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: JohnM who wrote (37782)	8/14/2002 10:31:17 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

LEAKING IS NECESSARY TO COUNTERACT GOVERNMENT SECRECY Op/Ed - Richard Reeves Sat Aug 10, 9:01 PM ET story.news.yahoo.com WASHINGTON -- Washington is leaking. Day after day, someone, somewhere is whispering selected details of Pentagon ( news - web sites) and White House planning for another war against Iraq. Someone, somewhere is handing over documents detailing who knew what about al-Qaida terrorism before Sept. 11 of last year. And it's a good thing. Leaking may be a pain for decision makers, but it is necessary for our democracy, especially on issues of war and peace in a government that is becoming more and more secretive. Talk to members of Congress and some administration officials, and many of them are convinced that the United States is preparing once more to go to war without officially consulting the Congress or anyone else. The closest ordinary citizens can get to the dialogue of secrets is by reading or hearing the stories of preparation or opposition. In times like these, leaking becomes the national dialogue. Both sides, those who want another war and those who think it would be a disaster, are leaking information (most of it true, if the history of leaking is any guide) that bolsters their arguments. Isn't that terrible? I, for one, would answer no. It is a lot better in the long run than the "no comments" and deceptions of those who use national security as a shield to push their own agendas or discredit any and all questioning and dissent. It's also a handy way to uncover incompetence. The leaking on questions of responsibility and competence before the attacks on the World Trade Center went big time last week in a big section of Time magazine. Fourteen pages were devoted to what the editors called "The Secret History." One of the headlines summarized what Time had learned by hook or crook: "Long before 9/11, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaida. By the time they decided, it was too late. The saga of a lost chance." The writer was Michael Elliott, a talented fellow, but the principal sources were almost certainly former officials in the Clinton administration. The gist of the report was that Clinton's National Security Council knew a great deal about al-Qaida and its operations and ambitions by the end of the year 2000 -- and had a plan to destroy the terrorists by cutting off international funding and breaking up cells with arrests and assassinations here and there. Then, the story goes, the Clinton team, with only a month left in office, passed the information and the plan along to President Bush ( news - web sites)'s national security team, specifically in briefing meetings with Condoleezza Rice ( news - web sites). Ms. Rice says she doesn't remember anything like that and then refuses to say anything else on the grounds of national security. Outraged Bush-friendly pundits took over the defense from there. "Now They Blame Bush for 9/11" was the headline over one column, by Jon Podhoretz of the New York Post, who said: "It's true that this country failed to take the terrorism threat seriously before 9/11. But that was entirely, entirely, entirely the fault of Sandy Berger (Clinton's national security adviser) and (Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright ( news - web sites) and (Secretary of Defense) William Cohen and their boss, Bill Clinton." So it goes. All this was done in secrecy, of course. And I would argue that this was not the "fault" of individuals, in either the Clinton or Bush administrations. It was the secrecy itself that was the problem. How many Americans had ever heard of al-Qaida before the fires of Sept. 11? Such knowledge was, and is, officially considered too difficult and dangerous for the citizenry of the democracy. The irony, I would also argue, was that if our rulers actually trusted the people, they would have put the fears and information about terrorism on the public agenda. They should have been talking about it openly from the beginning. If they had, I believe, there would have been an informed citizenry aware of new dangers and capable of defending themselves. There would not have been a Sept. 11. Here the people rule, or so we like to say. But the people (and the Congress, too) are effectively cut out of the process by a well-meaning, secrecy-addicted national security establishment of only a few hundred people. That is the problem, so what is the solution? The solution is leaks, sooner rather than later.

To: JohnM who wrote (37782)	8/14/2002 10:53:32 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

People say Islam is an angry religion. I disagree. It's just that a lot of Muslims are angry, because they live under repressive regimes, with no rule of law, where women are not empowered and youth have no voice in their future. What is a religion but a mirror on your life? Message from India to the world: Context matters — change the political context within which Muslims live their lives and you will change a lot. Spooky. This is exactly what I was trying to say yesterday. Context is the determing factor. If we want to experience peace from the 'militant Islamic' world we will need to alter the context people in that world live. The great thing about a program to alter context is that you cannot make people change. You can influence, lead, inspire and educate but you cannot force. This does not mean you don't defend yourself. If there are real threats to security, they must be eliminated. Every country and every person needs to have a "This far and no further" point. This is why I am so frustrated with Bush. If we attack Iraq without making a compelling case, we will undermine the Muslims in militant countries that act as voices of reason. These are the people we will need if we hope to change the context of life in the 'militant Islam' world. John, this is very different than propaganda. Paul

To: JohnM who wrote (37782)	8/15/2002 1:07:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Tom Friedman has an interesting bit of commentary today that goes along with Paul Philp's comments from last night. Did you agree with the essence of what Tom Friedman had to say about why muslims are angry and directing their anger at the US and the West?? They can't direct it at their own repressive governments at the moment, so they choose extremism as an outlet, using creative and fantastic conspiracy theories to justify their hatred of the west. But the reality lies in places like India, where Hindus and Muslims have managed to live together pretty well overall under democracy. People are people... And if you don't give them hope for their future, you'll catch their wrath. Hawk