Philippine Pullout

Reuters reports:

The Philippines said yesterday it plans to withdraw its troops from Iraq as soon as possible in order to save a Filipino hostage threatened with death by militants.

Comments

[pchuck]

So they PHLIPPED?

[jon b.]

Welcome to war in the 21st century; where a government will stop fighting if they are in danger of losing a soldier. Or is this just an excuse to exit a increasingly unpopular war (that was never very popular to begin with)?

[joe]

What do you expect from the Coalition of the Billing?

The presence of tiny contingents from fifth rate powers mattered very much to the hawks a year ago, zorel, when Bush was listing them off as if they had each put a division onto Normandy.

[rst]

Cowardice.

[joe]

So, rst, what does your brother have to say about the weather in Tikrit?

What’s that, you don’t have a brother in Tikrit? Oh, well, rock on, braveheart.

[brooklyn dave]

You think the Philippine gov’t would not have given in so quickly to the jihadis being that they their own situation with Muslim extremeists in Mindinao. As far as Bush treating tiny units from fifth rate countries as more important than they actually are is more symbolic than anything else. Kind of a thumbing your nose at France and Germany….see we do have a coalition. Well, I hope that Filipino man doesn’t get his head chopped off by Zarqawi and company.

[joe]

If we really had a real, robust coalition, we wouldn’t be so regularly hit with embarrassing stories about our allies bugging out. What we have is the equivalent of people who sign a petition so they can get the free tee shirt.

But hey, only liberal wussies worry about our relations with the lesser countries of the world. We’re strong and they’re weak, so it’s not like what they do could matter to our efforts.

[Dan]

The presence of tiny contingents from fifth rate powers mattered very much to the hawks a year ago, zorel

Well, no, actually, it didn’t. The presence of countries like the UK, Australia, and Poland — countries actually capable of significant contribution — mattered to the hawks. The presence of the other members of the coalition only mattered inasmuch as they made arguments that the war was “unilateral” or “lacking in international support” look silly.

Of course, calling countries “fifth-rate” opens a whole other can of worms. The United States is the only “first-rate” nation; our combined military and economic power utterly dwarfs that of any other country, or coalition of countries. Any coalition which the United States is involved in is inevitably going to boil down to “the United States, and a motley selection of profoundly less-significant countries, none of whose forces or money are actually needed”. Having a nation like France, or Russia, or Sweden, on our side is only important inasmuch as some people are impressed by big names.

when Bush was listing them off as if they had each put a division onto Normandy

Bush never pretended that most of the Coalition would be making major contributions. The point was that the nations had agreed to support us. The support of a nation like the Philippines or the Czech Republic is as significant — or, if you like, insignificant — as the opposition of a nation like, say, Sweden.

The are two basic ways to look at international relations. The first — the United Nations view — is that each nation should have an voice. In this view, the Coalition of the Willing represented a solid group of nations supporting the liberation of Iraq.

The other way of looking at international relations is the realistic view — that what matters is power, and that nations are “important” in proportion to their power. Under this system, it’s hard to figure out why nations like, say, Germany or Sweden would possibly think their opinions mattered, or should be listened to. Indeed, under this system it is almost fair to say that the United States is the only “important” nation in the world.

[Dan]

But hey, only liberal wussies worry about our relations with the lesser countries of the world.

Those would be the “fifth-rate powers” you mentioned? Yeah, nothing says “I want to improve our relationship with your country” like implying that that country is completely beneath your notice. 🙂

[rst]

If we really had a real, robust coalition, we wouldn’t be so regularly hit with embarrassing stories about our allies bugging out.

That’s kind of silly. The stories are produced by an industry whose revenue is maximized by getting the highest hit rate/readership/viewership as possible in the space provided. That has nothing do with how real or robust the coalition is.

So, rst, what does your brother have to say about the weather in Tikrit?

And that’s irrelevant. Quit trying to appeal to my humanity. But since you asked, I wouldn’t want my brother to come home were there such a disgrace attached to it. He wouldn’t want to, either. He could be attacked and killed in the middle of a street here in America for equally meaningless reasons. But if he’s kidnapped, I’m supposed to feel differently about it while they dangle his life in front of my eyes? Fuck them.

[I Blame the Parents]

Must be the Spanish influence.

[Leon]

Philippine Pullout

Sounds like a Vietnam War era birth control tactic.

[zorel]

Since the Iraqi govt is “in-charge” now (to whatever extent they are), the top priority should be enlisting more and more Iraqis to take care of their country’s security.

This latest pullout matters much less than the Spanish one – and even that was merely of a symbolic significance.

At least two Arab countries have volunteered soldiers if Iraqi govt requests. Iraqi govt can ask for external help, or choose to hire and train their own men to do the job. While I think the US (and British) military presence is important and should continue for a year or two, the numbers can be reduced.

[Rick Barton]

Maybe the Filipinos don’t like the way our government is teaching the Iraqis liberal values anyway:

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

[Dan]

Dan, equating military and economic power with “first-rate” is as perverse as it is revealing.

Yeah, whatever. We’re talking about a war, and allies recruited for that war. Economic and military strength are what’s important. If you want to talk about, say, morality, culture, personal freedom, innovation, or diversity, go ahead, but even on those grounds we’re still superior to the rest of the planet.

In any event, joe was the one bitching about “fifth-rate” nations, and he was referring to their economic and military power. If you think it’s perverse to rate nations in this manner, snivel to him, not to me.

[Andrew Lynch]

The United States is the only “first-rate” nation; our combined military and economic power utterly dwarfs that of any other country, or coalition of countries.

Dan, equating military and economic power with “first-rate” is as perverse as it is revealing. About you and your ilk.

[Rick Barton]

How did the Philippine government ever get conned into sending troops to this needless disgrace anyway?

[Kevin Carson]

“What do you expect from the Coalition of the Billing?”

I believe the correct term is “Old Asia,” joe.