Two very important points in Ws speech - that the media has ignored

1) Toward the end of the speech he referred multiple times to the "Polish led coalition" - in the present tense and in the future tense (as in handing over more responsibility to suggest less (sole) burden on US forces.

2) Toward the end of the speech, when he refers to the time line, he referred multiple times to a NATO force (in conjunction with the above phrase.)

This is what the admin does - it floats an idea as fact... it doesn't get picked up and questioned in the media... it starts getting repeated by the admin and by their echo chamber on talk radio, conservative talking heads tv, and conservative columnists... until it is a "given" and accepted by the public as a given - even when at first blush there are real question marks.

I don't have much time today - but can point to a couple of stories to follow up (if someone can dig) that are related to the first point - per the Polish troops. Pulling these together and passing the information (and the news items) along to liberal media sources could be a useful/helpful exercise. Discussion of the second point - which I really know little about could be useful as well.

The "Polish led Coalition"...
1) Pre invasion there was a story (between January and March 2003, iirc) about either a forgivable loan or direct aid given by the US to Poland for the purchase of (one, two, more?) specially equipped military helicopters from a US company (Lockheed Martin? Boeing?). At the time the story seemed like a two-fer. Give money to the Polish government (get their good backing - and it was the first of several interesting arrangements which led to the tag of "The Coalition of the Bought) - and the money actually goes to a US defense contractor (tax payer subsidy???) Shortly there after the US announces that Poland is joining the US in support for its "coalition".

2) A later story (maybe last summer or fall) talked about the US subsidizing for Polish troops. Something like $100,000 per troop for transport, housing, etc. The story listed the total number (very small compared to the total coalition forces) and broke the number to those serving in a direct service capacity (i.e., on the front lines) vs. those providing "support services". Seem to remember that most of the Polish troops were providing support services.

So why, now, if we have such a great coalition, is this small - mostly non direct military operations force - touted multiple times by bush as leading the future coalition? And how much commitment from the country is there when the entire costs for these troops is borne by the US taxpayers?

Questions per the repeated references for a plan for a NATO coalition for post transition Iraq... Why is NATO preferable to than the UN? Does this fall into NATO authority and why? This should be discussed on two different dimensions... A: Military/Geopolitical/Strategic (which body makes more sense for long-term stabilization in Iraq?) and B: Political (everything for this administration is political. It is important to look both at strength and weakness and to separate strategy in terms of Mission from Bush political strategy.

----

Trust me - Bush doesn't repeat themes over and over again without there being behind the scenes movement in this direction. The surprising thing is that he unveiled it - repeated it - and none of the major media outlets covering this today (Wash.Post, NYT, etc.) seems to have picked up on EITHER item.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/4823344.htm

Posted on Fri, Dec. 27, 2002

Poland chooses Lockheed Martin F-16s to upgrade its air force to NATO standards

ANDRZEJ STYLINSKI

Associated Press

WARSAW, Poland - Poland announced Friday it will buy 48 U.S.-made F-16 jet fighters from Lockheed Martin for $3.5 billion to upgrade its air force to NATO standards, turning down two rival European bids.

After nearly a decade of debate over how to modernize the air force after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Friday's decision will allow Poland to "become a full-scale, reliable NATO member," Deputy Defense Minister Janusz Zemke said.

The deal also reinforces U.S. ties with Poland as the former Soviet bloc nation prepares to join the European Union in 2004.

---snip

The F-16 package by U.S. maker Lockheed Martin will replace Soviet-made MiG fighters. The deal, backed by a U.S. government loan, includes the planes, weapons, pilot training and a nearly $10 billion investment in Poland to offset the cost.

---snip

Lockheed Martin shares rose 80 cents to $57.70 each in Friday trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

...more

(Can anyone else find additional news stories for this?)

Military Contractors: On the Defensive
Can European companies win back contracts from U.S. rivals?

FEBRUARY 3, 2003
INTERNATIONAL -- EUROPEAN BUSINESS

It was one of the juiciest and most hotly contested defense contracts in Europe: the Polish Air Force's $3.5 billion order to replace its aging fleet of 75 Soviet-era MIG-21s. When Bethesda (Md.)-based Lockheed Martin Corp. walked away with the prize on Dec. 27, the European defense companies that vied for the deal--France's powerful Dassault Aviation and a joint venture of Britain's BAE Systems and Sweden's Saab--were left with a bitter taste in their mouths.


The award, after all, came less than two weeks after Poland was formally invited to join the European Union. Talk about a snub. "It would be like Mexico, the day after it joined NAFTA, opting to buy all-European military equipment," was how one top executive of Franco-German aerospace giant European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co. (EADS) put it. The Europeans were particularly irked that Washington granted Warsaw $3.8 billion in soft loans to help finance the purchase of the F-16 fighter jets.

more: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_05/b3818171.htm

Link: http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?view=story&id=news/poland04213.xml

Poland, Lockheed Martin Complete $3.5 Billion F-16 Deal
By Stephen Trimble
April 21, 2003

Lockheed Martin completed a deal to sell 48 F-16C/D Block 52 fighters to Poland April 18, agreeing to the terms of a $6 billion offset package that was the deciding factor in the two-year competition.
<snip>
The debate over details of the offset package began almost immediately after Dec. 27, the date Poland announced its plan to buy the F-16 in a $3.5 billion order. Polish military officials selected the fighter over the Saab/BAE Systems JAS-39 Gripen and the Dassault Mirage 2000.
<snip>
Lockheed Martin estimates the actual value of the offset package, including indirect investments, is closer to $9.6 billion. The offsets are focused on high-tech and technology transfer areas sought by the Polish government, Lockheed Martin said.
<snip>
The offset deal caps the largest planned sale this year for the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system, which anticipates posting a record $14 billion in revenues in fiscal 2003. Lt. Gen. Tome Walters, head of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), attended the signing ceremony in Warsaw.
<snip>
Interesting stuff...

in the time of the first stories (december) until this story (april)... guess that need to get the coalition together allowed for the company and Poland to ask the US for even greater subsidies to allow the deal to happen.

We realized we needed to purchase coalition partners, and the Polish were in a position to ask.

Remember Turkey's possible $10 billion in loans if they joined the coalition? This seems like just another example of that- and the price tag of the Polish deal doesn't even include 'technology transfers' that raise the value even more.

one item from the Asia times... from that article:

The Indian government, which withdrew its offer of 17,000 troops under heavy domestic political pressure, is being lobbied once again with an offer of sophisticated military equipment. The quid pro quo, according to diplomatic sources, is approval of the proposed sale of the state-of-the-art Arrow-2 missile defense system by Israel. Since the US$100 million system includes US components and funding, Israel needs US approval to close the deal.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is now in New Delhi to try to persuade the government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to change its stance on troops for Iraq. The London Financial Times said on Tuesday that the Bush administration has also pledged to relax the sale of dual-use technology to India in return for that country sending troops to Iraq.

Remember the little flap summer/fall when several states were starting to make noise about trying to find ways to prevent corporations in their states from outsourcing jobs to India... when Bush (or a proxy) made a public statement to the Indian government about blocking any attempt to try to stop jobs coming to India... timing seems to be about right around the same time there was a (failed) push to get India to commit troops. Interesting... would LOVE to link those two efforts together in a documented way. I am sure that some on the fence (but still leaning bush) whose jobs may be at risk, would be interested to see that the admin would use their power to stop any efforts to save the US jobs... because they wanted help to pull their over exposed butts out of the fire due to very poor planning and policy in post-invasion Iraq.

is described in a thread I started:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1405888

is that one has been floated for so long... that it is already a "given" - as fact. They have long been prepping the idea that this "War on Terror" is a long haul... and that the war in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Done the repitition of those two themes for so long... that it appears to be accepted fact.

*sigh*

Take the use of TERMS that are used by Bush... as if they are common speech.

In the 2004 SOTU... bush used the term Greater Middle East. I hear the term all the time now! It sure beats having to refer to his failed roadmap plan with Israel and Palestine. And it gets peoples' minds closer to the PNAC objective of TOTAL CONTROL of none other than 'the greater middle east.'

Just wanted to validate you on the concept of them floating ideas and 'facts' until they become 'common knowledge.'

In this regard, I almost subscribe that bush is a smart guy masquerading as a dummy, because he seems to nail the propaganda right on the head every time. Maybe you don't have to have a High IQ to have the force of will to conduct evil shenanigans. Maybe that's it.

same use of language in bush's first major speech after 9-11 (on Sept 17th) - that went beyond "those countries harboring the terrorists responsible".. can't remember the wording exactly... but it blurred lines further out than Afghanistan and the Taliban. Heard it and turned to my Mother with whom I was watching the speech and gasped... he is going to take this to Iraq.

The "greater MidEast" would appear to be a spring board to the next likely targets in the region - Syria and Iran. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have been attempting to prime these pumps from within days after the Iraq invasion (oh look! they must have moved the weapons to... (fill in either country)... oh look! new rebels are slipping in through the borders from ... (fill in either country) ) But the public has not bitten.

My guess this is a way of making that frame - far beyond Iraq - become acceptable to the public before they try again to start pushing either agenda.

his speech either. He has repeated that since 9/11 and it sends chills down my spine that the press doesn't pick up on it. Just "one theater."

How many more "theaters" are planned? The whole world?

I agree that he clearly puts out statements which the Press ignores but later become real policy.

The Press doesn't want to ask or investigate what we gave to Poland for their cooperation. That story has died and been buried until we have an incident which exposes what we gave them just as the Press didn't focus on "Military Contractor/Mercenaries" until the Blackwater folks were strung up on a bridge.

As far as NATO goes, I believe he wants to make NATO more powerful than the UN. The Repugs have always hated the UN and done everything they could to destroy it since it's founding. In their view the UN puts restrictions on what they want the US to do and I'm sure the Shrub was charged with defying them first off...hence another reason besides PNAC or due to PNAC that we went into Iraq.

I don't know what else to say about your thoughts, because we know the media focused on Clinton's Penis instead of the gathering storm of terrorist activities reported by Hart/Rudman Commission and we know they never investigated Shrub's background or reported much about how Cheney was selected as VP.

The Media is run by the Businesses. Until we get it back we won't know much about what our Government is doing either Repugs or Dems inspite of what goes on at C-Span. Without a press putting things in context we are left trying to do it for ourselves with our own inquiring minds. Most Americans need perspective and analysis and even then half don't pay any attention perferring to watch "American Idol" or "Donald Trump" than think about what our Government is up to.

:-( It would be good to know where Kerry stands on the UN and on PNAC. Where he "really" stands, that is.

easier to attempt to control.

Per Kerry and UN - his rhetoric even before the war resolution indicated strong advocacy for diplomatic channels, going to and through the UN. His critical rhetoric just prior to the invasion (focusing on the fact that the admin had NOT followed their promises per working within the international framework) is also consistent with belief in the UN. I remain critical of his decision to vote for the resolution, but I have a better understanding of why he did.

I think that the administration and the crazy neocons have created such an awful situation - that nearly all strategies for the short term handling of the situations, short of Kucinich's views, "sound" like it might be a parlay into PNAC land - even when it isn't. This is because most strategies involve having to "clean up" the mess and involve a commitment to not leaving an even messier situation than a) what we created and b) than what was there before (which no one can deny was pretty awful.) I tend to view Kerry's proposals in this vein. I have grown more and more comfortable with his positions.

Leader: Poland 'misled' on Iraqi WMDs

By Monika Scislowska , Associated Press

Poland's president, a key Washington ally in Europe, said Thursday his country was "misled' about the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and added he may withdraw troops early if Iraq is stabilized.

At the same time, President Aleksander Kwasniewski defended the U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam, saying it "made sense.'

Referring to prewar Western intelligence assessments of Saddam's arsenal, he told a news conference: "From the information that we have, the word 'misled' seems to me the right word. This is the problem of the United States, of Britain and also of many other nations.'

---snip

Kwasniewski's remarks to a small group of European reporters were his first hint of criticism about war in Iraq, where Poland has 2,400 troops and commands one of three sectors of the U.S.-led occupation. The United States and Britain command the other two.

The 9,500-strong multinational force under Polish authority in south-central Iraq includes 1,300 Spanish troops. Spain's new government, elected in the wake of Madrid's worst terror attack, has said it will withdraw troops from Iraq by June 30 unless the United Nations takes control of peacekeeping.

more: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~24533~2026779,00.html

I think that the reason Bush would rather go with NATO than the UN is because he feels he has more control over NATO. What with Britain, Poland, and the whole host of smaller, recently admitted Eastern Euronpean NATO countries, Bush feels that they can be cowed, bought, or are already beholden to his wishes vis a vis Iraq.

The trouble with this premise is that there are several NATO nations, France, Germany, and recently Spain who can block Bush's wishes in regards to NATO. Also, NATO is already spread quite then. Between the ongoing operations in Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Balkans, NATO forces are already spread quite thin. I don't think there are enough NATO forces to go into Iraq in any meaningful way, which means that Bush will be forced to deal with the UN if he wants to make it a multinational force in Iraq. Not a move Bush wants to make, and sad to say, he will probably continue to restrict the makeup of the forces to it's present mix rather than deal with the UN. He is still smarting from the smack down that the UN gave him over going into Iraq in the first place, and doesn't want to appear as the supplicant before them.

1) aren't those forces in Afghanistan - from the same countries - under the auspices of the U.N.?

2) what is the charter of NATO and how does stabilizing (or occupying) Iraq fall into its authority?

I agree that the countries are stretched thin, and one article I found in looking at Poland - suggests there is some buyers remores there as well (eg they were misled per WMD as a headline). I think even the smaller NATO countries will be hesitant to follow this particular bandwagon if the US continues to hold a dominant directing position (given the lack of international credibility of this Admin.)

NATO has at over 5000 troops in Afghanistan right now, the largest contingent being from Canada <http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1060597226520_5?hub=CTVNewsAt11> However most of these troops are based in Kabul, and don't venture far afield. Also, it seems that there has been difficulty in procuring men and material in order to expand NATO's role in Afghanistan. <http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1209/p07s01-wosc.html>

The role of the UN in Afghanistan is confusing to say the least. It has authorized and set out goals for the ISAF(International Security Assistance Force), but the actual command of the ISAF is under NATO, and the vast majority of the forces in the ISAF come from NATO members. All rather confusing, but the gist of it, I think, is that this is US led operation, with the backing of NATO, with the nominal blessings of the UN. All rather confusing, eh?

In regards to NATO and Iraq, I don't know all of the bylaws and obligations of NATO, but from what I do know, I think that an NATO operation in Iraq would fall under the guise of stablizing a vital European interest. But I could very well be wrong in that assesment.

in Afghanistan-- very helpful. I would guess that the case for NATO in Afghanistan would be related to 9-11 and direct attacks against the US ... not by the Taliban/Afghanistan... but actions that the govt took to prevent direct response to OBL and al qeada.

I would think that the action in Iraq would be much tougher to justify (especially if the member countries populations are not for it to begin with.) Wouldn't it also get complicated with (new member?) Turkey - who the US has been trying to have be involved but not militarily due to likely big problems with the Kurds in the north?

Oh what an ever complicated weave the bush administration continues to weave.

coalition, how many more did we buy?

Someone on TV or radio, yesterday, laid out the phoniness of 'turning the mess' over to the UN and NATO. The NATO part has no substance, it is a physical impossibility.

It would be great to get some written articles per that point to include here.

US to pay for Polish troops in Iraq

From correspondents in Washington

THE United States will pay more than 200 million dollars to cover most of the cost of feeding and airlifting a 9,000-strong Polish-led, multinational force to Iraq, The Washington Post said today, quoting a top Pentagon official.

The US contribution, sealed last week in a letter of understanding, breaks down to between 30 million and 40 million dollars for airlifting most of the troops and another 200 million to provide them with food, medical care and other support, Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim told the daily.

more: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6831789%255E1702,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/29/1059244620873.html

US signs up helpers for Iraq operation
By Vernon Loeb in Washington
July 30 2003





The United States has named 30 governments that have agreed to help in Iraq by contributing to military or police operations.

Some of the countries are unable to pay for their own contributions so they are talking to the US about financial assistance, said the State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher.

The US is anxious to muster as much international support as possible for its forces in Iraq, who face daily attacks and are costing about $US1 billion ($1.5 billion) a week.

The list of governments willing to contribute includes many of those who supported the US invasion of Iraq in March, and none of the main opponents.

A Pentagon official said that it had agreed to pay more than $US200 million in airlift and support costs for a multinational peacekeeping division under Polish command that should be deployed to southern Iraq by the end of September.

more.........

from August 2003 in the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11485-2003Aug18?language=printer

Bush Revises Views On 'Combat' in Iraq
'Major Operations' Over, President Says

By Dana Milbank and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 19, 2003; Page A15


President Bush, revising his earlier characterization of the fighting in Iraq, said in an interview released yesterday that combat operations are still underway in that country.

In an interview with the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service given on Thursday and released by the White House yesterday, Bush interrupted the questioner when asked about his announcement on May 1 of, as the journalist put it, "the end of combat operations."

---snip

In the interview, Bush, asked about the burden on U.S. troops in Iraq, said other nations will be providing troops. "Polish troops are now moving in and will be in, I think, by September 4th of this year, which is in two weeks -- that's a major Polish contingent," he said. "There will be other nations going in to support not only the Polish contingent, but the British contingent."

The Poles have agreed to send 2,400 troops to lead a multinational division including 1,640 troops from Ukraine, 1,300 from Spain and smaller units expected from Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mongolia and the Philippines. The Pentagon has agreed to pay much of the cost of the Polish troops.

-------------------

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH01Ak02.html

Aug 1, 2003

US bartering arms for soldiers for Iraq
By Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS - Faced with a rising death toll among its soldiers in Iraq, the United States is trying to "buy" foreign troops for a proposed 30,000-strong multinational force in Baghdad.

"When they were seeking UN support for a war on Iraq, they were twisting arms," one Asian diplomat said. "Now they are offering carrots in exchange for our troops."

The inducements - including weapons and increased military aid - have apparently been offered to at least three countries whose troops Washington desperately needs to bolster the fledgling multinational force in Iraq and relieve the pressure on US forces in the war-ravaged country.

more...

----