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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38800)	8/20/2002 2:48:30 AM
From: jcky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't always agree with Steven den Beste, but I've always respected his opinion. This is not one of his better pieces of work. It is obvious the president attempted to parlay his political currency following the events of 9/11 to include an invasion of Iraq as an extension of his war against terror. In a rush to judgment, the president made a public policy statement of pre-emptive strike and regime change before all the facts were uncovered and painted himself into a corner. The administration did not consult with our closest allies, senior diplomats, military professionals, or key members of Congress to assess sentiment before making his public statement. This was very silly and partly due to his inexperience and immaturity in foreign policy. But I cannot really fault the president for this. Key members of his administration should have been covering his back. It is also apparent the president's foreign policy agenda has been hijacked by a very narrow interest of ideologic, unilateral, pro-Israeli hawks. One member of this club is well known for his gloomy views during the cold war and his infatuation with maintaining the US as the sole superpower of the world, at any cost. I do not like the image this administration is projecting: confused, unfocused, and awkward. Taking my personal views aside on the invasion of Iraq, the decision to make public our intention to invade Iraq should have occurred only after detailed behind the door coalition-building sessions. In these sessions, a unified presentation of why we need to invade Iraq, how we plan to invade Iraq, who will help us invade Iraq, and what to do in Iraq post-Saddam should have been outlined in advance. These plans should have been presented to our European allies. Those who agree to join us should make a pledge. Those who believe otherwise are free to disagree but with the tacit understanding there should be no public displays of disapproval. Then, and only then, should the president be allowed to publicly decree his policy of pre-emptive strike and regime change in Iraq. A united front is presented, and the president's authority is not undermined in the eyes of the world. Perhaps I'm being a little too critical. But it really breaks my heart to see an American presidency wallow in mud on the issue of Iraq.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38800)	8/20/2002 7:08:53 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

The debate that den Beste has attempted to initiate with Saletan is interesting, though dB is obviously wrong. No surprise there. First, Scowcroft, best I can recall, did not argue that the war was only winnable with international support. He argued that the outcomes would prove unacceptable without international support--chaos in Iraq, instability in other ME countries, etc. Others have argued the same. In fact, given US military superiority, anyone would be foolish to argue the position that dB attributes to Sc. And Sc is definitely not foolish. So, in this instance, dB is arguing against a straw person. On his domestic argument, the polls do support his position, though that support is declining as Republican opposition gathers voice. More important, however, is the very strong possibility, as I've argued repeatedly, that the support, whatever the levels, is very thin and will essentially collapse with the first or second very bad moment. I use the returning body bags as a metaphor for that. If Bush lacks firm bipartisan support for an invasion of Iraq, all hell breaks loose in domestic politics at that point.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (38800)	8/20/2002 3:48:20 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; While I respect Steven den Beste's realistic logic on international affairs, his military analysis is wrong. Re: "All we require from everyone else is that they not actively aid Iraq against us militarily ..." This isn't true. Our problem in Iraq, just like Israel's problems in Palestine, would be with the civilians, not the military. Re: "There may be some smuggling of weapons and spare parts into Iraq from Saudi Arabia or Jordan, and there unquestionably has been and will continue to be such smuggling through Syria. Syria has been routinely violating the sanctions against Iraq for years, and has been the primary source of the spare parts Iraq needs to keep its Soviet-era equipment working. But that alone isn't enough to make it so we can't invade Iraq and win there, and there's no chance of Syrian troops getting actively involved." This is a correct analysis of the military situation, but again, it is not the Iraqi military that could be the problem for us, it's the Iraqi civilians. Israel has far tighter controls on Palestinian borders than we could dream of putting on Iraqi borders, but despite this they have a situation that is almost out of control, certainly not one that we would be willing to accept. Hell, the Israelis were thrown out of Lebanon for reasons similar to the ones we would face in Iraq. And Iraq is many times bigger than Palestine or Lebanon. Re: "You get hints, things which don't otherwise make sense. There's been a shortage of cargo containers recently; suddenly a whole bunch of empty ones went somewhere and got used for something and are no longer in the civilian economy." I've already commented on this. (see #reply-17842912 ) Despite the e-mail about the supposed buildup for war with Iraq, there is no boom in transportation. I've seen no reliable source (i.e. a report that actually tells how many are available and how that number has changed, not just another report of a rumor) stating that there is a definite shortage of shipping containers. Re: "You have certain selected National Guard units being mobilized for something and the most important ones of those are concerned with logistics. (Things like Air National Guard units which operate aerial tankers which have been moved into the Gulf region, for some strange reason.)" As I've noted before, the guard is being demobilized and is now at the lowest levels since February. See #reply-17869276 for the details. If someone wants to go back to the sources and chart the mobilization figures for the various subgroups of the national guard, I welcome the effort. In fact, the above link provides a convenient search which will give you all the figures needed. I'd say that the ball is in the other guy's court, there's no reason for me to comment on this further. Re: "You've got the work on setting up a new major airbase and command compound in Qatar to replace the one in Saudi Arabia." This seems like prudent US policy since our relations with Saudi Arabia are on the downside. Re: "There's a quiet buildup of American men and equipment in Kuwait." Let me get this logic straight. The US wants to oust Saddam Hussein with a massive military attack. The way that this is going to work is because the Iraqis see that it is hopeless. But the US is keeping all its troop movements as quiet as possible. And the local countries, who really support the US, are nevertheless refusing to publicly support the US attack, which is, as are all diplomatic / political / military excursions, dependent on enthusiasm and publicity (as we did against Afghanistan). Kuwait has been quite clear in its condemnation of a US attack on Iraq. They issue denials on the subject every few months. I suppose that if they're silent for a few weeks people will assume that they've changed their minds, LOL!!! So have the other states that are supposedly going to be the springboard for the operation. For example, see: Baghdad, Ankara sign a minute of meetings for joint cooperation arabicnews.com Assafir: Jordan invites Iraq to check if US military is on its bases for attack arabicnews.com Senior Iranian and Bahraini officials also voiced their strong protest at any kind of unilateral military action against Iraq. tehrantimes.com The fighting in North Iraq is not between forces of Saddam Hussein and the Turks, it's between the Islamic Fundamentalists (who've been trying to get rid of Saddam Hussein for 20 years) and the Kurds. For example: arabicnews.com Re: "Beneath an apparent veil of disagreement and confusion, someone is deliberately preparing for war and seems to be doing a pretty good job of it." Sometimes apparent veils of disagreement and confusion are exactly that. The logic is identical to the guys who say that, if you deny having sex with your children, it's an indication that you are in "denial", and are therefore likely to be guilty. The concept that the US is about to attack Iraq has been around for a long time. Here's a denial from Kuwait from back in February: The Kuwaiti minister of defense Sheikh Jaber al-Mubarak has denied the reports stated by the British daily The Guardian on the readiness of 200,000 American troops to launch an attack from Kuwait at Iraq. arabicnews.com arabicnews.com Re: "Some think the war has actually already started. ..." I've already shown that there is no recent buildup of, for example, Turkish forces in Iraq, but that they've been there since 1998. Note that no one here is still talking about Bamerni airport, after I proved that the Turks have already been there for four years: #reply-17878750 Re: "And some of those international condemnations? They may actually be part of it, favors given to us by friends. ..." This is the same logic used by people who end up arrested for date rape. -- Carl