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: Rascal who wrote (40950)	8/30/2002 11:13:07 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

IMO, the country would be A LOT safer if Colin Powell were President...=)

To: Rascal who wrote (40950)	8/30/2002 11:24:29 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

President should listen to his father's advisers By William Pfaff Syndicated columnist The Seattle Times Thursday, August 29, 2002 PARIS — It is hard to judge whether the generational split on the Iraq issue — between Republicans who governed under the first President George Bush and those in Washington today — is more likely to block a war or speed its coming. The young George Bush and his neoconservative advisers and cheerleaders want the war, but opposition is widening and solidifying, in public opinion, as well as within the Republican Party. It is possible that the administration will feel compelled to go to war while it can. Gallup poll findings released last week say that only 20 percent of Americans support a U.S. attack made without allies. By now, the public has also taken note that members of the war party and their main backers in the press seem, without exception, to have arranged to be elsewhere while the last serious fighting was done, in Vietnam. The "chicken-hawk" issue is not simple demagogy. It justifies asking if those planning this war are serious, and if they know what they are doing. "Sweet is war," wrote Erasmus, "to those who know it not." James Baker, formerly the senior President Bush's secretary of state, is the latest from the father's administration to tell that president's son that while fighting against "rogues like Saddam ... is an important foreign-policy priority for America," there are some conditions to be met. The United States must have allies. To have allies, it must respect international law. U.N. Security Council backing is needed for an attack. This means a new U.N. demand that Saddam admit inspectors, with time for him to react. Next, the Palestine problem has to be out of the way before attacking Saddam. That requires an end to Palestinian suicide bombings, Israeli withdrawal to last September's positions and an immediate end to Israeli settlement activity. Therefore, Baker's actual message to the younger Bush is that the U.S. can't go to war, either now or in the near future. These conditions have not been met, and the last of them possibly cannot be met. A Palestine-Israel truce or settlement is impossible without the United States abandoning the policy of unqualified support for Israel that the younger President Bush has followed since he came into office. Until now, the hawks have simply insisted that war is necessary because Saddam Hussein is a murderous and dangerous despot, and because the world would be better off without him. Few disagree with the description, but many disagree with the proposition, since there are many such figures in the world and the Bush administration coexists comfortably with most of them. The only occasion I can recall when Washington found the sordid character of a foreign leader sufficient to justify a war was in 1989, when George Bush senior invaded Panama to seize Gen. Manuel Noriega. That operation, not the Gulf War, seems to be what the younger President Bush wants to repeat. However, Iraq is bigger, and presumably better-defended than Panama, and the political context is explosively different. In any case, the justification for a war has nothing to do with a war's feasibility. Overturning Saddam could simultaneously be a good cause and a bad idea. It is reasonable to argue that the foreseen casualties, and the foreseeable international political backlash to a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq, could outweigh the advantages of getting rid of the Iraqi leader. This administration and its supporters argue as if the feasibility issue can be resolved by willpower or "resolve." If you question the feasibility of the project, you must somehow be on Saddam's side. If you think it is desirable to overturn Saddam, you are required to think that most of his army will run away when Americans arrive, and that the people will cheer the United States in the streets of Baghdad. It is not allowed to imagine that the Iraqi army might fight simply because it is the nation's army. The public is listening when Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger and other senior Republicans say that realism requires that plans to invade Iraq accommodate the possibility of a big and expensive war, significant casualties and major negative political backlash. They are making it necessary for the younger George Bush's administration and its backers to give up the irresponsible arguments they have been using. But they almost certainly have not convinced them, and by complicating their situation, they could be forcing them toward what George W. Bush has already threatened, a preemptive war — which in this case would be a war of domestic political preemption. _______________________________ William Pfaff's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Seattle Times. Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company seattletimes.nwsource.com

To: Rascal who wrote (40950)	8/30/2002 12:33:07 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Comment: 9-11, One Year Later By Paul Starr Issue Date: 9.23.02 The American Prospect September 11 will be commemorated this year as a day of national and private grief, but it is also a political anniversary. One year ago, the post–Cold War era came to an end and a new phase in our country's history began. What this new phase will be -- whether the September 11 attacks will stand as an isolated episode or initiate a longer and perhaps more dreadful chain of events -- we cannot possibly know. The past year, however, has already told us a great deal about the strengths and limitations of President George W. Bush's response to 9-11 and the definition that he has given to this new stage in our nation's life. In the immediate aftermath, the president got one critically important thing right: the prosecution of the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Perhaps the United States should have obtained more international backing from the start. But because America was attacked, there was little serious question that we had the right of "hot pursuit" -- the right, that is, to go immediately after the people who had sponsored the assault and the government that had harbored them. Some critics say that because we didn't kill or capture al-Qaeda's top leaders, the war failed. But it denied them a state-protected enclave, Osama bin Laden is probably dead and his organization has suffered a severe setback. But if Bush got one big thing right, he also got three equally important things wrong. First, in calling for a "war against terrorism" of indefinite duration and uncertain scope, he made a dangerously unlimited bid for the extraordinary authority and heightened deference that presidents enjoy only in wartime. Although "war" was the right term for the conflict that unfolded in Afghanistan, it doesn't describe most of what's required to stop terrorism in the future, and the risk of using the term is that it provides a rationale for restricting civil liberties and treating disagreement as disloyalty. War is the eternal basis of executive aggrandizement; the language of war in the struggle against terrorism is only the latest attempt to turn a national emergency into a political trump card. Second, Bush has set the United States on a course toward a real war with Iraq that is fraught with risk: the military risks of an invasion, the political risks of alienating support for the fight against terrorism even among our allies, and the long-term costs and complications of trying to maintain a stable and friendly government in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is overthrown. A war might be worth these risks if there were clear provocation, but an unprovoked, preemptive war threatens to divide America from its friends and from within, to jeopardize the cause it is ostensibly aimed at advancing and to set a dangerous precedent for the entire world. Third, while proclaiming a state of war, Bush has not asked for the kind of broadly shared sacrifice that usually comes with wartime. Past wars have almost always brought tax increases; the war in Afghanistan -- and soon, perhaps, in Iraq -- will have the unique fiscal accompaniment of tax cuts geared toward the upper-income brackets. The combination is not just unseemly, it is morally obtuse. A wartime drumbeat with tax cuts may be a Republican political dream, but it is also a fiscal nightmare. Here we have a president who is as unalterably opposed to raising taxes as he is committed to building up the military: a combination of fixed purposes that is destined to produce fiscal wreckage (it already would have if Bill Clinton had not bequeathed enormous surpluses). A different president could have asked for broadly shared sacrifice, avoided the overreach into Iraq, worked more closely with our allies to cultivate support for American policy and limited the damage to liberty from the fight against terrorism. On the grim political anniversary that we observe September 11, we must remember these things, too. prospect.org