<Of the 30 allied nations, only six have 1,000 or more troops in Iraq.
Belka didn't provide a schedule for the drawdown, but other Polish officials have suggested that they might reduce the force by 40% in the first cut and pull out the rest by the end of next year.>
Lot of ambiguity is settled with this post of yours.
Iraq is definitely a multilateral operation led by 30 Allies. It is not Bush alone that rushed into the war. Poland had to face up to heavyweights of EU to send these troops to Iraq, French and Germany had threatened all these Eastern European countries with economic repercussions if they go ahead with deployments, Poland and others did go ahead.
Reduction of force post election means nothing, in January if elections materialise and if Allies have mass participation the way they had it in Afghanistan, than spectre of free Iraq will wash lot of this negativity around occupation force holding an Arab country, a free Iraq will definitely emerge, I am pretty confident, rotation of troops and withdrawal are strategic decisions of a sovereign nation, if no credit was ever given to Bush to bring Poland in at the first place, how smart of you as a propagandist to use withdrawal as a failure of his policy. Why should you give too much importance if Poland withdraws, for Kerry it was/ and has been always a unilateral action where Bush rushed Americans to war, now as negative publicity stunt a partial withdrawal in next 18 months is being portrayed as policy failure, this is what I call spin doctoring.
I think you forgot that Australians put Mr. Howard back in office last week, another member of the 30 nation alliance in Iraq? If partial withdrawal attracts your attention, the wish of a 'continent nation' to continue Iraq policy should have attracted similar attention. Please stop this cherry picking of the news items.
Best regards, Ike |
