Did Poland Really Waver In Its Support Of The War?

by

Apparently not. Moira Breen has the rest of the story.

3 thoughts on “Did Poland Really Waver In Its Support Of The War?”

  1. Here is a related comment I posted on LGF:
    —
    Looks like there is a growing uneasiness in Poland about possible political consequences of going so far out in their support for Bush administration.
    I read that there is some sort of internal revolt in the Kwasniewki’s own party …
    This is not so much about ongoing fight against terrorism but rather about possible political realignment in EU after recent socialist takeover in Spain.
    Poland and Spain were the two nations engaged in a dispute with France/Germany axis regarding some aspects of a proposed EU constitution and now it looks like Spain is out of the game..
    Two days ago Warsaw daily newspaper ran a huge headline “Kerry claims Poland is a corrupt/fraudulent nation” ( I think it was some sort of reference to Kerry howls about Bush having a fraudulent coalition.) which combined with Spain defection resulted in a rather unfortunate and definitely badly timed Kwasniewki’s recent remarks about WMD.

    Given Kerry’s remarks, if he wins in September, Poland will find itself between a rock and a hard place, facing France/Germany possibly without any support from US.

    As Bill Kristal was mentioning last night , it is absolutely essential for Bush administration to be more proactive in their support for European coalition members.

    We are definitely living in interesting times.

  2. Thanks for the link, Jonathan. (Actually, though, it’s Mr. Cassian who nicely provided the rest of the story.) The Weekly Standard link at the end of the post has a more negative interpretation, and touches on some of warmi’s points.

    I would like to be able to read the Polish papers on Kerry’s comments. As warmi says, interesting times.

  3. Jonathan,

    Be wary of what you understand as support from a country.

    Like Spain, support from a government that does not have the support of the population cannot be seen as an enduring support or as an allied government. The political importance of the war on Irak is rising in most of the coalition countries and its effect on future elections should not be overlooked. Be sure that opposing parties will use it as a campaigning tool.

    That’s what I think the US should work on. Call it propaganda, if you like. It is done internally in the election period, maybe it is time to extend its range.

    Of course, this should be done in consort with the local governments(partial funding, for example) and never directly. A direct action by the US could have the exact opposite effect.

    For the same reason the funding should not be directly associated with the propaganda action, but indirectly (trade benefits, development sponsoring funds, etc.).

    I just thought of this when I saw your post, so maybe I’m not seeing the whole picture…

    Any comments?

Comments are closed.