SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Mannie who wrote (6027)9/10/2002 4:27:46 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Can Hussein be deterred?

Experts say the Iraqi's survival instincts can be exploited.

By Scott Peterson
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
World > Asia: South & Central
from the September 10, 2002 edition

MOSCOW – For hours, the thousands of Iraqi troops paraded in Baghdad, past a reviewing stand where Saddam Hussein – or at least his body double – presided. But amid all the menacing pomp was a tiny clue to the regime's vulnerability.

"The troops were all very neat, with Saddam looking at them," recalls Iraq analyst and journalist Patrick Cockburn. "But when I got close, I noticed they weren't wearing gloves – they were white sports socks."


While Iraq's feeling of vulnerability has helped drive its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), some analysts say that this very sense of weakness also means that a classic deterrence strategy – the same threat of annihilation that kept the Soviet Union and United States from turning the cold war into a nuclear war – can be applied to Iraq.

Calling Mr. Hussein "unstable," President Bush is making the case for US military strikes to rid Iraq of WMD and Hussein's leadership.

But some experts argue that Iraq has been, and can be deterred from launching WMD. "When [Hussein] did have lots of these weapons and missiles, he didn't dare use them, because it was always true that the counterattack would be greater than the attack," says Mr. Cockburn, coauthor of "Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein."

A report released yesterday by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London says that Iraq could build a nuclear bomb "within months," if it acquired fissile material from a foreign source. US officials disclosed over the weekend that the US had intercepted shipments of thousands of special aluminum tubes for Iraq that they say could be used to enrich uranium – a sign that Iraq is stepping up its interest in nuclear weapons, while also demonstrating that it still lacks key elements. New information in the IISS report states that Iraq has mobile and possibly underground biological production units.

Spelling out the dilemma for US military planners, the report's author, John Chipman, said: "Wait, and the [Iraq] threat will grow. Strike, and the threat may be used."

But some observers say Saddam's own survival instincts will make him pliable if effective deterrence is used. "The first law of a dictator is: 'I want to stay in power,' and Saddam Hussein is deterrable on that basis," says a US government analyst in Washington with extensive intelligence experience. "We know he didn't use his anthrax, his sarin, his mustard or anything else during the previous Gulf War, because George Bush [senior] told him it would be met with American violence. George Bush [junior] has the same option, if he wants it."

Iraq can be deterred "if the Soviet Union, with several tons of smallpox ... and several kilo-megatons of nuclear explosives ... was a deterrable country," the government analyst says. "I think we can turn up the rhetoric on Saddam, and say that any Islamic terrorist detonation of a WMD device anywhere in the world will be attributable to Iraq – and considered grounds for attack."

US administration officials argue that the risk of waiting is too great. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," US national security advisor Condoleezza Rice told CNN Sunday.

That view is shared by John Keegan, a preeminent British military historian, who recently wrote an opinion piece titled "If Churchill were alive today, he would strike at Saddam," in the London Daily Telegraph. "When – it is not a question of if – Saddam acquires nuclear weapons, the moment when he could be crushed without risk ... will be gone," Mr. Keegan wrote. "At the moment Saddam could be toppled quickly, cheaply and without difficulty. The moment will not last."

Some experts say that view underestimates the risks – and precedent – that would be created by the US moving to oust the Iraqi leader.

Even today, Hussein "realizes if he used [WMD] in an unprovoked manner – or even if he were provoked – it would lead to his destruction," says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. "If the US attacks, these fundamental assumptions have to be thrown out the window, because ... Saddam Hussein may not have anything to lose by using these weapons."

"The desperation which might well set in, once military action does take place, will put Saddam Hussein under such pressure that ... makes the use of chemical and biological weapons more likely," says Daniel Neep, Mideast program director at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank with close ties to the British defense ministry.

A preemptive strike could also set an example that might be borrowed in other disputes around the world, such as between India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan or between Israel and its Arab enemies, analysts worry.

Past preemptive strikes have not always been as effective as they are sometimes remembered, observers say. While it is commonly held that the Israeli destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear power reactor in 1981 set back Iraq's program by several years, arms control expert Kimball says that is a "myth," because Iraq simply adjusted its efforts, shifting from pursuing plutonium separation techniques to simpler uranium enrichment plans.

"The issue needs to be considered here: What has changed in the last one or two years with respect to [Iraq's] programs?" Kimball asks. "And why is an effective inspection regime not going to be useful today, when the international community and the US thought it was useful a year ago?"

For renewed weapons inspections to work, analysts say, they must have full UN Security Council support, and be backed up by the threat of force – a threat that pushes Iraq into a "deterrence" mode of thinking. Kimball adds that it is also "essential" that Iraq be assured that inspections are not "simply a prelude" to a US-led war and that full compliance would avert war.

"An inspections regime will not succeed if either the US creates an artificial deadline for their success," Kimball says, "or if Iraq creates an artificial deadline for their departure."

christiansciencemonitor.com



To: Mannie who wrote (6027)9/10/2002 10:05:46 PM
From: Jim Willie CB  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
some expert opinions on gold, from CBSMWatch
Lundin, Turk, Doody, Grant
Grant is probably the premier bond/economy mind in USA

back home from 10-day vacation
being in NewEngland was like being in a warm home
being on CapeCod was like being in heaven
/ jim

On Monday morning gold rose to $323 an ounce in the spot market, not far from the $329.30 reached May 31. The metal disappointed gold newsletter editors during the summer, when stocks hemorrhaged. Now, investors say global events will boost bullion prices.

"The gold market is now apparently disregarding stocks to some extent and -- with the drums of war beating more feverishly and the 9/11 anniversary racing toward us -- is beginning to give greater weight to geopolitical risks," says Brien Lundin, editor of Gold Newsletter.

Lundin, who each year stages the New Orleans Investment Conference (http://www.neworleansconference.com/) in November, says the metal's big test will be $325 and ultimately, $330 an ounce, a level not seen since October 1999. "We'll see over the coming sessions whether this latest show of muscle from gold has the necessary sustaining power," he says.

Observers nearly all point to $325 an ounce as a kind of test for the metal, which along with government bonds are this year's biggest-gaining investment class.

"I'm still looking for a probe of and then a break above $325 this month or next," says James Turk, a longtime newsletter editor and founder of payment system GoldMoney.com. "That will mark the clear beginning of gold's bull market." Turk's six-month target, once gold hurdles $325 an ounce, is above $400.

John Doody, of the revered newsletter Gold Stock Analyst, has just completed a study of gold during the Gulf War. Gold staged its biggest gains -- about $68 an ounce from the lows, or 20 percent -- in the weeks just before Aug. 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and in the three weeks after.

"The gold price was in a decline the first half of 1990 despite Saddam's increasing threats against Israel, including use of chemical weapons," Doody notes. "By mid-June, Iraqi troops were being gathered on the Iraq/Kuwait border and Saddam's possible sinister intentions drove gold higher. The price spiked $10 an ounce (higher) on Aug. 2 as Iraq invaded, and gold hit $414 an ounce three weeks later."

Doody said he expects a similar price gain "as tensions heat up, but this time the fear will not be Saddam's (Iraq leader Saddam Hussein) army, but his possible early use of chemical weapons." President Bush on Monday was trying to persuade Canada to join the White House war on Iraq.

Not everyone is tying gold's future gains to the Middle East. James Grant, of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, says gold almost certainly will gain as investors lose faith in Fed chief Alan Greenspan and his waning abilities to inflate the economy.



To: Mannie who wrote (6027)9/11/2002 9:41:58 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Turning a Page in History

Can a great power wounded learn to treat others more gently?

By PICO IYER
LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMENTARY
September 11, 2002

America is still, a year later, shaking a little on its foundations, but its sense of itself and its pride in the traditions it upholds seem more strongly defined (and sometimes more narrowly so) than ever before in my lifetime. Nothing, alas, so concentrates the mind as a head-on assault.

Yet even as this sense of "us" seems to intensify--all those flags murmuring, "You can't destroy us. We stand tall and firm"--so too, inevitably, does a sense of "them." As a grateful immigrant who has long found this nation to be the most accommodating of places (and ideas), I worry that the John Wayne stance it's projecting outside its borders is taking it further away from a world that it needs desperately to get closer to.

In recent months I have traveled across Bolivia, Vietnam, Tibet, Peru, India and many other places, and everywhere I go I come away with the same impression: It's not Islam that's on trial worldwide, but the USA.

The United States is the cynosure of every eye, the country that every other looks to with a mix of admiration, resentment and envy. Radical Islam is in most places just a muttering in the corner.

A year ago, of course, we saw a great outpouring of sympathy around the world for what Americans were going through (and, among more hardened types, a sense that the world's great protected superpower was at last experiencing what is a daily fact of life for most humans). But with every passing month it feels as if the U.S. is growing more isolated, to the point where now it seems in many places just as it seemed to me in Yemen, six weeks before Sept. 11: another planet.

It's in the nature of an empire, of course, to be unpopular--the Russians were nobody's favorite in the 1980s (least of all, I found, among their supposed comrades in Cuba and Vietnam); the Raj, burnished in such golden hues on PBS, seldom seemed so benign when it was a center of world power.

In the case of the U.S., inevitably, the image is complicated because the youngest kid on the global block happens to be the strongest. This is hardly a consoling state of affairs for those older hands who believe that power comes only with experience and the truth lies in a distant past that the young can't even remember.

Many people abroad seem to feel that U.S. leaders are much less sophisticated and worldly than the leaders of much smaller places, while the American people (whom everyone seems to like) are less interested, at times, in learning about the world than in changing it. Certainly the world knows more about us than we know about it.

And when, in Hong Kong this spring, I saw a sign scrawled near the Star Ferry terminal, in Tagalog and English, saying "U.S., Go Home!" and in La Paz saw a similar message scribbled across an elegant colonial building ("U.S., Out of Afghanistan!"), what I really felt I was seeing was the same message I've been seeing for as long as I've been traveling: "America, leave us alone!" A sentiment complicated by the fact that it is often accompanied by a cry, just as urgent, of "America, take us in!"

In the year since the attacks on the U.S., people here have learned to live with a much keener sense of frailty and fallibility and a much sharper understanding that we need to learn more about a world that is larger than our notions of it. With American dreams come responsibilities.

Yet in the rest of the world, the U.S., everyone's favorite scapegoat, remains more a target of skepticism than ever before; when everything goes wrong, after all, people blame the person on top. For many around the world, I suspect, the shock of the attacks is gradually being eroded by the image of Washington's response, which allows them to say: "They're doing what they always do. Taking their frustrations out on the poor."

Today is the first day when Sept. 11 no longer has to signify a particular traumatic incident; it can refer now to a new day, Sept. 11, 2002. The United States will always be, to some extent, imprisoned by its power. But if it can show the world that it can be humble and ready to change, some good may yet come of all it has suffered. Perhaps the best thing we can learn from older nations--Vietnam, say, or Japan--is that the most useful response to loss is to start looking beyond our wounds and toward how we can avoid hurting others, and getting hurt, again.

_______________________________________________________

Pico Iyer is the author, most recently, of "The Global Soul" (Vintage, 2001) and, coming this winter, "Abandon," a novel about California, Islam and the dialogue between them.

latimes.com