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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (35716)	8/2/2002 5:34:45 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Good Editorial in the "WSJ.com" today. Don't let the left set in the bleachers and catcall, make them step up to the plate and swing their bats. Everyone is now picking up on the fact that the new Editor of the NYT is using his News columns to push his "anti-war" position. The Antiwar Party Yes, President Bush should make a public case for toppling Saddam. Friday, August 2, 2002 12:01 a.m. The Senate began hearings this week over deposing Saddam Hussein, which is fair enough. But we think the much bigger news is the way America's antiwar forces are rising from their post-September 11 quietude to stop any U.S. invasion of Iraq. Their volume isn't yet at George Mitchell-Gulf War levels, but the trend is unmistakable. From inside the Bush Administration, opponents of deposing Saddam are leaking war plans and their doubts about them. Outside, meanwhile, the intellectual left wing of the Democratic Party has begun to agitate against a war, especially in the news and editorial pages of the New York Times. Leading Democrats in Congress aren't yet so bold, though they have begun to insist that President Bush get their approval before he undertakes any military action. This was all probably inevitable, and it might even be educational. The left's Vietnam antiwar generation became quieter with the fall of the Berlin Wall, but it never went away. During the Clinton years it even accepted the use of American military force, but only if that power was harnessed to some "multilateral" mission and a humanitarian cause. Its intellectuals still rebel at unilateral U.S. self-defense, and especially at the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emption" against a threat to U.S. interests. A debate in Congress would illuminate all of this and more. Without a vote, the antiwar party will be able to criticize from the bleachers without taking responsibility. There is a serious security argument against such a vote, that it will give Saddam a chance to strike first, perhaps at the U.S. homeland. But a vote in the fall could merely authorize Mr. Bush to use force sometime in the future, which would still allow for U.S. surprise. Above all, a debate would let Mr. Bush demonstrate that he has by far the stronger case. Even the critics concede that Saddam is a threat, after all, a tyrant who has gassed his own people, tried to kill a U.S. President and whose military routinely fires at American pilots patrolling no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that before the Gulf War Saddam was "within a year or two" of having nuclear weapons. And at Wednesday's Senate hearings, former Iraqi nuclear engineer Khidir Hamza said Saddam will have enough weapons-grade uranium for three nuclear bombs by 2005. The antiwarriors concede all of this but say the U.S. should work through the United Nations to let sanctions contain Saddam. All the more so because there is no conclusive evidence linking Saddam to September 11, and thus the U.S. has no international right to invade. Well, self-defense is its own right, and we hardly need definitive September 11 proof to know Saddam might have helped. Failing to topple him now would set its own dangerous precedent, not least for the war on terror. As for inspections, after the Gulf War Saddam led U.N. inspectors and Secretary-General Kofi Annan on a "where's Waldo" chase until he finally threw them out of the country. Mr. Rumsfeld said this week that "it would take such a thoroughly intrusive inspection regime, agreed to and then lived up to by Iraq, that it's difficult to comprehend . . . that they might accept such a regime. It would have to be without notice, it would have to be anywhere, any time." More substantively, there is a debate inside the Pentagon over how to topple Saddam, with the Army in particular favoring a large troop deployment. But when have generals ever thought they had enough forces to prevail in any war? The Iraqi military is only about 40% as capable as it was in 1990, while the U.S. can now hit a target from just about anywhere at any time and in any kind of weather. It's foolish to assume an easy victory this time, but we also remember those who predicted 25,000 casualties for the Gulf War. In our porous democracy, it is impossible to keep such internal debates entirely private. The leaks also help inform the media and the public, and as long as they don't endanger an imminent battle plan, we don't oppose their publication. Already the Times has printed so many "secret" war plans that Saddam can only be thoroughly confused. If the antiwar party wants to stop an invasion, they know how to do it--for example, by cutting off funds the way Congress did in 1973 for South Vietnam, paving the way for a 20-division invasion by the North. We doubt, however, that the mood of the country is ready to call it quits on the war on terror and one of its main global sponsors. So by all means let's have a rousing debate over Iraq. Our advice to President Bush is that he call the critics' bluff and make them declare themselves in Congress.