Polish Removers: Dem election prospects repel allies
By: Daniel Clark
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has decided to postpone the construction of an American missile defense base in his country, a move that news reports have attributed to his being less pro-American than his predecessor, Jaroslaw Kaczynski. Tuskâ€™s reason for this change in policy, however, does not indicate an erosion of the Polesâ€™ loyalty to their American allies. Rather, it is based on their concerns about Americaâ€™s wavering dedication to its own missile defense project.
Tusk wants to delay the deployment of the missile shield until after this yearâ€™s U.S. presidential election, and itâ€™s hard to argue with his judgment. Everybody knows that if the Democrats win the presidency, they will mothball our missile defense plan, just as Bill Clinton did for the entire eight years of his administration. Russia, the powerful and cantankerous neighbor to Polandâ€™s east, has protested the U.S. missile shield from the outset. If Tusk proceeds with the project, only to see it abandoned by our next president, heâ€™ll have antagonized the Kremlin for no good reason.
Itâ€™s not as if the Poles would have a hard time believing that the Democrats would hang them out to dry. Thatâ€™s because Poland has been among our most trusted allies in Iraq â€“ you know, the ones that John Kerry slandered as â€œthe coalition of the bribed and coerced.â€ Those allies canâ€™t help but be leery of Kerryâ€™s party, members of which have threatened to cut off funding for the war, demanded a â€œredeploymentâ€ to Okinawa, and refused to accept the delivery of good news from General Petraeus. With the prospect of a Democrat victory in November, Poland risks angering not only Russia, but also a newly elected, Democrat-controlled government here in the U.S.
The real story out of Poland, then, is that the Democrats have succeeded in deterring an ally from helping the United States. This is important not only insofar as their obstruction of our missile defenses are concerned, but also in serving as a parallel to their effect on another important American ally â€“ the people of Iraq.
A key component of Petraeusâ€™ success has been the emergence of the Iraq Awakening movement among that nationâ€™s Sunni population. However, itâ€™s not as if those people literally woke up one day in 2007 and decided, all of a sudden, that they didnâ€™t like al-Qaeda. Obviously, theyâ€™d considered themselves to be enemies of the terrorists for quite some time, but had been intimidated by the specter of a politically-driven American retreat. It was only after President Bush surprised the Western media by announcing an increase in Americaâ€™s commitment to Iraq that the Sunnis were encouraged to take a stand.
According to the Democratsâ€™ â€œredeploymentâ€ plans, the opposite should have happened. It was supposed to have been our swift and complete withdrawal that caused the Iraqis to become self-reliant enough to stand up and fight for their country. Thatâ€™s what we were told, at least, by the party that had nominated Sen. Kerry, who thinks there was no bloodbath after the U.S. left Vietnam, and that the Communist reeducation camps were generally beneficial.
Now that the presidentâ€™s plan is succeeding, youâ€™d think his detractors would be apologizing for their lack of support. Then again, youâ€™d also think theyâ€™d be eating some crow over the progress of a missile defense plan theyâ€™d once dismissed as impossible. If you really believed theyâ€™d had our nationâ€™s best interests at heart in the first place, that is.
For much of this war, the Democrats have criticized President Bush for not bringing â€œour alliesâ€ on board, but instead pursuing a â€œgo-it-alone foreign policy.â€ In reality, it is they who have alienated our true allies, and repelled potential others, through their defeatism, and their desire for America to give up its leadership role in search of consensus.
In hindsight, itâ€™s clear that the Democrats did not want us to have any allies on board, and that they were trying to alienate the ones we had. What else might they have expected to be the effect of their constant naysaying, their drumbeat of demands for resignations, and their daily predictions of doom? Exactly what would they have said to try to convince â€œour alliesâ€ to join us, â€œCome on in, the quagmireâ€™s fineâ€?
So, in the end, the media are correct that the delay in implementing our missile shield is due to the obstruction of a country whose government is becoming less pro-American. Their mistake is in identifying that country as Poland.
New Media Alliance Television (www.nmatv.com)
New Media Alliance Blogs (www.thenma.org/blogs)
Daniel Clark is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.