Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government
Government Accountability
Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

Farewell Ukraine

You have to give points to the White House's PR machine. "Coalition of the Willing" (COW) is a genius portrayal of the ad hoc coalition of countries that have committed troops to Iraq. It rings of strength, fortitude, and fearlessness in the face of difficult choices.

But, alas, the COW is looking a little hesitant of late. Several of the coalition's members have withdrawn, Ukraine being the latest. Most had so few troops in the coalition to begin with that their absence will not change much, except politically. That's because the COW was a political manifestation from the beginning. No big news flash there.

And, as we all know, politics are volatile, sometimes whimsical. Public opinion has a nasty way of turning 180 degrees overnight. And as the situation in Iraq continues to look gloomier, the political costs at home for some leaders have simply grown too high. This should be a note of caution to the Administration. While the U.S. can certainly offer some enticing carrots (financial aid, end of sanctions, etc.) to countries that will play along in the absence of genuine commitment, their hearts just aren't in it.

We are entering the most crucial phase of the operation in Iraq and perhaps the most dangerous. The insurgents are turning out to be as deadly as Saddam's demoralized, underfed army. Yet, many of our partners are heading for the exit at this moment of truth. Maybe it's because Iraq had no WMD's. Maybe its because Saddam wasn't connected to Al Qaeda. For whatever reason, that our partners are deserting us when we need them most reflects the true character of the "Coalition of the Willing."


Tags: Eye on Iraq (all tags)


Display:

coalition of the "willing"

Who can blame our "coalition partners" for deserting? The elections were supposed to be a pivotal event, bringing democracy (sic) to Iraq and allowing them to guide their own destiny. But we aren't leaving afterward and are setting no timetable for doing so, no matter what the outcome. WE DECIDE whether to hold elections or postpone them. WE DECIDE whether they are fair, even though our own elections weren't. WE DECIDE how many troops to keep there, and for how long.

Why should anyone else partner with a country that insists on making decisions alone for a sovereign nation halfway around the world, when we can't even distinguish between an insurgent and a patriotic Iraqi who hates us for bombing his homeland? Looney Tunes, folks.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 03:09:37 PM EST


Re: coalition of the "willing"

True, true.

by Mike Surrusco on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 04:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.


contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy