Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Coyne who wrote (266280)	6/23/2002 11:51:55 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 769670

MOLLY IVINS: GIVE PEACE A CHANCE dfw.com "Try waging peace first" Molly Ivins Jun. 23, 2002 AUSTIN - "Jaw, jaw," said Winston Churchill, "is better than war, war." I bring up the not-often-contested notion that peace is better than war only because it seems the Bush administration is incapable of grasping the self-evident. According to The New York Times, President Bush has directed his top security people - a happy nest of neo-con hawks - "to make a doctrine of pre-emptive action against states and terrorist groups trying to develop weapons of mass destruction." This means we declare war first. This dogma "will be the foundation of a new national security strategy." Let's see - we already have our military in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Georgia and the Philippines. We are also deeply into Colombia as part of the drug war and have fairly regular deployment by special ops in Somalia, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Good thing for India and Pakistan that they made it into the Nuclear Club before the deadline, eh? Let's see - add Iran, North Korea and some of the nuttier princes, kings, sheiks, presidents-for-life; I make that between 20 and 30 wars we'll have to fight under the new doctrine. Then you have to add in all the "failed states." The administration says it is "fine-tuning" the doctrine to include joint operations with other powers: "Potential targets include weak states that have become, in the words of one official, 'petri dishes' for terrorist groups." You can't exactly have a war between, say, Sierra Leone and the United States. When there's no actual government, we end up trying to control a bunch of warlords - and, as we have learned in Somalia and Afghanistan, it ain't easy. <b?The trouble with such non-wars is that there's no exit strategy; we're in for indefinite occupation. Do we really think this is a good idea? OK, what we're really trying to do here is set up some policy rationale for attacking Iraq and possibly the other Axes of Evil as well. It's not that easy to argue against taking out Saddam Hussein. But as Joshua Marshall points out in the current issue of The Washington Monthly, the people who are urging us to attack Iraq are either dishonest or simplistic, or both, in their arguments. They are failing to ask, much less answer, some basic questions about the risks. Ken Adelman was recently asked on television one of those major "what if" questions and actually replied, "Don't worry about that." That is not an answer. As they say in the military, "Hope is not a plan." But what the hawks hope is that the Iraqi people hate Saddam and will be delighted to see us show up and liberate them. Unfortunately, we'll have to bomb them first. In case you hadn't noticed, this tends to make us unpopular. Marshall reports, "When asked what would happen if America encountered an embittered civilian population after fighting a grisly battle for Baghdad, Perle replied with a question, 'Suppose the Iraqis are dancing in the streets after Saddam is gone?'" That non-answer is based on the false premise that if the Iraqis hate Saddam, they're bound to love us, which is nonsense. If we're going to do this, I suggest the administration prepare the country for exactly how big the risks are. Unfortunately, it seems more inclined to question the patriotism of anyone who asks questions. As for the longer menu of war and near-war under the Bush Doctrine, why not try peace instead? The hope of the world has been the slow growth and development of international law. Announcing that we will declare war "pre-emptively" whenever we feel like it does nothing to promote peace. What makes us think our intelligence is good enough to learn if and where such weapons are being developed? When Bill Clinton tried to go after al Qaeda, he missed Osama bin Ladin by an hour and destroyed a harmless pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. The FBI, the CIA and the rest managed to ignore the warning signs on 9/11. We're not competent enough to go around declaring "pre-emptive war." Why not announce in advance that we plan to work with other countries on solving the problem of terrorism? Why not try waging peace first? A.J. Muste said, "There is no way to peace: Peace is the way." What can this doctrine possibly achieve except creating more hatred of the United States?