I find it deliciously ironic that a new Kerry campaign theme claims that President Bush is not “in touch with reality” in Iraq when, quite evidently, the Kerry plan for Iraq is itself is completely out of touch with the military, diplomatic, and logical realities of the world in which we live.

Senator Kerry’s plan is premised upon the bizarre idea that, simply by holding a summit and ‘inviting the world in’ all problems can be solved. In last Thursday’s debate, Kerry callously dismissed those nation with “only” a few thousand or a few hundred troops in Iraq, suggesting that, if he were to become President, he could find many more. In fact, it isn’t really worth discussing the rest of the Kerry proposals in this area because everything that he says with regard to Iraq is set upon a fundamental assumption that a Kerry Administration would be capable of securing a much greater degree of foreign assistance. Absent that assumption, the rest of his plans are meaningless.

The Kerry fantasy for Iraq is based upon a combination of faded (and mostly incorrect) memories of the First Gulf War and wishful thinking about the military capabilities of much of the rest of the world today.

So, what are the prospects for getting more than a hundred thousand foreign troops deployed to Iraq? The answer, to be brief, is “poor.” Senator Kerry’s blithe dismissal of those nations whose contributions in Iraq number “only” in the hundreds or the thousands suggests that he’s looking for foreign contributions of massive, divisional-level forces. But where are these going to come from? Senator Kerry would do well to remember that the great United States only has ten active-duty Divisions in its whole Army. The average European nation just doesn’t have entire Divisions sitting around with the levels of logistical support available to deploy them to the Middle East.

Kerry’s recently been running around comparing the present-day coalition in Iraq unfavourably to the one assembled and used in 1991. Our present coalition, with troops from nations as diverse as Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, Ukraine, Japan, and South Korea isn’t a “real Coalition”, unlike the one that Senator Kerry is going to put together at his summit.

Of course, according to CNN, the US suffered two hundred and ninety three out of three hundred and fifty-eight dead in the first Gulf War or, in other words 82% of all deaths among Allied nations, versus 88% in this war. And the non-US death percentage in that war, I might add, was increased by thirty-nine deaths among Coalition troops from Arab nations which were poorly equipped, trained, and led and, therefore, sustained a high casualty rate. If you exclude those from the numbers, US dead as a percentage of all Allied losses in that war add up to 92%.

In order to replace the present US forces in Iraq, Senator Kerry would need something like 120,000 foreign troops (and that, of course, is only if the troops he’s getting come from other First World militaries). It’s worth remembering that the total of non-American forces contributed to the First Gulf War was roughly 160,000 and that, of those forces, a majority consisted of Arab forces whose contributions to victory were minimal.

To put it another way, the entire strength of the German Army today is about 230,000. The strength of the French Army is even lower, at less than 150,000. However, the French numbers are, in fact, worse than that in reality because French conscripts may not be deployed overseas in peacetime. In other words, even if they wanted to, neither France nor Germany is in position to deploy a substantial force anywhere. The relatively small force (around 20,000) dispatched by France in the Gulf War could probably not be matched by the much smaller French Army that exists today.

So, where else is Senator Kerry going to get these troops he wants from? The other major nations of Europe either already have troops in Iraq or are capable only of dispatching units which aren’t nearly large enough for the gentleman from Massachusetts. Canada can barely keep a few hundred troops in Afghanistan. So where are these foreign troops upon which the Kerry fantasy relies going to come from?

Kerry has suggested that Arab nations ought to send troops. Frankly, I can’t think of a worse idea. Leaving aside the fact that the average Arab Army these days would probably be defeated in battle by a Confederate Regiment teleported off the fields of Manassas to the present day, there’s the obvious matter of which Arab nation would be sending those troops. Jordan doesn’t have an Army large enough to make a meaningful contribution. Kuwaitis and Saudis deployed into Iraq (even if either nation were capable of making a meaningful contribution) would be a bad idea for more reasons than I can name here. Who else is there? Syria? That’d be a laugh, of sorts. Seriously, does anyone think that inviting troops from Arab dictatorships who have a vested interest in seeing the Middle East remain undemocratic into a fledgling Arab democracy is really a good idea?

Whatever useable forces Russia possesses are going to be needed in Russia in the years ahead, so they’re out too.

Beyond that we get into even more far-fetched scenarios. Does John Kerry plan to seek the deployment of Chinese forces into Iraq? Does he want an Indian Army Corps dispatched to Baghdad? Could it be that he plans on cashing in the points he earned with the Vietnamese Communists and asking them to deploy major forces into Iraq? I don’t know and neither, in all probability, does John Kerry.