Honduras is not Lithuania
We’re not angry at Honduras for announcing its troop pullout following the precipitous Spanish retreat from Iraq. A little bit disappointed, maybe, but you can’t expect a small country with no immediately clear stake in the outcome to stay when larger, more capable countries with a direct interest are a) bugging out and b) pretending there will be no consequences. It’s too bad the Hondurans speak Spanish; they should try Lithuanian. An (excerpted) editorial in Kauno Diena, a Lithuanian daily, eloquently and correctly makes the case both for being and staying in Iraq.
We’re not angry at Honduras for announcing its troop pullout following the precipitous Spanish retreat from Iraq. A little bit disappointed, maybe, but you can’t expect a small country with no immediately clear stake in the outcome to stay when larger, more capable countries with a direct interest are a) bugging out and b) pretending there will be no consequences. It’s too bad the Hondurans speak Spanish; they should try Lithuanian. An (excerpted) editorial in Kauno Diena, a Lithuanian daily, eloquently and correctly makes the case both for being and staying in Iraq.
“Although the situation in Iraq is becoming more and more complicated, Lithuanian troops will continue their mission in that country. We believe that this mission is justified because we are fighting against international terrorism together with other states.
“The majority of Lithuanian political parties do not dare to promote the idea of the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, which is sinking into chaos and violence, but some of them are considering a possibility to initiate a public discussion on this issue. One of our MPs said that the government would not be able to disregard public opinion if 80-90 per cent of Lithuanians said they wanted Lithuanian soldiers to be pulled out from Iraq. Some believe that Lithuania should allow individual troops to return home if they want to.
“However, there is another question, which is not rhetorical at all: how would World War II have ended if the anti-Hitler coalition had dispersed and all Russian or American soldiers, who wanted to return home, were allowed to put their guns down and leave the front line?”
“It is paradoxical and somewhat shameful but it is a fact that people’s interests are often very different from those of the state because people’s interests are ephemeral and based on concerns about the safety of the near and dear, who are somewhere where cannons are roaring, while the state thinks about long-term interests . . .
“[The opposition to the coalition] . . . (is) guided by international terrorist organizations, the Al-Qa’idah possibly being one of them. The first goal of these varied forces is to split the coalition. This can only be done by forcing one or another state to decide to withdraw from Iraq and, if at least one country did that, we would face the domino effect.
“To achieve their main aim, the militias are often resorting to the most disgusting tactics – taking civilians hostage or even killing them. Thus, terrorists have influence on people living in the countries whose citizens are taken hostage and, in turn, these people pressurize their governments.
“This is why even in the United States, whose administration is harshly criticized at home for its Iraq policies, no serious political force favours the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. America demands that the White House find effective means to restore stability in Iraq.
“Only then the Lithuanian soldiers, having completed their mission, could return home with their heads high.”