Coalition of the Willing falling apart?

[chequita guevara]

First Spain, then Poland, now South Korea?

Some in Bush's 'coalition of the willing' are suddenly losing their will

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Burns

March 19, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's prized ``coalition of the willing'' -- the three dozen countries that are contributing military forces in Iraq -- appears suddenly to be losing some of its will.

First Spain said it was getting out, then Poland said it might leave early, and on Friday the South Korean Ministry of Defense announced that it will not send its troops to the area of Iraq that U.S. commanders had requested, although it said it would position them elsewhere in Iraq.

The coalition may not be crumbling, but neither is it gaining the political traction that the Pentagon had hoped for as it tackles the difficult task of finding fresh forces for the Iraq mission in 2005 and beyond.

A key element of the Bush administration's strategy for Iraq is to put an international face on the military force that is not only helping rebuild the country but also to trying to snuff out a resilient insurgency.

That strategy is meant to counter the charge by critics that the administration took a unilateral action in attacking Iraq, and that it has failed to garner sufficient allied support in the war's aftermath.

It's possible, of course, that security conditions in Iraq will improve so markedly over the remainder of this year that a military force much smaller than the current one of about 140,000 will be required. In that case the United States may not need additional allied troop contributions.

But if the insurgency persists or gains ground, then any slack in coalition contributions _ as suggested by Spain, Poland and possibly South Korea _ may have to be made up by deploying even more American forces.

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an Associated Press interview Thursday that there are now about 115,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, plus about 24,000 coalition troops. Nearly half of the coalition contribution is from staunch ally Britain.

Pace said it was too early to conclude that Spain will follow through on its pledge to withdraw.

"It's not clear that Spain will withdraw,'' he said. The new government has indicated ``there are conditions under which they can stay, and that would be up to their sovereign government to make their

Spain's Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who gained office in an election held just three days after terrorist train bombings that killed 201 people in the Spanish capital, said Wednesday that the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq ``is turning into a fiasco.'' He said he will pull 1,300 Spanish troops out of Iraq unless the United Nations takes control of military mission.

Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, said in a CNN interview Thursday it was up to the Spanish government to decide whether to end its role as a key American military ally in Iraq.

"Whatever they decide about their forces in Iraq, that's up to the Spanish government,'' she said.

Poland's President Aleksander Kwasniewski said Thursday that his country might pull its 2,400 troops out of Iraq early next year, about six months ahead of schedule. Polls show about half of Poles are opposed to involvement in Iraq. Kwasniewski said he was misled by Bush administration assertions before the war that Saddam Hussein had threatening stockpiles of germ and gas weapons. No such weapons have been found.

Kwasniewski's comments were the first by a Polish leader to raise doubts about the intelligence behind Washington's decision to go to war and the latest signs of a weakening of support for the war among coalition members. He tempered his remarks by stressing that Poland has not intention of abandoning its role in Iraq, and said Iraq was a better place without Saddam.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Thursday would not comment directly on Kwasnieski's remarks.

"Poland is a strong ally in the war on terrorism and we appreciate their strong support,'' McClellan said. "They reaffirmed they stand with us in the war on terror.''

South Korea's announcement, which had not been foreseen in Washington, may be more problematic.

U.S. commanders had counted on South Korea to send about 3,600 troops to the Kirkuk area of northern Iraq, to be part of a multinational force led by the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division. Without the Koreans there, the Pentagon might have to find another U.S. ground unit to fill the gap.

A Defense Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "We value South Korea's contribution in fighting terrorism as we value the contributions of the more than 90 countries that have joined the coalition in fighting terrorism. It is up to each country to decide what type, duration and scope of support it may provide the coalition.''

What a great leader we have.

[monkspider]

Interesting, people are slowly waking up. It will not be an easy road ahead, but we are getting there.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by monkspider
Interesting, people are slowly waking up. It will not be an easy road ahead, but we are getting there.

We are getting there alright, slowly but surely, appeasement to the terrorists. Congratulations, you are winning.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Defiant


We are getting there alright, slowly but surely, appeasement to the terrorists. Congratulations, you are winning.

Thanks

Terrorists

[Japher]

SDNWOTI

[Pekka]

Defiant, No, terrorists wins if we start arguing. Why? Well look at it like this, there is no West anymore like it used to be. In hostilities, there is no referee, because the refs are in the ring while the terrorists laugh their butts off. And then when it's all over, we can look at ourselves and see we lost it all, and it was our fault and we well never get something as big EVER.

That's the real problem, not this. This is nothing, this is small and petty. Let's just suck it up and get over it everyone.

[Solly]

Thanks to the weak wills of the terrorist-appeasers.

[Pekka]

Park Avenue, and that kind of talk only feeds Terrorists.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why do you think the Poles are willing to pull out?

I heard, that their president said "We were misled BY SADDAM HUSSEIN about WMD," not by Bush.

You've been decieved by the translators.

[Solly]

"Park Avenue, and that kind of talk only feeds Terrorists."

No, it's those kinds of will that feed the terrorists.

People like me are just the messengers.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why do you think the Poles are willing to pull out?

I heard, that their president said "We were misled BY SADDAM HUSSEIN about WMD," not by Bush.

You've been decieved by the translators.

They mistranslated "Saddam Hussein" to "George Bush"?


I can understand that.

[Japher]

You've been decieved by the translators

Not the translators, the liberal media

[Ben Kenobi]

"But naturally I also feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction," he said, according to a transcript released by the presidential press office. "

Now, where does this statement explicitly refer to Bush?

Secondly, the erstwhile reporters left out what he said about Hussein.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not the translators, the liberal media

Eh, correct, but the 'reporters' left out the context of his statement.

LACKING translators, it is difficult for us to correct their error.

[Pekka]

Park Avenue, tell me this much, which one is worse and what is bigger win for Terrorists:

a) People pulling back out of Iraq, 100 Iraqis die because of this and 3000 people die in Europe as a result of attacks anyway, and new strikes in Philippines, 3000 western tourists die.

b) The US and Europe stop being allies.

[Solly]

a) and b) are at their origin the same thing.

[Pekka]

That is not my question. Answer the question.

[Solly]

Well I can't tell you how terrorists think.

[Pekka]

I asked you which one is worse in your opinion of these two things. It's not a trick question, I'll explain how I see this then.

[Solly]

Well, they are not easy questions to answer.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Thanks to the weak wills of the terrorist-appeasers.

Damn it guys -- who squealed that all of us liberals are active sympathizers of Saddam Insane and ******* Bin Laden?

[chequita guevara]

People like Stewie are the reason there are terrorist in the first place.

[Solly]

"People like Stewie are the reason there are terrorist in the first place."

Yes, people like me who won't cave in to demands on the threat of violence.

When weak people do, like Spaniards, it fosters more terrorism as it becomes obvious that those tactics work.

[Pekka]

Park Avenue, On the contrary, I think it's very easy. I mean it's not easy when you start thinkign about it, but if you see it like I do, the choice is easy.

option a is bad no doubt. Terrorist are celebrating absolutely, victims dead and their relatives are in pain.

option b is far worse. We give up the power of West by deviding ourselves and the power that comes from us being friend is now gone. There are only separate powers. It opens up a new space for example China to step up. Suddenly, there is a competition of new superpowers. We gotta make a move here in Europe..... if we're not friends anymore, it could just as easily be China. THat's not something to joke about, that scenario is horror.

Anyway the situation is so open, that no one can predict anything anymore, controlling is more impossible than ever.

Who knows what happens to different economies.

All the bad things of this century will come out of this lost friendship. And for what? If we are not friends anymore, let's make it count for something. Let's nuke each other first. THat's a reason to separate. Iraq? War on terrorism? Not even close. This is where the terrorists get their first orgasm, being virgins and all.

Who could have known, that with few bombings and letters and phone calls and bad english, you get a situation where west is devided, power diminished, friends against each other. That's what the weak must do, to get bullies go at it each other.

No matter if the bullies are already in disagreement of something, they can still be friends and should be friends. We will see the chaotic outcome after it would happen, and we would regret it forever and we couldn't build it back up like it was. We just gave the ultimate power away.

Think about what would happen in US if we weren't friends anymore. Do you think US stands in one line happy about it? What about the same sitaution in Europe? No way! That would be so huge upset to both, it's like poking ant nest.

Nothing good would happen, nothing. I don't see nothing good coming out of it not a single thing and I see good things coming out of every war and me paying traffic fine for speeding.

It's just not worth it. Enemies have manipulated us away from the real enemy, which is them, not us. Never forget it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Yes, people like me who won't cave in to demands on the threat of violence.

Actually, he meant bigots and fanatics who are willing to use violence and cause suffering.

[Wezil]

The US has created terrorists where they didn't exist before. That is one hell of a war on terror policy.

else,

The terrorists are coming from outside Iraq to fight Americans. In this case I'm sure the Iraqis are grateful the US is taking their war on terror to the Iraqi streets.

Let's be honest - Iraq had sweet **** all to do with terrorism till the invasion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let's be honest - Iraq had sweet **** all to do with terrorism till the invasion.

Right.

Just like they never had a weapons program, eh?

[Wezil]

"weapons program"

what happened to the actual "weapons" we were told about?

Reagrdless - not connected to "war on terror". This is a red herring.

[Ben Kenobi]

what happened to the actual "weapons" we were told about?

They have yet to be found.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


They have yet to be found.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sorry, but by this logic, we can say that Reagan had Kennedy shot..after all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of weapons, or testimonials of the existence of wepaons, or documents of the existence of weapons 12 months after thew war begun is pretty damned good evidence of absence.