Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prior to and during the buildup to the war in Iraq, Poland’s domestic political context focused on strengthening the NATO alliance by showing Poland’s strategic value to the U.S., while also seeking EU integration; with little concern for domestic support for the war in Iraq and the long- term fallout of acting contrary to domestic public attitudes. Between the September 11 attacks and October 2002, Polish support for the country’s participation in both NATO and the U.S. led anti-terrorist coalition operating in Afghanistan, rose to nearly 80% and 75%, respectively. 8 Conversely, during that same year only one in three Poles supported U.S. use of bombing raids on Iraq’s suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) facilities and only 28% of Poles supported a possible U.S. occupation of Iraq. 9 Keeping in line with their support for the war on terror, but to a lesser degree, equal amounts of Poles supported and opposed the idea of a preventative war that would be part of the global counter- terrorism effort. Based on survey demographics, respondents with a higher than average education and interest in politics would be more likely to support a preventative war. 10 Political leaders use framing in order to shape national security choices. They rely on their political communication to build public support for their policies and strategies.
In other words, they had to spin everything to get sufficient support.
Quote:
What explains the divergent views of the public and the leadership, and why did the public fail to alter existing foreign policy? Public opinion scholars argued that public opinion is more likely to affect policy formation in countries where societal and state structures encourage public input into the process of policy design. 15 In decentralized states that contain strong societal organizations and policy coalition-building processes, the public plays a more substantial role in policy formulation because of the incorporation of societal actors into the process. On the other hand, in highly centralized states with weak societal mobilization and state-dominated policy networks, public opinion plays a minimal role in affecting policy formation.
Guess what direction Poland is heading with help from the US?
Quote:
Furthermore, the recent declaration by the new Kaczynski administration to send additional troops to Afghanistan might be one of the bigger foreign policy decisions the administration has pursued since taking office, a step that we suspect will be scrutinized by both the media and the public. Kwasniewski’s public discussions about Poland-U.S. relations focused on preventing the revival of Russia’s imperialism and strengthening NATO in the process. 30 Therefore, by framing the threat to Poland as the reemergence of Russia and the need for US support, Kwasniewski was able to introduce a new and risky foreign policy of committing Polish troops to the US led war in Iraq. Kwasniewski did not always address the Russia issue directly; instead he framed it in terms of the U.S. – NATO alliance.
He's very clever, and of course he had help from US Embassy Mission Warsaw.
Quote:
Public Opinion’s Constraining Effects Under President Kwasniewski, public opposition to troop deployments in Iraq did not constrain Poland’s foreign policy in Iraq, a policy which resulted in the deployment of 2000 Polish troops. While in 2004, President Kwasniewski publicly contemplated a troop withdrawal by the end of 2005, the new Kaczynski administration rejected any near-future troop movements out of Iraq. Additionally, Polish leaders have announced the additional deployment of 1000 troops to support the U.S.-led War on Terror in Afghanistan. 35 In 2004, Bartosz Weglarczyk of Gazeta Wyborcza, commented on Poland’s public opinion trends. He assessed that unless the UN provides stronger symbolic backing of the war in Iraq, public opinion in Poland and the rest of Europe will shift even further against the war. 36 By the year 2005, two-thirds of Poles believed that Poland’s decision to enter the Iraq war was 35 Poland sends troops to Afghanistan (CNN, 2006 [cited September 16 2006]); available from http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/14/afghan.poland.reut/index.html (broken link). 36 The State of the Iraq Coalition (PBS, 2004 [cited 2008]); available from Online NewsHour: The State of the Iraq Coalition -- April 16, 2004.
14 wrong and half believed that the world became more dangerous as a result of the war. 37 Furthermore, a majority of 59% of Poles believed that all of their country’s troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, while only 6% were against a total troop withdrawal. 38 At present, Polish combat troops continue to operate in Iraq and in September 2007, President Lech Kaczynski ordered Polish troops to spend another year in Afghanistan. 39 In the short-term, public opinion has done little to affect Poland’s foreign policies. More broadly, Poland’s foreign policies continue to focus on potential regional security threats and increasing its security relationship with the U.S. through arms sales and moving forward with placing U.S. missile defense armaments in the country. While public opinion in Poland generally supported the US and its war on terror, it did not support direct participation in Iraq.
None of that bodes well for the Polish people. It has all the elements for the making of a US supported right-wing dictatorship vis-a-vis Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vietnam, the Philippines, Guatemala, Paraguay, Uruguay, Columbia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Portugal and others that will eventually take power.
(And don't think the Russians don't know that already).
Many of the folks in Poland recall what it was like to be under Russia's thumb as an involuntary member of the USSR. They don't want to return, and I am glad we are providing an assist to both them and the Czech Republic.
I also remember the Hungarians under the Ruskies. They probably would have
craved a US supported right wing dictator when the tanks were rolling over
their fellow citizens bodies.
The US army as an active duty strength as authorized by Congress of 514,000 not the "1.5 Million" claimed.
Of the 514,000, only 1/3 are combat troops, with the rest being combat support and service support, yeah, the Jessica Lynch kind who couldn't even read a map, got lost, then attacked, defeated and taken prisoner by civilians.
Perhaps we can start a web-site called "Carrier-Watch" and people can report instances of carrier battle groups moving across land.
But since carriers don't move across land, you'd get nothing except reports by wackos.
Carriers and their amphibious ready groups are useless, unless there's a coast-line, and even when there is, navy personnel don't actually shoot rifles.
Russia's greatest strength is numbers. However, on the technology front, I'd like to know how they'd respond to F-22s. Our advantage is our location. Russia striking Poland is a European geography concern. To hit us, they have to either go North Pole, or traverse the Pacific
The 2-million reserves sounds impressive, but not when you realize that the reserve units are medical, supply and transport, pys-ops, signal, artillery, air defense, intelligence, engineers and military police. If those troops are leading assaults against enemy troops, then it's because the US troops have been wiped out.
The only thing that matters is the number of divisions and combat brigades available, and right now there aren't many.
Absolutely, completely, utterly incorrect. Combat support units are as and the military will (and has) just as easily converted units to meet overall needs. In Iraq, being transport is as dangerous as infantry, and contrary to popular belief, many of these units had to supply their own security.
Carriers are useless? Some single US Carrier fleets provide enough air power to rival a small nation. Carriers are one of the major reasons the US has such an extreme military power projection.
Absolutely, completely, utterly incorrect. Combat support units are as and the military will (and has) just as easily converted units to meet overall needs.
As a last ditch effort. One of the reason the casualty rates are so high in Iraq is because national guard units are not sufficiently trained, which is why they have higher casualties (that's a fact), and active duty personnel are being used in roles they aren't trained to perform. When you take a tanker out of his tank and tell him to fight like a straight leg infantryman he's clueless, and makes mistakes that get him and others killed or wounded. Cannoneers are trained to sit in the M109s and lob artillery from 12-15 miles behind the action. You want to send them through a 30-day wonder course and then can't figure out why they're getting turned into hamburger.
Jessica Lynch and her group are a perfect example of how poorly combat support personnel fight. They got defeated and taken prisoner by a handful of civilians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66nexus
Carriers are useless?
Yes, without a coast-line (which you conveniently ignored).
If US carriers were projecting US hegemony in Central Asia, maybe you'd still have air bases and military bases there, but then those countries are land-locked.
As a last ditch effort. One of the reason the casualty rates are so high in Iraq is because national guard units are not sufficiently trained, which is why they have higher casualties (that's a fact), and active duty personnel are being used in roles they aren't trained to perform. When you take a tanker out of his tank and tell him to fight like a straight leg infantryman he's clueless, and makes mistakes that get him and others killed or wounded. Cannoneers are trained to sit in the M109s and lob artillery from 12-15 miles behind the action. You want to send them through a 30-day wonder course and then can't figure out why they're getting turned into hamburger.
Jessica Lynch and her group are a perfect example of how poorly combat support personnel fight. They got defeated and taken prisoner by a handful of civilians.
Yes, without a coast-line (which you conveniently ignored).
If US carriers were projecting US hegemony in Central Asia, maybe you'd still have air bases and military bases there, but then those countries are land-locked.
Actually, that's not a fact. I served in Iraq with the National Guard AND the regular army (and that was when 42nd ID, a guard unit, was in charge of the entire northeastern Iraq). The National Guard goes through an extensive 6-month pre-deployment training prior to going into theater. Many guard units are already on their 3rd tours. You think this kind of deployment frequency would be ineffective against Russia? Whose troop training and funding is comparable to the National Guard of the 60's
I also take to offense how you simply group all combat personnel as an automatic ineffective combat tool. Have you surveyed every soldier with an MOS in combat personnel? Are you aware that combat personnel units are as likely, if not more, to see combat as their infantry counterparts?
I know you keep bringing up Jessica Lynch, but you fail to realize that her case is entirely not unique. Regular army troops get lost in that place ALL THE TIME. The only difference is that her unit was part of the invasion force and there was a much greater risk for capture.
You don't need a coastline for a carrier there are such things as long-range bombing missions launched from carriers. Russia is no different.
Maybe we should just do a premptive nuke strike on Russia now.A threat is a threat,we should take it as real just like Iran's threats on us,which maybe we should just nuke them also.If there is a threat,eliminate them period.Make America and freedom safe.
America doesn't need anybody,we ARE the world.The world would crumble without us into chaos.
Maybe we should just do a premptive nuke strike on Russia now.A threat is a threat,we should take it as real just like Iran's threats on us,which maybe we should just nuke them also.If there is a threat,eliminate them period.Make America and freedom safe.
America doesn't need anybody,we ARE the world.The world would crumble without us into chaos.
*disclaimer--><--*
Yep....nuking is the new definition for diplomacy. I prefer that option as well
Thank God many Americans and the Polish still believe in fighting for freedom.
I believe in defending my own nation, not getting involved in evert skirmish around the world. Or maybe you missed that part about "not going abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
If we believe in fighting for "freedom" (a word the neocons have destroyed, incidentally), when are we invading China?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
<--*
