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: Bilow who wrote (40450)	8/28/2002 1:07:38 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Bush's way or the highway? BY WILLIAM O'ROURKE Columnist The Chicago Sun-Times August 27, 2002 An October surprise is usually thought of as an election-year gimmick designed to support the incumbent president or his party. If attacking Iraq is President Bush's October surprise, it will come as no surprise. This last year of saber rattling by the administration is unprecedented. It began with Bush's well-received State of the Union speech in January, when he called Iraq part of the ''axis of evil.'' Speechwriter David Frum left the administration shortly thereafter, when his wife boasted to friends that he was the ''author'' of the reworked cliche. The phrase has always been nonsensical, since ''axis'' implies a relationship, coordination, which this axis lacks. The other named states--North Korea and Iran--are not currently under threat, unless all this attention on Iraq is a diversion: North Korea or Iran, at this point, would be really surprised if we attacked either of them. But surprise isn't necessary when it comes to attacking Iraq, or bringing about ''a regime change,'' which is the president's object. The Gulf War came as no surprise to Saddam Hussein. He saw the amassing forces for a month before Baghdad's night sky became a television show, full of green light and bright explosions. Attacking North Korea or Iran may or may not be in the planning stage. Bush has elevated Iraq as the maximum evil. A war on terrorism mainly produces only negative victories--no terrorist acts perpetrated. The Bush administration, though, still is searching for tangible triumphs, trophy wars that can be fought with limited costs. There were reasons given for attacking Afghanistan, at least reasons most Americans could comprehend. The Taliban supported the agents of 9/11, al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, and wouldn't give them up. Our bombing brought about a regime change. We gave the country back to the warlords. If there is a precedent for all this public contemplation by Bush (and legions of commentators) over whether to wage war with Iraq, one has to reach back to World War II, before Pearl Harbor. But that is a stretch. The only connection of 9/11 to Pearl Harbor was planes, blue skies and surprise. But, as it was in WWII, if you're battling an axis, you better have allies; indeed, it's implied. Where are ours? Though Bush doesn't mind being compared to Teddy Roosevelt, he has altered Roosevelt's prescription of ''speak softly and carry a big stick'' to ''talk loudly and brandish your national security team.'' All the bellicose talk may be a tactic to render Saddam cooperative, but the Bush team obviously favors bellicose action. Condi Rice has been given the task to make the ''moral'' case for preemptive strikes, though the trouble with preemptive strikes is that they don't remain preemptive very long. They become long-term problems, requiring sacrifice and commitment. Apparently, we don't feel much commitment to Afghanistan, though it is less likely we will be able to bomb Iraq for months and then leave it largely to its own devices. Bush hasn't been praised much as an abstract thinker, but his announced desire to unseat Saddam has presented the entire country with a good many abstract notions: the dreaded (by Bush) subject of nation building, the various moralities of so-called just war, the rights of sovereign nations, the use of force as a political instrument, and so on. The Bush doctrine that is evolving seems to be this: We can do what we want. Much has been written of the Bush administration's post-Cold War penchant for going it alone, its arrogant unilateralism. It's our way, or the highway. Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists. Bush said the latter in regard to the war on terror; the former is what the world is beginning to hear. Whether Americans want that to be the message delivered for them by their president is still an open question. But, like the curtailment of rights that Bush's Department of Justice has gotten away with, the president gets his wish one bite at a time. Baghdad may be the next bite. suntimes.com

To: Bilow who wrote (40450)	8/28/2002 9:26:13 AM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 281500

You always have the choice of whether or not to fight. Sometimes the alternative to fighting is surrender, or even death. As I put in the bottom of my post....I didnt think of the alternatives to war in Afghanistan as very viable options. We could have allowed Al Qaeda to continue to attack us or we could have simply asked them to draw up a list of demands and given in on all of them. You are right that there are always theoretical options....but practically the US didnt have much choice. Iraq is not (yet) a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, but it has some of the earmarks of that kind of problem. And with our allies in the region clearly against our going in (because of fear of their own stability), it is obvious that there is significant room for our making our security worse as a result of going into Iraq, as opposed to leaving the situation with containment. I would argue that there is a pretty high probability that invading Iraq is going to make the situation worse over the short-term. We are going to piss of the entire region and rile Arab public opinion even more against us. However, it is unclear what impact a victory in Iraq would have over the long-term. Will the situation be better in 5 years after an Iraq invasion or better allowing a nuclear Iraq? I dont think the answer is as clear. Slacker