This would be a better name than the existing, "Coalition of the Willing" jibber-jabber we have now. That or something like, "Coalition of the Inept, Brutal, and Utterly Dependant on U.S. Aid." From the White House website.
President Bush is assembling a Coalition that has already begun military operations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, and enforce 17 UNSC resolutions. Contributions from Coalition member nations range from: direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support.
Notice that last item on the list. "Political support," translates into: a) countries who don't want to piss off the U.S. and this administration in particular (frankly, I don't blame them), b) countries desperately seeking foreign aid and/or debt relief, c) countries who are already under indirect U.S. control, and d) countries looking to make friends with the U.S. as insurance against a less than friendly neighbor (Iraq excluded from this latter category)
So of the 49 countries that the White House lists, only 9 do not fall into one of the four categories listed above (United States (duh), U.K., Austrlia, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, and Kuwait (who does not fall under category (d) if we assume that Iraq could represent an actual threat to its immediate neighbors.)
All of the other 40 Ass-Clowns in the coalition fall into one of the categories listed above, and sometimes fall into more than one. The former Soviet Bloc countries are examples of (d), nations looking for a U.S. friend as a counterweight to Russia's influence. Afghanistan and Albania fall into category (c). (And please, no bullshit on how Afghanistan has been liberated. The U.S. controls Kabul and a bunch of warlords contain all the rest of that place. The word "Afghanistan" is actually Pashto for "seriously fucked up land." But hey, we've moved onto other brown people.) The Latin American countries are mostly looking for debt relief and/or increased loans to combat narco-trafficking (Colombia). The Philippines wants more money and more Marines to fight its own guerilla insurgents (Abu Sayaff, a group whom 600 Marines were deployed to combat some months ago. So that covers (b). There's a handful of countries (Palau, Micronesia, Soloman Islands) that I must confess I know little about. My guess is, however, that these nations too are more concerned with securing U.S. aid than with, say, finding themselves at war with Saddam Hussein. Someone correct me If i'm wrong on this. That leaves the African countries and since I've spent too much time reading about Africa in the past year, I'll tell you a little story.
Mamadou Diouf was at the University today to give a guest lecture to the students in Nancy Johnson's class on African Politics. Professor Diouf teaches history at the University of Michigan, specializing in Senegal. He's a big name in the field, at least he is to people who care about that sort of thing. I, being one of those people, was grateful when Professor Johnson graciously invited me to Diouf's lecture. Though he spoke about Iraq only briefly, he had an interesting take on certain African nations' support for the "Coalition." But first, read this bit from the White House site:
The Coalition will also liberate the Iraqi people from one of the worst tyrants and most brutal regimes on earth.
Uh, correction. Some of your ass-clown coalition members represent "the most brutal regimes on earth." Certainly all five African countries on the list qualify: Rwanda, Uganda, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Angola. The first two on the list are currently fighting against one another, the third and fourth have fought 3 wars in the past five years. (Remember that whole genocide thing back in '94 that took place in Rwanda? Think things are good in the hood over there? Think again.) Angola has been engulfed in one of the world's most gruesome civil wars ever since Portugal pulled the fuck out of that country (after decades of kicking and screaming) in 1975. These countries want money so that they can then turn around and buy guns from third parties to fight one another. To include nations at war with each other in some part of a coalition is a joke. No, joke is the wrong word. Dangerous is the word that comes to mind. This whole idea of giving guns and money to fight proxy wars sounds familiar....something like....Oh wait! That's what Reagan did in the 80s when he funded both fucking sides of the Iran/Iraq wars. Now, the U.S. is realizing that giving these "brutal regimes" money and weapons may not have been the best idea. But surely that won't turn into some sort of problem this time because...uh...because....African countries don't like fighting wars? No, shit that's not it. But Bush is a smart man, he must know what he's doing.....(Seriously, if I could get Bush to tell me the capital of one of his African nation "Coalition members," I'd stop riding the guy's ass so hard. For like a day. Maybe.
Oh, and by the way, Nigeria flat out refused to join, knowing that support for invading a Muslim country would touch off riots that would, in Professor Diouf's words, "kill 5,000 people in two days." (Nigeria's got a whole lot of dem Muslims). The U.S. said it understood Nigeria's concerns, then cut its foreign aid the next day. So maybe the best name for this sham would be "Coalition of the 'Sign up or we'll break your fucking knees'." Yes, there it is.
Update: Mitz informs me that Australia belongs in category of countries whose contributions actually matter. True. They have 2,000 troops stationed there. Duly noted.
White House "Coalition of the Willing" Page
Posted by mike at April 11, 2003 08:45 AMarianna, its QuintOn McCracken. He was actually supposed to be decent, what a bust. He played college baseball with a friend of mine's brother at Duke, and is supposedly a good guy, who enjoys romantic movies and two-day old chinese food.
Posted by: Wilson on April 11, 2003 02:19 PMYeah, too bad that didn't pan out. And hey - as long as the McCracken is correct, it doesn't really matter if his name is spelled with an E or an O (but thanks for the correction).
Romantic movies and leftover Chinese, huh? I'm his!
Posted by: Arianna on April 11, 2003 02:23 PMMike,
I agree with your deconstruction of the vague term "political support," but you have not convinced me, outside of the African examples, why this is such a bad thing. These countries have to look out for their best interests--are their contributions less "good" because of it? I guess I'm just not exactly sure of what you're saying here?
As for the African countries--I won't even begin to argue with you on that one, as I know very little about those countries and you know very much (Mr Larson lives on inside of you, Mike), but could you clarify what your remarks on our funding their continuing atrocities? Is our repayment for their participation in the Coalition a fact--some sort of pre-arranged deal--or speculation on your part? Sorry if that's a stupid question, but I'm not clear on this.
Posted by: Better Than Sketch-Ben on April 11, 2003 06:33 PMOk, I just checked this site again and realized I completely missed your last paragraph the first time I read it. I am much less confused about the point you are making now. I don't quite agree with it, but that's not much of a shock, is it? Anyway, I'd still appreciate it if you would expand on the Africa/Coalition stuff because I am not so well informed on this.
Posted by: Ben (again) on April 11, 2003 07:20 PMAnswer to question #1:
No, their support isn't any less valuable. As I wrote, I don't really blame countries like Estonia, Panama, etc. for wanting to make friends with the U.S. There's a lot to be gained. What I resent is the 'selling,' if you will, of this coalition to the general public. Those 41 countries are too poor and/or unstable to provide anything other than "political support," which is only useful in selling this idea of a coalition. Including them only allows the U.S. to say: "See! Other countries agree with us." I imagine most though either a) don't agree with us or b) don't give a shit about Iraq. So are their contributions of political support less "good"? No, they're just irrelevant. And just to repeat, I don't blame these countries for wanting to kiss some U.S. ass.
#2 The aid to African countries is not really a secret deal. The U.S. will throw some money at them and say, "Here, do what you want with it." The U.S. knows full well, however, that this money will be used to purchase weapons to use against neighbors (Uganda v. Rwanda, Eritrea v. Ethiopia, Angola v. Itself). So yes, we're funding these wars indirectly, by giving cash to brutal despots (some of whom are like Saddam) to use against other despots. This is similar to what the U.S. did in the 1980's with Iran-Contra, when Reagan skipped the whole intermediate step of giving Iran money and instead just sold that country the fucking weapons. A few years earlier, ( I want to say 1983, but I'm not sure) the U.S. was boys with Saddam, a tactical move intended as a way to keep Iran off-balance via fuding Iraq. U.S. companies with the approval of the U.S. govt. sold weapons to Iraq. So yeah, we funded both sides of a war then, and we're funding both sides of a war(s) now. I just don't think it's worth it, nor moral, just so that the U.S. can garner the "political support" of a few African nations.
As always, please rebut if you like and tell me if you want it posted in the main section and not the comments section.
Posted by: Mike on April 11, 2003 07:33 PMOn the whitehouse.gov website (by the way, your link is currently down because it repeats “http” twice in the address), below the list of countries, is the line “This number is still growing, and it is no accident that many member nations of the Coalition recently escaped from the boot of a tyrant or have felt the scourge of terrorism.”
The first country that comes to my mind is Afghanistan. Now here’s a few question that come about from that thought:
1. How is it that Afghanistan wouldn’t be on this list? The country is currently occupied by the United States.
2. What would have happened if Afghanistan (or actually those that represent Afghanistan’s voice) refused to join? I think we’d have more terrorists on our hands.
3. Should Afghanistan actually be on the list? The county is in such disarray that it shouldn’t have to be responsible for participating is “Coalitions.” Maybe Afghanistan should be allowed to focus of social reform, education and public health.
Also at the bottom of the page you included several facts are mentioned. Most importantly it is said that the “Coalition countries have a combined GDP of approximately $22 trillion.” Lets analyze this fact, considering the United States included itself as a willing coalition member it is thus factored into the total GDP. Here are some numbers of the lists heavy hitters in terms of GDP:
Japan: $4.84 trillion
United Kingdom $1.41 trillion
United States $9.84 trillion
============================
Total: $16.09 trillion
This results in 5.1 trillion dollar for 46 other countries of which the 4 or so Western European countries mention probably comprise 80% of that 5.1 trillion. This results in maybe 1-2 trillion as the GDP of the other 42 countries (not too much considering that in those 42 probably 20% of the countries represent 80% of that wealth).
Why so many countries? Is that much support really needed? Will the Solomon Islands require their 8 or 9 tourists to enlist in military service to help defend the Coalition and what it stands for? I assume that its like Mike says at the bottom of his post, they’re in fear of whatever foreign aid they can receive from the U.S.
Posted by: Pete on April 11, 2003 07:47 PMby the way, those GDP sources came from "The Economist World in Figures 2003 edition"
Posted by: pete on April 11, 2003 08:17 PMMike: Again, I see what you're saying but don't see what's wrong with it. Are we trying to sell the war? Obviously we are. But why is that a bad thing? We are walking a tight rope with the whole "war on terrorisnm" here, trying to show that we will be the world's anti-terrorist police without becoming an international "Big Brother." If we can at least give the illusion of a united front against terrorism(though I'd say it's more than an illusion), then that not only goes towards showing we are not interested in becoming an Imperialist tyrant, but also perhaps encourages terrorists not to become the next name on an international shit list.
Pete: You bring up an interesting point about Afghanistan's participation, but the GDP stuff isn't too relevant. As the government's website says, and as Mike expanded on in his entry, the contributions of Coalition members come in many forms. By putting it in terms of many, the site is only trying to make the point that there is a lot of money behind the coalition as a whole.
Posted by: Ben on April 11, 2003 08:21 PMMy mentioning of the GDP and how it pans out in terms of the each counties economic strength was meant to be an example of the level to which each country could offer its services. Ben as you point out, the Coalition is not about the GDP or direct financial aid but rather about providing support that otherwise wouldn’t be there. Though this is true, one major factor that must be considered is the level of support that is provided.
Unfortunately a majority of support that this Coalition asks for is financially related, though it may not be so directly. The website states that the type of support being offered by these countries are “direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support.” Other than over-flight rights, all other support that can be offered by a country would result in a financial cost. Again, the Solomon Islands (example) is probably not equipped to provide a chemical/biological response team, military participation, or intelligence support. Not that they wouldn’t want to, just that they can't; the infrastructure doesn’t exist
Okay, I’m rambling here. Let me try to condense everything.
What I’m try to say is that this Coalition is a list of countries that symbolically support the United States because they are unable to support it in any other form. The United States is using this list as proof to the United Nations. With this list the U.S. is saying to the U.N. “All these countries support us in providing help to Iraq, why don’t you?” Thus deadlocking the U.N. in providing aid (which they would provide regardless) and making it seem as though the United States hasn’t lost face in terms of foreign support.
p.s. In a precious post I ment to say “in fear of loosing whatever foreign aid they can receive from the U.S.”
huh.
Ben, I didn't read mikes response to you're initial post. My post before this one is similar to his.
End Communication
Go eat a dick, Pete. Our friendship is over.
Posted by: Ben on April 11, 2003 10:21 PMSo Ben, when are you gonna tell everyone that you're gay?
oops, should I have not said that? I hope you're not upset :) :) :)
Asshole