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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (5554)	8/30/2002 3:44:45 PM
From: Mannie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Excellent, Wharfy.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (5554)	8/30/2002 3:45:51 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (5554)	9/4/2002 5:10:11 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Preemptive action sets risky precedent by Andrew J. Bacevich Columnist The Boston Herald Tuesday, September 3, 2002 What are the likely consequences of implementing the Bush Doctrine? The day after the United States - perhaps acting alone - forcibly removes Saddam Hussein from power, how will the world have changed? How will adopting a doctrine of preemption affect the prospects of peace abroad and the practice of democracy at home? The stakes could hardly be higher. If George W. Bush opts for war against Iraq, he must win quickly and cheaply. If he miscalculates - if victory proves elusive or is gained only at excessive cost - Bush will forfeit the authority that he accrued in the wake of Sept. 11 and place his presidency at risk. The Bush Doctrine itself will be discredited, remembered at best as symbol of American hubris and recklessness. In the process, America's claim to global leadership will be called into question. In that sense, for the president and the nation as a whole, failure is not an option. But what if Bush succeeds? That is, what if Operation Desert Storm II swiftly topples Saddam with minimal U.S. casualties and tolerable levels of collateral damage and without destabilizing the entire Middle East? Such a victory will set important precedents. But Americans may find that in finally finishing off Saddam they have opened up a Pandora's box of complications. For starters, preemptive U.S. action against Iraq will lower the bar to preemption generally, providing cover for any nation hankering to remove threats that it considers intolerable. For a nation under siege like Israel, the relevance of the Bush Doctrine is self-evident. But others will also find it equally appealing. For example, the administration's conviction that regime change in Iraq is a moral imperative can provide a handy basis for India to discover its own moral imperative for removing the nuke-wielding, unsavory generals who rule Pakistan. The generals in turn, contemplating Saddam's fate, will draw their own conclusions about the wisdom of inaction. Once the Bush Doctrine is let loose on the international system, in other words, incentives to strike first will proliferate. Contemplating that prospect, American policymakers might insist that as the world's sole superpower, the United States alone should enjoy the prerogative of preemption. But nervous Israelis or Indians will be unlikely to find that argument persuasive absent compelling evidence that they can count on the United States to guarantee their security. In short, persuading even our democratic allies to forego the Bush Doctrine's benefits will oblige the United States to shoulder increased responsibilities for maintaining the international status quo. That way lies a global Pax Americana, a prospect welcomed in some quarters but one that Americans ought to view with considerable trepidation. At home, meanwhile, with the White House adamant that it requires no congressional authorization to initiate what is indisputably a war of choice, attacking Iraq will demolish the last vestiges of limits on presidential war powers. If President Bush can order a large-scale military intervention in Iraq, then surely he can of his own volition take the United States to war against Iran or North Korea or any other nation he deems a threat to American well-being. Indeed, because successful preemption depends on acting without advance warning, the Bush Doctrine will only encourage the practice whereby decisions regarding the use of force are made in secret by the smallest possible circle of officials. The administration may agree to consult Congress, but that typically means notifying select members of actions about to take place. For its part, the public can count on being informed after the fact. In short, if President Bush succeeds in toppling Saddam, he will arrogate to himself and pass on to his successors a blank check to cash as they see fit. The prospect of military adventurism without end, legitimatized by the Bush Doctrine, should give pause to even the most ardent hawk. The Bush administration argues that the menace posed by Iraq makes inaction unacceptable. Perhaps so. But let's not kid ourselves that ridding the world of Saddam will lighten our burdens abroad or strengthen democratic practice at home. _________________________________________________ Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of international relations at Boston University. His book ``American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy'' is due out this fall. www2.bostonherald.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (5554)	9/4/2002 5:32:03 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Being The Good Guys Again By Janeen Jones - a senior research assistant from Berkeley, California. Published: Sep 03 2002 tompaine.com Long, long ago, a million years ago -- before 9/11 -- we reached the "end of history." In the mythic struggle between the good guys and the bad guys -- wouldn't you know it -- the good guys won. American ideals like human rights were free to spread across the globe like the sun's rays at dawn. Encouraged by our example and steadied by our solid economy, rule by law and the free market would replace rule by privilege and the command economy in Russia and the Third World. Vigilance, tough diplomacy, and international cooperation could combine to prevent the type of butchery that occurred in Rwanda. But that was a million years ago. Since then somebody else's ideals have crashed into our own and tried to bring them down. It was devastating. But in the aftermath of that heretofore unthinkable devastation, some invisible threats began to descend on our nation like fallout after an atomic bomb, and like fallout, they could be far more deadly in the long run than the initial attack. Rule of law threatens to become subordinate to executive despotism. A person can be held without charges until a stubborn American president unilaterally decides that a war that was never declared is finally over. The free market is free only for the privileged insiders, their free goodies being paid for by the shareholders and stakeholders of the companies they mismanage. And instead of working to prevent future Rwandas, our government wants to have its own blood bath. To save Iraq's citizens from butchery we are told we must butcher them ourselves. Instead of the end of history, we may be looking at the end of the Republic, replaced by an arrogant, go-it-alone Empire. Let's go back to being the good guys again.