Kaczynski goes to the Green Zone


Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Prime Minister of Poland, made an unannounced visit to Iraq yesterday, holding talks with the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. The latter puppet administrator said in a statement that the meetings were held in order to "enhance the cooperation between the countries." {Intermissionary yawn}......what was that you said Nouri, you mean you're going to finally give Orlen lots of oil contracts Nouri? Poor old former P.M. Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz had no chance to say Tak, Tak, Tak despite his belief that Poland's participation in the war would amount to Orlen gaining oil deposits. Poland have already succeeded in being granted military equipment contracts in Iraq. Maybe the twin will succeed in juicing up our growing abundance of cars with oil????Mmmmm, Oiiiiillllll.....Watch this space.

Poland has had 20 troops killed in the Iraq war. They initially committed over 900 ground troops for the invasion and currently oversee an international force in the south of the country. Another 1,000 Polish troops are to be sent to Afghanistan soon despite the fact that polls have found 80% of the population are against such deployments.

Also, Polish pilots are to be trained in the use of their new F-16's in Israel while the first round of talks between the U.S. and Poland on the anti-ballistic missile system that is stalking up such controversy have been declared as 'successful'.

Jaysus, isn't it amazing how quickly people forget history, the impact war has had on their country, and the buzz word of 'solidarity'.

Comments

beatroot said…
Of course, the question is: why do Polish governments – no matter what colour – get involved in these kind of things? There is no real ideological neo-con commitment. Because:

a) they feel that there is no real reliable future in a European defense force – can you imagine 27 countries agreeing on anything like ‘Should we go and bomb Afghanis?

b) So they are in NATO and are eager to show they belong there.

c) And it’s a weird type of prestige for them. Look at us fighting with the Americans and Brits! Weeeeee

Poland and Britain are different in their alliances with the US. Blair shares points b and c but he did have an ideological commitment. In fact it was not him following Bush into armed ‘humanitarian intervention’ it was Bush following Blair. It was Blair who wanted to bomb the Serbs (make up ladies in TV stations, and all) it was he who supported all sorts of other interventions with Clinton.

Bush meanwhile, when he was elected, said that he didn’t want to get involved in all that foreign policy nation building shit – he didn’t want to be a Bill Clinton. And then 9/11 came and got him. Suddenly he was copying Blair’s ‘humanitarian intervention’ and then overtaking Tony in the zeal of his ‘crusade’.
So Bush is Blair’s poodle, not the other way round. And Poland gets the bone.
Damien Moran said…
Good reversal of the poodle analogy which has been overused by the left: you know how it goes - a slogan, exhausted, should never be repeated, and so on.

Poland didn't get the bone they expected from Iraq - and I presume this is the reason why J.K. went to Nouri to see whether there was any space for Orlen in the great drilling scramble of the desert.

The fact that they didn't get what they expected may also be used as a bargaining chip as regards the proposed ABM interceptors - which I suggest is a foregone conclusion.

See this blog for my ludicrous conjecture of the relationship between the Euro Football championships and the ABMs.
varus said…
Beatroot said: Blair shares points b and c but he did have an ideological commitment.

What, Britain is eager to show it belongs in NATO? This is rubbish, Britain has a long military history and doesn't need to proove its membership of NATO. If the UK withdrew, it would be worse for NATO, not the UK. As for prestige, we loose prestige by fighting with the US, its more of a resiprical arangement. However, as we found out in 1982, the Yanks aren't always willing to pay us back. Also we have shared interests in the middle east and had been bombing there continuously since the 91 Gulf War.
Damien Moran said…
Britain is eager to show it belongs in NATO?

Or Britain is eager to cling on to old imperial habits?

Lets not undermine the role of the Project for a New American Century, Wolfowitz (good riddance from the World Bank and to the WB as a whole) et al. It is well documented that they felt Bush Senior had not finished the job in the early 90's.

I'm all for the Hugh Grant type of British Prime Minister (See 'Love Actually') who stands up to an ass pinching bullying U.S. President - but whether that means he would reforge a type of ethical foreign policy like Robin Cook (despite continuing to sell Hawk aircraft to the Indonesians in the suppression of East Timorese) - well, I for one will not be holding my breath.

Popular Posts