Coalition of the Wilting

We are witness to a spectacular surge of violence across the entire swathe of the Middle East and Central Asia. Some would take it as proof that the clash of civilizations is already upon us.

Marshalling the forces on one side of this conflict is the United States of George Bush -- the greatest military power the planet has ever known. Indeed, if one were to measure the opponents by economic power and military strength, the victory of the U.S. and its minions would seem assured. It isn't -- as the current headlines make appallingly clear.

The United States seems to be waging not just a losing but an increasingly lonely struggle -- despite the mammoth amounts of money, men and resources they have poured into the region.

Afghanistan was the so-called front line in the war against terror -- the first country to be invaded by a U.S-led coalition after 9/11. America's NATO allies signed on to help with the venture. But despite bold words of support, the NATO countries took more than four years to finally come up with the troops they had promised.

Even then there was a catch. The governments of 20 of those 26 countries placed caveats on how, where, and when those troops could be used -- a total of more than a hundred different caveats in all. "You need a computer to figure out which countries troops you can send on which parts of which mission, said Teresita Schaffer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia. The last thing most of the forces are permitted to do is actually undertake military missions to hunt down the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The upshot is that the burden and casualties are being born by a handful of increasingly resentful nations, such as Canada. The situation may become only worse: the French and Dutch have indicated they may withdraw all their forces, while the Germans are "restudying" the situation.

What worries everyone is the recent dramatic resurgence of Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, operating out of havens in neighboring Afghanistan. It was to interdict such havens that the U.S. has been paying the Pakistani government upwards of 1 billion dollars a year for the past five years to conduct counter terrorism operations along their Afghan border. The money was to cover the Pakistani military's expenses for those patrols. That was the theory.

In fact, the U.S. is continuing those huge payments even though Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff announced eight months ago that he was drastically cutting back military operations in the very region where Al Qaeda and Taliban have been most active. There is also abundant evidence that Pakistani forces have turned their backs--despite alerts from American forces -- and allowed Taliban fighters to retreat across the border back into Pakistan. There is even a report that Pakistani forces fired in support of Taliban forces attacking Afghan outposts.

Washington, however, continues the payoffs to Musharaff -- fearing even worse to come if he were to lose his already tenuous grip on power.

Pakistan is not the only country being paid for such services. The United States has also been subsidizing Jordan hundreds of millions of dollars to patrol its border with Iraq.

Then there's Iraq. The "Coalition of the Willing" supposedly had 41 countries, according to an imaginative list drawn up by the White House in April, 2003. In fact, only five of those countries actually supplied military troops for the invasion; 295,000 out of a total of 297,000 troops who took part were British and American.

As was true in Afghanistan, the great majority of other nations that ultimately sent troops either confined their men to their bases or issued specific orders to avoid hostile engagement Even so, fifteen countries have withdrawn their contingents, while Britain's new leader has announced that all remaining British troops will be out by the end of the year. Their departure leaves America and 120,000 foreign contractors as the only foreign forces left to fight the Coalition's battle.

Even America's professional military are no longer that keen on long, repeated tours of duty. While the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a recruiting dream come true for radical jihadists, they've created an enlistment nightmare for the American military.

Though the U.S. army claimed they had met manpower targets for 2006, they managed to do so only by offering 700 million dollars in retention bonuses; and spending $300 million more for their recruiting drive. On top of that is the soaring cost to prepare each American soldier: $120,000 for training plus $25,000 for basic equipment. For that amount, the government could instead send each new troop to Harvard for three years.

Another 120,000 or more of those supporting the Coalition forces in Iraq are private contractors, many of them former soldiers from America, England and other countries, being paid hundred thousand dollars and up to perform what would traditionally be military services.

Though the private contractors in Iraq have received most publicity, in fact they are now filling lucrative contracts in the war against terror throughout the region.

Though the specific circumstances are different in each of the conflicts, the foot soldiers on the other side of that war lack the generous salaries and reenlistments bonuses, sophisticated military training and laser guided weapons, but as they are now demonstrating daily they are more than ready to die for their specific causes. What seems to unite them all is a fervid desire -- driven by religion and/or nationalism- to drive the foreign infidel from their region.

It seems to make sense then that adding more foreign occupiers, which George Bush seems intent on doing can only further inflame the situation-no matter how well paid and equipped those troops may be. That is the message that Washington's reluctant and disappearing allies are beginning to understand.