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 (38843)	8/20/2002 8:46:45 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

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. True, we do tend to "cut and run", when things go bad. However, this time, we are dealing with a demoralized enemy who lives in a desert. The present Military leadership has had "hands" on experience with this foe, so we won't run into the "CRS" syndrome. I think those involved know that it must be done quickly. To put it crudely, but honestly, I think the public will stand for the "body bags," if it is over in a couple of weeks. I suspect Bush is going to make his case in a "Kennedy" manner, just before we go in, as Kennedy did with the Missile Crisis. We ended up not going in to Cuba, but the set up will be the same. John, I don't think anything this administration could say would ever convince you we should invade. If they recite the things we have already discussed, you will say "you knew that," and are not convinced. If they produce new evidence that we have not heard before, you will say, "it is not proven," and will still resist any action. I think about 25% of the country takes your stand. About 40% takes my stand, and the other 35% will go with the administration and give them a chance to do it. TWT!

To: JohnM who wrote (38843)	8/20/2002 10:55:01 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

On his domestic argument, the polls do support his position, though that support is declining as Republican opposition gathers voice You wish, John. And Howard Raines wishes. However, most of the Republican opposition is not actually in opposition, as Thomas Oliphant (not notably a Republican) points out in today's Globe: The 'doubts' of GOP elders on Iraq attack have been overstated By Thomas Oliphant, 8/20/2002 WASHINGTON IF THE GHOSTS of national security advisers past are what President Bush has to worry about as he stumbles toward a decision about Iraq, then he has nothing to worry about. Through a combination of press oversimplification and partisan spin from opponents (and, ironically, proponents) of war, the impression has been created of widespread disagreement with the administration on the part of Republican and Democratic predecessors, including senior policy makers in the administration of Bush's father. Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who have sat where Condoleezza Rice sits have questions and challenges for Bush. They do not, however, step forward as opponents of war but instead as advocates of war as a last resort, as opponents of war without allies, without laborious preparation of public opinion in this country and abroad, of war without careful planning for the rebuilding of Iraq. Opponents of an attack on Iraq have attempted to portray Bush as beset by broad disagreement from within the Republican Party's foreign policy establishment. And hard-line proponents of war have portrayed those who have raised questions as appeasing naysayers, presumably allied with such other right-wing betes noires as Secretary of State Colin Powell. Rubbish. Most attention has been focused on the spoken and written words of Brent Scowcroft, Father Bush's national security adviser and a central architect of the Gulf War. While pseudo-Freudian babblers attempt to speculate about father-son relations, they overlook the fact that Scowcroft is anything but an opponent of military action. What Scowcroft has actually said is that if Saddam Hussein were to block a renewed, intrusive inspections program under UN auspices, his rejection could provide the persuasive reason for war that many claim the United States does not have. Compelling evidence that Saddam has acquired nuclear weapons capability could have a similar effect. Those just happen to be the two most likely scenarios that could lead to war - with overwhelming public support, Scowcroft's included. His so-called objections are much more like cautions - that we must make sure the Middle East isn't further destabilized, that support for our worldwide struggle against terrorism is not diminished. He argues, in other words, for a comprehensive policy that includes a response to Iraq; what he opposes is a sudden, Iraq-only fixation. Similarly, the cautions articulated by such figures as former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and retired General Wesley Clark, who led the campaign against Yugoslavia, emphasize the importance of a vigorous effort to recruit support from fellow members of the NATO alliance - both for any eventual war and for a multilateral approach to reconstruction after a war. The most egregious misportrayals, however, involve former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the retiring House majority leader, Dick Armey of Texas. In his spoken and written words of late, Kissinger's only skeptical comments have involved the folly of going forward toward war without a clear commitment to a possibly lengthy and expensive nation-rebuilding effort inside Iraq. Beyond the postwar obligation, the bulk of Kissinger's commentary has consisted of an argument that preemptive war to block the potential use by a tyrant of a weapon of mass destruction is just and even prudent. Even Armey's point has been misconstrued. He has concentrated on making a case that a sneak attack out of the blue will properly earn widespread condemnation abroad and at home - that even in the presence of modern, mass-killing weapons, such strikes go against American values. Yet the administration has been a driving force behind the scenes for the very public discussion about war in which Americans are now engaged. The chances of a sneak attack could be rated at virtually zero. It is possible to argue that Bush should be more of a participant in this vital discussion than he has been to date, that the international conversation needs his voice trying to make the case in detail. But the White House has a point that Bush's full participation would imply that a decision to go to war had been made when it clearly has not been. As the discussion proceeds, it is tempting to get shrill, but this topic is too important. And as it proceeds, it is also important not to mischaracterize other people's views to fit one's own. Bush has obstacles ahead, but the notion he has serious opponents in his own party on Iraq is simply inaccurate. Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com This story ran on page A19 of the Boston Globe on 8/20/2002. boston.com

To: JohnM who wrote (38843)	8/20/2002 11:26:20 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

You're right that den Beste has misquoted Scowcroft. I didn't notice it when I read it the first time. Scowcroft is referring to the war on terror, not the proposed war on Iraq, But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence. However, there is certainly a chorus of voices claiming that we need a coaliton to invade Iraq, and don't have it. But Scowcroft isn't in the chorus. If he is correct that the war on Iraq would seriously degrade Europe's intelligence cooperation with us (and I think Europe is the main party to be concerned with. Maybe Egypt and Jordan. We certainly don't get cooperation from Saudi Arabia now, so small loss there), that's a serious objection. But I haven't seen anyone else make it, and Scowcroft shows no evidence.