwegian forces are stationed near Basra, (where there's been fewer attacks), and are under British command. Foreign Minister Jan Petersen will look damn silly when he calls the Americans to demand that they do more to protect the Norwegian forces in Baghdad. "Um, sure, whatever you say."

This shows how repulsive neo-pacifism becomes when it descends from the heavens down to real life. I'm not entirely sure what our forces are doing in Iraq, but I have no doubt it's useful. And if the threat to Norwegian soldiers in Basra is nearly intolerable for Haga, it must be a lot more so for American forces in Baghdad - so by her logic, she would rather have Iraq cleared of foreign forces, and leave the Iraqi people to local, national and regional wackoes. And all this from a relatively minor attack. Imagine how she'd react if there had been ten times as many casualties, or more than a houndred times, as on September 11. No doubt she'd advocate starting peace negotiations with al-Qaeda. The harder the pressure, the more we should bend, the more evil they are, the better we should treat them.

Ridiculous. The die has been cast, and no matter what you thought of attacking Iraq in the first place, the only proper response now to increased terrorist activity in Iraq, is to continue what we're already doing, and more so. That means sending more Norwegian forces, to speed up the stabilization and rebuilding process, not withdraw the few we've got there.

I see that both Aftenposten and NRK have today run NTB's story about how two Danish jets were called in to strike enemy positions in Afghanistan. Apparently, the Danish strikes were effective, since, "after the planes dropped their bombs, the shooting [at American] soldiers stopped." The fact that Danish fighter planes, for only the fourth time in Afghanistan, engaged the enemy there should not be a big story. Yet it is newsworthy in a country where opposition even to the war in Afghanistan is significant.

Problem is, much of Western Europe -- if not most people there -- side with the wrong parties in the Middle East. Well-meaning people in Western Europe regret the loss of life that Muslim terrorists inflict upon Americans and Israelis, but they commiserate with the terrorists and cannot bring themselves, really, to condemn the attacks. After all, they reason, the Israelis and their American allies have cruelly mistreated the peoples of the Middle East. While terrorist attacks are morally reprehensible, of course, what other tools do the desperately oppressed peoples of the Middle East have at their disposal? So the argument goes.

Europeans have no stake in this war, they think. Some in the Bush administration had hoped perhaps that the attack on the U.N. mission in Baghdad might have aroused some in Europe to call for a more active military role in Iraq. I said the other day that the truck-bombing in Baghdad represented a moment of truth for the U.N. What will the U.N. do now? I asked. Europe doesn't see it that way, though. Not at all. Here are extracts from a commentary that appears on today's NRK webpage. The editorial is entitled, "Moment of Truth." "The moment of truth approaches in Iraq after the bombing of the U.N.'s headquarters, after continued chaos and new attacks on American soldiers. But what the Bush administration will do now is still an open question . . . United States is the target. The sabotage and terrorism has one purpose, regardless whom it strikes and who stands behind it: to weaken American and British credibility. The experienced American diplomat Richard Holbrooke was in no doubt after the attack on U.N. headquarters in Baghdad: 'This was an attack on the United States. We were the real target.' . . . The hawks in the Pentagon hope that the attack on the U.N. in Baghdad will turn international opiniion, and especially the mood in the Arabic countries, against those who stood behind the bombing and thereby benefit the occupation forces. Their calculations can easily go awry. The time can come, sooner than many believe, when the suntanned Hollywood-type Paul Bremer must kick off the army boots that he, with a lack of respect for an ancient civilized people, walks around in while at the same time wearing suit and tie. . . This is perhaps an insignificant detail, but it says much about the cultural and political arrogance which distinguishes the Bush administration's attitude toward Iraqis."

Link to the essay is here:

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/kommentar/3004967.html

The essay, as I understand it, says this: There is no reason to involve European troops in this war. Though the U.N. was hit in Iraq, the U.N. was not really the target there. The Americans are the target in Iraq. They are the target because, in their hobnailed boots, they continue to march over the noble, oppressed peoples of the world.

- Gill

Oh my! Well, good comment & analysis, Gill.

Actually, Ms. Haga's proposal is not utterly ridiculous (only seemingly so). Consider my own country's neighbor: yes, that would be Canada. In Canada, the military tradition (such as it is) is peacekeeping. And a peacekeeping mission presumes the pre-existence of "peace".

So Canadians do not view their military's mission as one of warfighting. Someone else must do that. And everybody in the West knows who that "someone else" is. Right. (Perhaps Norway is among the many Western countries with the same perception.)

So one can almost understand how Ms. Haga would want US infantry to get things sorted out before her own country's soldiers become endangered.

Bjørn, we have a similar debate (sort of) going on here concerning German soldiers in Afghanistan. The ministry of defence is currently checking whether it would be possible to send more troops there, in order to expand security beyond Kabul, which is a noble goal. Of course, the peace camp is foaming. I guess they would rather let a liberated country be ruled by fanatic extremists again, by which nothing would have been gained, than send a single soldier.

Btw, thanks for mentioning my blog in your sidebar! ;)

The thought occurs to me that if non-Iraqis are suspected of being involved in some way in Tuesday's attack on the UN headquarters, it might behoove UN officials to direct some inquiries at UN member states permitting transit of said non-Iraqis into Iraq. They could not have just fallen from the sky, after all.

If this thought has not occurred to Kofi Annan, someone ought to mention it.

I read here in the New York Times that Norwegian soldiers might form the core of a new multinational force in Iraq. Come again? Yes, this is what experienced American diplomat Richard Holbrooke is reported to have said yesterday to a Times reporter. It was NRK, recall, that referred to Holbrooke as an "experienced American diplomat" and reverentially deferred to the man's judgment when he said that the attack on U.N. headquarters in Baghdad should not be regarded so much as an attack on the U.N. as an attempt to undermine the coalition's credibiltiy there. (I would think it is both.) I respect Holbrooke, and NRK certainly seems to. And so, let's listen to what he has to say here: "I think Kofi Annan's suggestion of a multinational force which is separate from, but closely related to the overall American command, is the way to square this impossible circle and allow other countries to participate while preserving America's role," he said. And then, says the Times, "he added that Norway was ideal for such a role, as it is both a trusted NATO ally and one of the earliest and strongest supporters of the United Nations."

I'm a bit surprised, I guess, but NRK says that the guy is experienced and knows what he's talking about. I'll keep my eye on the Norwegian papers. If Norwegians are as enthusiastic as Holbrooke seems to think they are, then I'll expect to see volunteers reporting soon at recruiting offices in Oslo and points north.

It's sounding now like the U.S. may really cede some control to the U.N. in exchange for an international face on the Iraqi project. It saddens me to see how America has now come to be regarded everywhere as a pariah that none dare associate with. The U.N. in Baghdad did not want our protection, because it feared the stigma of being too closely associated with the coalition forces -- or, as NRK reporters would say, with the "occupying powers". No European nation and certainly no Muslim nation can afford to be seen working with us on this project. They will send troops, yes. They are not adverse to sending troops to Iraq. It is just that they cannot stomach the idea of taking orders from those "arrogant" Americans. Of course, American military men remember Bosnia and don't wish ever again to wage war by committee. This is why Holbrookes suggests an independent command for the multinational force. What Holbrooke envisions, though, is a separate army that, nonetheless, is subordinate to a unified American command. I don't think the French can swallow that. This is a hard nut to crack, but I suspect that the U.N. is somehow going to get a larger role in this. Bush has got to make more progress in Iraq if he wants to keep his seat in the White House, come election day. If the U.N. can't help put out a few of the fires in Iraq, it might at least shoulder some of the burden there, and that would help lower anxiety levels amongst the American electorate.

- Gill

As someone who was born and raised in Norway, I am utterly DISGUSTED with NRK, TV2, Aftenposten, VG, other Norwegian media outlets and their complete inability to report news events with even a hint of objectivity.

I remember that prior to the war starting, they (the Norwegian media) predicted numerous times, with their so-called "experts", that a war would cost hundred of thousands of lives and millions of refugees. They were of course WRONG.

They have been wrong ever since. Of course, the adult thing to do would be to admit their past mistakes and start acting like responsible news organizations.

Don't expect that to happen anytime soon. Their sheer hatred of Bush and the US supercedes any desire to report objectively.

Dude, seriously, this was the funniest thing I've read in the last few days.

I'm imagining this phone call: "Hello, my good American friends. These Norwegian Chappies are saying they'll pull out if you don't come over here and protect them. They, ahem, appear not to trust us you see."

Classic.

If you see Ms. Haga, remind her that the US offered security for the UN but they preferred to hire unemployed former Saddam Intelligence officials (the UN's old minders and security) to perform their security and they refused American security recommendations. Well, okay, they did put up a wall, but not in the way the American security recommendation said.

Kal
aka
Kalroy

It is fascinating and bizarre to read about the intensity of hatred directed towards the United States. The only question I would have is: Why do the Europeans love and support Saddam Hussein?
And leave Paul Bremer alone. He wear a suit and tie - how should he dress? Would overalls and bare feet satisfy his critics?

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/389

Tocq Magazine TocqLogBlog: What, did they forget to pack their guns?, August 25, 2003 03:24 AM

Bjørn Stærk blog reports from Norway that, in response to the UN headquarters bombing in Baghdad, Åslaug Haga from the