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


To: BigBull who wrote (38261)8/16/2002 11:35:50 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
If you look at the last three paragraphs, he is saying almost exactly what Scowcroft is saying. Need allies; need widespread debate; need to be prepared for long occupation.



To: BigBull who wrote (38261)8/16/2002 11:56:45 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
How that Kissinger position got re-framed as "Don't do it" is almost incomprehensible.


I think I can comprehend it. Bet you can too. -g-



To: BigBull who wrote (38261)8/17/2002 7:18:28 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi BigBull; Re: "How that Kissinger position got re-framed as "Don't do it" is almost incomprehensible."

I agree. It's more like Kissinger is agreeing with the Diplomats, that the attack must be with the approval of our allies (i.e. "America's special responsibility, as the most powerful nation in the world, is to work toward an international system that rests on more than military power -- indeed, that strives to translate power into cooperation. Any other attitude will gradually isolate and exhaust us.") and that it can't be a small force (i.e. "In all probability, Iraq is much weaker and America orders of magnitude stronger than in the Gulf War of 1991. But planning should be based on the visible availability of an overwhelming force capable of dealing with all contingencies, and not on the expectation of a quick Iraqi collapse. Principal reliance on air power and local indigenous opposition forces is too dangerous for it leaves no margin for error or miscalculation. A conspicuous American deployment in the region is therefore necessary to support the diplomacy to destroy weapons of mass destruction and to provide a margin for quick victory if military action proves the only recourse. It may also serve to motivate Iraqi leaders considering the overthrow of Saddam."

In other words, what Kissinger is saying is don't try a minimal, unilateralist attack. Instead, do it like your father did, with full allied support and a massive army, but this time complete the job.

The full alllied support is the hardest nut to crack for Bush. He's been losing ground on this for most of the last year.

By the way, I should point out that what Bush needs to do is to find a causus bellum that not only convinces the American people that war is just, but in addition convinces the majority of the citizens of our allies that it is just. I think that this is an impossible task, and the administration, by its insistence on unilateralism, apparently agrees. Otherwise they'd be out there signing up the allies.

-- Carl