Mission up the Wazoo

NYTimes columnist is on a worldwide "mission" to mock our allies find more soldiers for the Iraq war. He's in Estonia, where he was shocked to learn that people consider their government's token commitment to the war more of a gentlemen's agreement than a moral stand.

[NYTimes] Many others I interviewed offered a more troubling answer. A student named Sven Kukenelk put it like this: "It's like an investment for us." By this logic, Estonia invests troops in Iraq, and then the United States will be morally bound to rescue Estonia if it gets in trouble with Russia... "It is in our interest to be friendly to the U.S.," [a woman] said, "because we are hoping that the U.S. and NATO will protect us if Russia attacks." So, on the basis of those 55 soldiers in Iraq, the U.S is now committed to using its full economic and military force to back Estonia? "Yes," she said. "That's exactly what we think."

I guess nobody told Nick that's how collective security works. It's called an alliance, my friend: you help us, we help you. His point that most of the world opposes the war is well-taken. It does not, however, follow that our allies are acting immorally or outside of their own interest. Estonia and her southern sisters have cast their lot in with the West, and they need America, England, and France to guarantee their independence. Is Kristof suggesting that the U.S. should not protect her weaker allies? That sounds like the height of unilateralism to me. Likewise, a war fought only by those who believe in it is a...coalition of the willing. Collective security denotes a willingness to fight on your ally's behalf even when it isn't in your direct interest.

This post is dedicated to the brave men of Estonia's force in Iraq...all fifty-five of them.