SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3881)8/5/2002 2:33:43 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Some comments from Scott Ritter...

What, If Anything, Does Iraq Have to Hide?

by Scott Ritter
Newsday July 30, 2002
ZNET - A Community of People Committed to Social Change
zmag.org

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), has announced that he plans to hold hearings on Iraq starting tomorrow.

Given Sen. Biden's open embrace of regime removal in Baghdad, there is a real risk that any such hearings may devolve into a political cover for the passing of a congressional resolution authorizing the Bush administration to wage war on Iraq. Such hearings would represent a travesty for the American people.

Sen. Biden would do well to focus his attention on the case for war against Iraq. Discussion should ensue on both Iraq's potential and, more importantly, known weapons of mass destruction capability.

On Sept. 3, 1998, I provided detailed testimony before a joint hearing of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees concerning the circumstances of my resignation as a chief inspector of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). The testimony also dealt with Iraq's obligation to be disarmed of its proscribed weapons of mass destruction capability in accordance with relevant Security Council resolutions. In the nearly four years that have passed, much has been made of this presentation, especially by those who seek to use my words to reinforce the current case for war against Iraq.

My testimony was an accurate, balanced assessment in full keeping with the facts available. As of September, 1998, Iraq had not been fully disarmed. UNSCOM was pursuing important investigatory leads concerning (among others) Iraq's VX nerve-agent program, disposition of biological bombs and warheads, and ongoing procurement activity in the field of ballistic missiles with potential application for use in systems with a range greater than the permitted 150 kilometers.

Iraqi obstruction prevented UNSCOM from fully discharging its mandated tasks. We could account for 90 percent to 95 percent of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, versus the 100 percent required by the Security Council. Based upon an assessment of intelligence information available to UNSCOM, once inspection activity had ceased in Iraq, the government of Saddam Hussein could be in a position to resume aspects of his mass weapons programs within a period of six months. While most of this would be related to organizational realignment of dispersed capability, some small-scale weapons production capacity could potentially be reconstituted.

The potential for Iraq to restart its programs, however, did not, and does not today, mean that such reconstitution would be inevitable. The danger in the collapse of the weapons-inspection program lay in the elimination of a major obstacle to any such decision being made by Baghdad, as well as the means to detect any related actions. As such, I spent a great deal of my testimony speaking of the need to maintain a robust regime of inspections that objectively implemented the mandate of the Security Council.

While much attention has been given lately to my discussion of the potential threat posed by Iraq, little has been made of what I then considered to be the main crux of the issue: the collapse of the UNSCOM inspection regime, and the absolute need to get UN weapons inspectors back to work in Iraq. The current war-like posturing of the United States towards Iraq, centered on unsubstantiated speculation about the grave and imminent risk posed by Iraq's current alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, makes the issue of inspections as relevant today as they were in 1998.

In 1998, I told the Senate that UNSCOM had a job to do and we expected to be able to carry it out in accordance within the framework of relevant Security Council resolutions. I emphasized the danger of entering into inspection activity that lacked any compelling arms control reason, noting that in doing so we would be heading down a slippery slope of confrontation that was not backed by our mandate. I pointed out the importance of the United States keeping commitments made to the Security Council. This meant not only holding Iraq accountable for its actions, but also preserving the integrity of the overall inspection operation so that any potential issue of confrontation would be about Iraq's non-compliance, versus issues not expressly covered by the mandate of the Council. I reiterated again and again the harm done to the inspection process by the continued interference by the United States.

Unfortunately my warnings were not heeded. In December, 1998, continued manipulation of the UNSCOM inspection process by the United States led to a fabricated crisis that had nothing to do with legitimate disarmament. This crisis led to the United States ordering UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq two days before the start of Operation Desert Fox, a 72-hour bombing campaign executed by the United States and Great Britain that lacked Security Council authority. Worse, the majority of the targets bombed were derived from the unique access the UNSCOM inspectors had enjoyed in Iraq, and had more to do with the security of Saddam Hussein than weapons of mass destruction. Largely because of this, Iraq has to date refused to allow inspectors back to work. The ensuing uncertainty has created an atmosphere that teeters on the brink of war.

Through his propossed hearings, Sen. Biden has an historic opportunity to serve the greater good of the United States. If a substantiated case can be made that Iraq possesses actual weapons of mass destruction, then the debate is over - the justification for war is clear. But, to date the Bush administration has been unable - or unwilling - to back up its rhetoric concerning the Iraqi threat with any substantive facts.

For Sen. Biden's Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions - and demand hard facts - concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq. Void of that, it is impossible to speak of Iraq as a grave and imminent risk to American national security worthy of war. Therefore, it is imperative that the Senate discuss means other than war for dealing with this situation - including the need to resume UN-led weapons inspections in Iraq.

_______________________________
Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, is author of "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem, Once and For All."



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3881)8/5/2002 3:07:03 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
We Need a Modern Thomas Paine

One U.S. institution after another is losing its legitimacy among the people.



By J. WILLIAM GIBSON
Editorial
The Los Angeles Times
August 4, 2002

The real test of a social science is whether it helps us make sense of our world in times of dramatic political and economic change. Sociology offers one such concept: the "legitimation crisis." Briefly put, leaders of major institutions--economic, political, social, religious, etc.--need the consent of those they manage. They must show themselves morally fit to rule. When it becomes evident that these leaders have betrayed fundamental values, broken laws or behaved incompetently, a legitimation crisis is created.

The nation is now suffering through such a crisis.

High-level corporate managers have artificially inflated profits by keeping funny books. As a result, some of their companies are failing. No one knows how many more workers will lose their jobs, or how many more thousands of people will watch their retirement funds shrink. Because the corporate world has lost credibility, the stock market has been steadily declining; trillions of dollars in personal wealth have vanished.

While the Democrats desperately want to blame Republicans for the crisis in corporate governance, they share responsibility. Democracy 21, a group advocating campaign finance reform, reports that over the last 10 years, corporations gave $636 million to Republicans and $449 million to Democrats. That money helped buy big business political protection from governmental regulation and undoubtedly emboldened corporate executives into thinking that they could get away with just about anything.

The public has lost faith in other U.S. institutions as well.

Bureaucratic rivalry within the nation's intelligence apparatus may have prevented the government from heading off the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The military's war against terrorism in Afghanistan isn't going as well as it first appeared.

The U.S. mode of warfare threatens both the precarious Afghan regime and the legitimacy of the war. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in U.S. bombing raids, and two members of Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai's Cabinet have been assassinated as old ethnic tensions and warlord rivalries have resurfaced.

When economic and political leaders fail, it's natural to look to civil society--churches, schools, universities and foundations--for moral leadership. But that doesn't offer much of an option either. The American Catholic Church has been disgraced by revelations of priestly pedophilia. University presidents are too engaged in boosterism and fund-raising to risk saying anything that might offend a potential donor. The public school system, a key element of U.S. democracy and a source of pride for the country, fails to educate too many of our children.

Legitimation crises are not new in America. The country went through one during the 1972-74 Watergate scandal, when Nixon administration officials illegally raised campaign money, drew up enemies lists and spied on the radical antiwar and civil rights movements, and even mainstream Democrats. But two years of investigation by the news media and a U.S. Senate select committee revealed the abuses, and in August 1974 the House Judiciary Committee voted articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon, leading to his resignation. One part of the U.S. democratic system stopped the corruption and abuse of power of another, and the crisis was resolved.

The current legitimation crisis is different because almost the entire institutional order is affected. As odd as it sounds, the decline of feudalism in the 17th and 18th centuries offers a historical analogy. For centuries, the feudal elite, made up of royal families interconnected with landowning nobility and the upper echelon of the Catholic Church, controlled the lives of peasants in the countryside and the merchant and artisan classes in the cities. But the intellectuals of the Enlightenment and the rising middle and working classes in the cities saw themselves as the vanguard of a new society. They criticized traditional feudal authority and advocated the separation of church and state, democracy, rights of free speech and assembly, and a market economy. Over time, these thinkers and doers undermined the legitimacy of feudalism. The American and French revolutions finished the job.

This sketch of the decline of feudal legitimacy brings into focus what the present legitimation crisis lacks--an organized opposition. Reporters interview workers and managers who've lost their jobs or lost their retirement funds, but, so far, their individual anger hasn't been channeled into a collective demand for dramatic change.

Feudalism's legitimation crisis was in part sparked by alternative visions of the good society. Even in colonial America, which did not suffer the worst of feudal abuses, critics such as Thomas Paine commanded attention as the public pondered what kind of society it wanted to be. His "Rights of Man" sold more than 250,000 copies in its first year.

Today, a serious political treatise becoming a bestseller and the talk of the country seems almost impossible, in part because the advocacy of major social and political change is risky. Twenty years of conservative critiques have taken their toll. Concern about the common good, as opposed to the sanctity of the private market, has been nearly discredited. To be called a liberal is to be deemed mushy, naive and ignorant; to be called a radical is even worse. Nevertheless, the only long-term solution to the legitimation crisis is radical--an organized opposition movement to make elites more accountable, and a renewed discussion of the public good.

Right now, such business reforms as increasing the prison terms of criminally convicted executives seems the most likely outcome. But the reforms signed by President Bush last week don't go far enough. For example, legislation requiring corporations to treat stock options as a business expense didn't pass. Nor has anything been done to help the victims of corporate fraud recover their losses. Such shady business practices as reincorporating headquarters overseas to avoid taxes remain legal.

Over time, the political system's failure to go beyond halfway measures may make the legitimation crisis worse. It's not hard to imagine the widespread withdrawal of people's loyalties to society's mainstream institutions. Our voting rates, already the lowest among the advanced capitalist countries, will continue to decline, so elites will feel even less pressure from below.

And as governments form that are voted into power by an ever-smaller fraction of the populace, fewer people will feel those administrations and the policies they pursue to be legitimate. It's a grim scenario. Under such circumstances, no democracy can endure.
___________________________
J. William Gibson is a professor of sociology at Cal State Long Beach and author of "Warrior Dreams: Violence and Manhood in Post-Vietnam America."

latimes.com