Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (37671)	8/13/2002 7:21:08 PM
From: Starowl	of 281500

Well, I'm never sure what Ritter's position is, as it seems to change with the wind. In my view, Iraq's bad behavior hasn't reached a threshold to justify an attack. And the administration hasn't sufficiently explained what its rationale for attacking would be. Inspections to find the "guns" before they smoke would lead nowhere, so I wouldn't recommend another inspection regime. Ritter-led teams produced more noise and dust than useful information. He was looking to unravel and discover the Iraqi mechanism for hiding material the other teams were pursuing. The method didn't work and his backers ran out of enthusiasm for the bully tactics he used without tangible results. Rather than accept responsibility for a flawed approach or admit defeat, he chose the course of abandoning his mission, and that was four years ago this month. He really betrayed the cause, in my view. The "coalition" attacks in December 1998 epitomized the failure of the Ritter approach to inspections. The other inspection teams did excellent work with meticulous and expert investigations into all areas of concern and produced a wealth of information justifying the creation of UNSCOM. Ritter's teams were populated with competent and dedicated professionals but the teams had the subtlety of an M1 tank. Some Congressional Republicans (like Lott) championed Ritter but the administration kept a wary eye on him, with justification. Personally, he's a pretty nice guy. This is why I take his positions with a shrug. He frowns well; chops the air with authority; and gets "expert" status with the news people. But so did/does his bete noire the avuncular Richard Butler, last head of UNSCOM, whose unctuous pronouncements decorated CNN's morning news coverage for months after the 9/11 attacks. Who is this Australian telling America what's going on in Afghanistan? I asked myself. Oh well. Life's a real gas.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next