From The Guardian’s leader on Iraq:

America has to internationalise the solution to the conflict, not only by replacing its troops with troops from neutral countries…

Besides the “has to” (why?), the above sentence is typically of those who inhabit the completely bizarro world of those who think that merely internationalising something makes it inherently more moral, more acceptable, and more likely to succeed.

Can anyone name neutral countries who are able to provide sufficient troops with the hard-won counter-insurgency skills that the US army has developed? Given that Spain and Italy have already pulled out of Iraq, the EU doesn’t look willing, or even a competent alternative given their failure to place their troops in harm’s way in Afghanistan (with notable exceptions). That’s before you point out that they can hardly be considered neutral given Bin Laden’s recent pronouncements on the EU. On September 11th 2001, we were all Americans. Seven years later, we are all merely kufir. You don’t have to be American.

What about Turkish troops in Iraq? Hmmm, perhaps not. Syria? Well, the Iraqis might look to the problems Lebanon had, and do seem genuinely pleased to have got rid of the last lot of Baathists. Iran? Well, given past history, and recent history, they’d be as welcome as a diversity training officer in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan? Well, perhaps one jihadist insurgency is enough for them. African states? Well, Darfur seems enough, or rather too much for them, at present.

Perhaps The Guardian are expecting Aslan to arrive from Narnia?

Even then I’m sure Bin Laden would find him to be a blasphemous idol who should be beheaded.