Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I'm not sure. I think the Brits are sort of unique in this. There aren't that many of our "allies" (or Atlantic allies, to translate Kerry-speak) who still have troops with significant experience in colonial occupation (which is, let's be frank, what we are talking about, though we may hope it is not as long term as that characterization would imply), though some have decent urban pacification experience from Bosnia, etc. This isn't some peace-keeping bullshit.
Now, if the Russians approve sending troops (as they have been freaking out the French by openly considering), that will be helpful. Until the US is considered responsible for their methods, at least. Turkey would also probably have some relevant experience, but their participation is politically impossible for the obvious reasons.
|
The French and, in a radically smaller number of countries, the Italians, have continued to play a military role in many of their former colonies.
The other set of countries accustomed to serving as occupiers are the military forces of any number of third world countries, who effectively occupy their own country. These are the folks we've trained, and some of them (from Central America, for example) are indeed being used, though in very small numbers and from a very limited subset of countries.
Threaded Mode