Posted on 03/10/2005 10:35:51 AM PST by Leo Carpathian
OP-ED:
Faced with an ever-increasing terrorist threat in the wake of September 11, the United States and its allies had to go to war with Iraq. Back in 2003, a quick and effective strike was needed to foil Saddam Hussein's assertive plans. It would have taken years, if the US and its allies opted at the time to get a UN blessing for the operation. Needless to say, the varying, and often conflicting, interests of major international payers, France, Germany, Russia, China and many more, would have protracted a UN-supported operation for years.
Feelings in Ukraine were mixed when the US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq. There were no condemning resolutions by the Ukrainian legislature as was the case in Russia and Belarus, but many leftist and rightist parties criticized the military involvement. They accused the US-led coalition of pursuing military goals (to capture Iraq and create a NATO bridgehead in the Middle East), economic goals (to get control of Iraqi oil reserves), and an overarching political goal (to assert the role of world policeman).
In this context, surprisingly little, if anything, was said that would substantiate the role of the US as the sole superpower and the ensuing U.S. responsibilities for maintaining democracy and civil liberties in the world. In the Balkan conflict, for instance, analysts and the media preferred to focus on massive NATO-led bombardments, Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal policies, violations of human rights. In Ukraine, with state-run mass media being dominated by the government and commercial mass media openly harassed, the coverage of the events in Yugoslavia was restricted to cool, short of critical, reporting on the West's military action, without any noticeable analysis of the scope of the US peace mandate. Equally, very little had been said about the failure of the United States to get the UN umbrella in Bosnia, with Russia clearly indicating to its Serbian ally that she would not back the use of UN military sanctions in the Security Council.
The media gave little ink, if any, to the US track record in similar conflicts in the past, for example, in Grenada in 1983 where the US role was to put the democratically elected government back into office after a Marxist coup, or in Haiti and the Philippines in the 1990s, when the US encouraged these countries to move toward democratic self-government. No one tried to counter a popular argument that the US wants to economically subjugate foreign countries by citing the US policy toward rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII.
When the US requested other nations to join the operation, Leonid Kuchma jumped at the chance because he was badly in need of any international recognition in the wake of the mind-shattering decapitation of investigative journalist Gongadze and the alleged sales of weapons to Iraq. With the upcoming 2004 presidential election, Kuchma was also eager to boost his single-digits approval ratings inside Ukraine, as the beleaguered president still cherished dreams of standing for his third term in office.
In political terms, Ukraine's presence in Iraq is of crucial importance to its new democratic government as it is evidence in deeds, not in words, of the country's declared course toward the West. For the United States, Ukraine's presence is largely symbolic, demonstrating the amount of international support behind its operation in Iraq.
In military terms, Ukraine's role in Iraq is insignificant and all the talk that the Ukrainian pull-out will dent the allied defense is mere rhetoric: just compare the mammoth allied force to the 1.6-thousand-strong Ukrainian contingent of which 2-3 hundreds are non-combat supporting troops.
Ukraine's presence in Iraq has never been much of an issue with ordinary Ukrainians. From a quite pompous campaign preceding the deployment to Iraq they knew that the servicemen were recruited on a voluntary basis. Therefore, when the leftists started massive hue and cry many knew it was part of their political games in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election.
Except the Communists, the pull-out issue was low on the agenda's of presidential candidates vying for the office in 2004. Toeing Kuchma's line, his hand-picked successor Viktor Yanukovych was against the withdrawal at the outset of his campaign. His rival, Viktor Yushchenko, gave the issue a passing attention, focusing on the regime riddled with corruption and crime.
However, later in the campaign, especially after Round One when Yushchenko was seeking more voter support, including the leftist-leaning electorate of the Communist candidate then out of the race, he was forced to move the pull-out issue up his campaign agenda, making a number of committing and, unfortunately, rash statements. He was soon joined by Yanukovych, who was also after the leftist voters and who, after Round Two, made a dramatic U-turn ( although many doubted its sincerity) trying to distance himself from Kuchma and blasting his godfather for his policies.
But the big question is whether the Ukrainian peacekeepers (and Yushchenko's voters at that) are that keen to go home. It's an open secret that the majority of our servicemen went to Iraq, on a voluntary basis, tempted by money. Being professional soldiers, they would hardly be scared by the present losses (about 20 dead, of which nearly a half were non-combat losses). The pull-out puts an end to their financial plans. Still, things are not that bad for them out in Iraq. A month ago, the customs in Kyiv seized $300,000 in contraband money which the servicemen, escorting the body of an officer who died from a heart attack, were carrying on themselves.
Ukrainian troops will be needed in Iraq - not least because joint economic projects the Ukrainian government so eagerly seeks in Iraq must be protected from guerilla attacks. History shows that civil wars, and what's going on in Iraq is a full-fledged civil military conflict, do not end any time soon: after the Soviet occupation of Western Ukraine in 1944 bloodshed continued for ten more years. And Stalin's police and KGB were no match for Iraq's nascent security forces.
That is why Yushchenko should move fast to find the way out of the corner in which he got himself painted. He has several face-saving options how to prolong the stay of Ukrainian troops in the country that badly needs international help. Our troops can be moved to a neighboring country (Kuwait, Afghanistan) where they can train Iraqi soldiers. Their status can be changed from that of belonging to a US-led coalition to a unit protecting the projects in Iraq in which Ukraine is involved. Finally, our soldiers can go to Iraq as soldiers of fortune if the Iraqi government agrees to such arrangement. In all these scenarios, however, there is one crucial condition: the initiative must be taken by Ukraine.
?Because the Ukrainians have Their new 'Carpathian' Nuclear Missiles aimed at 'Mecca' and _____?
/scarism
My opinion is that they are no longer needed and that is why they will go home. I respect those brave guys for standing with us as allies.
bump for later reading
Gratitude and respect to the Ukrainians for making an independent decision, articultaing their reasons for it, and sticking to it despite unmerited criticism!
A.A.C.
(P.S. I might be just a little biased since my wife is Ukrainian)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.