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: D. Long who wrote (40914)	8/30/2002 2:17:02 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

David Ignatius is surprisingly not that far off from David Warren ( davidwarrenonline.com and davidwarrenonline.com ) in this column Wilsonian Course for War By David Ignatius Friday, August 30, 2002; Page A23 An intriguing aspect of the Great Mideast Debate is that a role reversal seems to have taken place: The conservatives are sounding like Woodrow Wilson-style liberal internationalists in their passion for extending democracy to the Arabs, whatever the risks, while the liberals have become the voice of cautious, status quo conservatism. Regarding Iraq itself, the noisy debate within the Bush extended family seems to have been settled this week by Vice President Cheney, whose speech Monday left no doubt that the president is committed to toppling Saddam Hussein, sooner rather than later. After his speech, even the French government was reported to have resigned itself to the Bush administration's war planning. If Cheney's goal was to stop the sense of drift and disorder within the Bush camp, he probably succeeded. What the Bush administration needs to do now is fashion a strategy for the Middle East in which its strike against Iraq won't seem crazy, but part of a sensible plan for a new and stable order in the Middle East. That shouldn't be impossible; the status quo, after all, is a mess -- and has been for decades. That's the problem with those who argue for caution and inaction. They're defending a status quo that's rotten -- one that has left the Arab world perpetually unstable, and one in which U.S. interests seem constantly at risk. A new order would benefit everyone, most of all the Arabs. But how to get there? The wisest comment I've heard recently came from French defense analyst Francois Heisbourg. He observed this week that if the administration is serious about bringing democracy to the Middle East, it shouldn't be thinking in terms of a battle that lasts six months or a year, but of one that requires a decade or more. In that sense, this conflict is the equivalent of the Cold War: a careful, patient struggle rather than a quick firefight. The way to begin this long campaign for democracy, argues Heisbourg, is to make human rights an issue in every meeting the United States and European nations have with each Arab state. That's the kind of slow and steady pressure that produced the Sakharovs and Sharanskys who transformed the Soviet Union. Right now, the Arab world lacks the tools of democratic expression. There are few uncensored newspapers, parliaments or other forums where people can criticize their leaders or debate policy. That's why political life is so fragile in the Arab world, and part of why people often turn to the mosque to express dissent. And it's why the shrill voices on al-Jazeera television are so popular; it's the Arab version of reality TV. Changing this landscape, which analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht refers to as "the post-Ottoman morass," will take many years. It will require a network of nongovernmental organizations, political parties and other pro-democracy groups that can compete with the al Qaeda network. If these groups succeed in rallying ordinary Arabs to their cause, they will transform all the Arab nations, from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Algeria. If they fail, well, in the end, that's a problem for the Arabs themselves. Here is where the left and right should converge -- in supporting democracy and human rights across the Arab world. America doesn't need to go to war (beyond Iraq) or topple governments willy-nilly. It just needs to be true to its values, and never deviate from its long-term strategy for the sake of preserving the status quo. How the Arab world and Iran will respond to U.S. moves against Hussein is hard to predict. There will be some big risks, and also some big opportunities, but we won't really know in advance. That's why it's crucial that U.S. strategy be rooted in fundamental values, rather than short-term interests. A democratic Arab world, almost by definition, should pose less of a threat to Israel. For that reason, Israel should be willing to pay a price to achieve this more stable environment, by helping the Palestinians create a democratic state of their own. The necessary compromises -- on settlements and other issues -- will be hard for the Israelis, but the potential benefits are worth it. U.S. policymakers should adapt one of Warren Buffet's investment tips. Foreign policy (along with investing) is like a baseball game, where the batter can wait as long as he wants for the pitch that's just right and then hit it out of the park. That approach takes patience and steady nerves, but it pays off. Changing the Arab world doesn't have to be as crazy a process as it sometimes sounds. It may be a Wilsonian ideal, but it's rooted in a fact of realpolitik: What exists now isn't working well for anyone. A careful, sensible plan for democratic change in the Middle East deserves support from liberals and conservatives, from dreamers and realists, from Americans and Europeans -- and especially from Arabs and Israelis. washingtonpost.com

To: D. Long who wrote (40914)	8/30/2002 5:54:53 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Eric Mink writes media columns for the Daily News. He is afraid that if people see the scenes of 9/11 on TV again, they might get upset. Where else but in today's NYT. Images That Shock but Don't Inform By ERIC MINK With the first anniversary of last September's terrorist attacks fast approaching, television executives are promising sensitivity and restraint in their use of the horrific video images of that day's events: passenger jets exploding as they penetrate the twin towers of the World Trade Center; skyscrapers collapsing into monstrous, roiling clouds of mortal ash; shocked New Yorkers fleeing for their lives. Even so, a CNN executive told The Associated Press that television producers can't walk away from these images entirely. Yes, they could, and they should. Watching this footage in tapes of programs scheduled to air in the coming weeks reconfirms its power to traumatize viewers whose only connection to the attacks is that they saw them on TV. If time has diminished the assaultive force of these images, the reduction has been meager. Prominent newscasters cling to the rationales that the footage is history, that the one-year anniversary requires its use and that Americans need to see these images again lest they forget what happened. At a news conference last month to publicize NBC's plans for its Sept. 11 coverage, news anchor Tom Brokaw expressed concern "that there has been a kind of drifting away, if you will, emotionally and intellectually, even from the events of that day." But that drifting away might be the psychological distancing that is a natural and essential part of the painful process of grieving and healing. Mr. Brokaw said viewers could be warned that the coverage might be upsetting. That's not all the networks and cable news stations could do; they should make the editorial decision not to use this footage, which is still profoundly disturbing. Replaying those scenes does not serve a news purpose. There is no reason to think that anyone has forgotten what happened in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania a year ago. Television executives could meet their storytelling needs by forgoing the visceral intensity of the video footage and choosing to illustrate those portions of the reports with still photos instead. This would also spare them from claiming restraint in not brazenly exploiting the video images, which they had no intention of doing anyway. Television news programs exercised real, meaningful restraint in the days following the attacks. ABC, for example, came to understand that seeing the crash and collapse sequences over and over again had left viewers feeling brutalized and, even more to the point, had ceased to serve a journalistic purpose. The network stopped airing the footage. For this coming Sept. 11, however, an ABC press release promises that prime-time coverage will include a dramatic minute-by-minute reconstruction of the attacks and how the government reacted to them. ABC executives have said that the footage it had ceased to show last year would be broadcast again during the anniversary programs when doing so is integral to the story. There is no reason to believe that this video imagery has lost its emotional force, certainly not in a year's time. For the true power of this material lies not so much in what it shows ? we've seen film footage, fictional and real, of airplane crashes and imploding buildings before ? than in what we do not actually see: the death, despair and suffering that took place beyond our sight in those planes and buildings. At some point, it will become possible, even useful, to watch the video footage of Sept. 11 without re-imagining these terrible scenes. But not now. Eric Mink writes frequently about television and culture. nytimes.com

To: D. Long who wrote (40914)	8/30/2002 11:46:02 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Sounds to me Khatami is reacting to the US withdrawing support and dialogue and fostering ties directly with more... strenuous... supporters of reform. It's hard, if not impossible, for me even to guess, Derek. But it is clear that something quite significant is going on. As you might guess, I worry that the "moral clarity" bit in the Bush administration will screw it up. The line that goes, "we must announce our position, with great clarity, because our obligation to moral clarity requires it," without serious attention to the likely consequences of such announcements. Moral clarity, in short, can produce the opposite of desired results.