|
Eleven Nations: MIA, KIA or AWOL?
We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy.
Address by the President to the Nation on the Way Forward in Iraq , September 13, 2007
—
The following nations are partners in the Coalition:
*Albania *Armenia *Austrailia *Azerbaijan *Bosnia and Herzegovina *Bulgaria *Czech Republic *Denmark *El Salvador *Estonia *Georgia *Japan *Kazakhstan *South Korea *Latvia *Lithuania *Macedonia *Moldova *Mongolia *Poland *Romania *Singapore *Slovakia *Ukraine *United Kingdom
Official Website of Multi-National Force – Iraq: Coalition Partners, last changed June 1, 2007
Somehow eleven nations seem to be Missed in Action, went Absent without Leave or have been Killed in Action by someone in Iraq. Who forgot to tell the Clown in Chief?
heh, the coalition of the billing Bea.. yes.
But they really are cheaper, though their salaries are very high. They are mercenaries, and they don’t require training, feeding, housing, medical care, death or incapacitated care (if one can put it like that), that last is all done by private insurance, who make good bucks along the way. There is a good surplus of men willing and able. Well, up to a point. Anyway they are employees and not nationals engaged in defense of their country.
In a creepy way, the model is the UN. It pays Gvmts for heads, soldiers, peace keepers of course and not warriors; it pays national Gvmts per body, in this way the nation State fiction is maintained, said Gvmts then pay their nationals on the ground…. For ex, Pakistanis are paid by the Pak Gvmt, and the Pak Gvmt cashes in what the UN, or Intl. community pays. In this way, social, racial, national divisions are sharpened, as one can guess Pak soldiers are paid less than others. Rich countries don’t send, pay, blue helmets except for show. Basically the UN hires mercenaries for the very lowest price it can negotiate, it is always out of funds, so ‘developing countries’ stump up. It does so under the cover of ‘nation states’ who ‘are sovereign’ etc, all this is very similar to Bush and the coalition of the willing.
However, to maintain a war stance, the US must use US soldiers, up to a point. There has to be some groundswell of support for troops, some pity for the dead and maimed, some movies and pictures about brave Americans, some national sprit that says ‘we have to win this war’ (half-assed genocidal illegal occupation, but never mind, Bush is the grand decider), it is necessary, worth it, etc. That has to be hammered home. Sexy housewives in Carolina must bow and pray, blondined children stuck to their skirts.
If the war was fought only with technics (Rummy) and paid slave labor, illegal Mexicans, maybe US prisoners who can make good, bought Blackwell types, Pakistanis who lost their blue helmets and want more pay, etc, the US public, that is part of it, would not support the ‘war’, though some metrosexuals in NY or elsewhere would shrug… Lastly, it is most likely necessary to keep on board expertise, some ppl who actually know how to *bomb from the air,* are properly trained, can manage complex technology, etc. The grunts are there for show only, media cannon fodder, both highlighted and hidden insofar as the true numbers and suffering … They terrorise and kill Iraqis, but others could do that just as well.
well that is one take… not quite convinced myself. ramble.
Posted by: Tangerine | Sep 15 2007 17:42 utc | 18
|
