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: T L Comiskey who wrote (6192)9/12/2002 1:09:50 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
America, reconnect with the world

By Helena Cobban
Commentary > Opinion
The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 12, 2002 edition

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. – Last September, I grieved. In April, I visited lower Manhattan, where floodlights boosted towers of light that magically seemed to touch the skies.

What a year this has been – By for America and for the rest of the world. Immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, Americans had to learn, or relearn, some basic lessons about the nature of the world, lessons about human vulnerability and interdependence, and about the importance of our values to who we are.


During the somber days and weeks that followed last year's horrifying attacks, most Americans – in New York City, in Washington, in Pennsylvania, and in communities throughout the land – seemed to connect almost instinctively with those truths. People looked after each other. Messages of condolence and support streamed in from around the world, and Americans took heart from those acts of friendship. President Bush showed inspired leadership by stressing that the terrorists had attacked the fabric of civilized life, and by pulling together a truly global coalition to confront them.

Now, too many of those lessons seem in danger of being lost. A few weeks ago Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld started arguing that the United States has the right to initiate a war against Iraq – and to do so alone, if need be.

These arguments met with a tsunami of opposition from allies, and considerable criticism at home. So the administration backtracked. President Bush agreed to consult with Congress before launching a new war against Iraq, and to seek a resolution from the UN that could act as an ultimatum against President Saddam Hussein.

With the big speeches Bush has made this week, he has taken some small steps toward this broader approach. But he and his Cabinet members still claim they don't need any formal declaration of war from Congress before they launch operations against Iraq. And they warn, too, that they would not feel constrained from starting this war by anything that the UN might achieve in the meantime, including resuming weapons inspections in Iraq.

This president's unilateralism is very different from the approach pursued by the first President Bush 12 years ago, in the buildup to Operation Desert Storm. After Mr. Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the first President Bush went almost immediately to the UN Security Council, winning a resolution that confirmed that Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait were illegal and should be reversed. After several mediation attempts failed, the president won a further UN resolution warning Hussein to leave Iraq by Jan. 15 or else.

In early January 1991, many in Congress remained wary of war. But three days before the UN deadline, Congress passed a resolution authorizing use of the military "to drive Iraqi forces out of occupied Kuwait to gain compliance with the UN resolutions." Bush and his advisers had leveraged the global legitimacy their plans had won into the domestic mandate they rightly felt they needed before launching Desert Storm.

The current President Bush seems to have turned away from such diplomatic-political subtlety, and from the focus on global coalition-maintenance that marked his father's statesmanship. Why? Did he not appreciate the value of the broad global coalition that backed his military campaign against the Taliban? Why does he seem so close to following the reckless, unilateralist policies that Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld apparently favor?

Meanwhile, another kind of American unilateralism is already threatening to undermine the fragile political gains in Afghanistan. This is the unilateralism of the tight purse and the blinkered vision. The Afghan allies that Washington had won to its cause last fall were attracted, in the main, by the promise of a new era of security and development in their long-troubled land. Believing in that vision, they agreed to act forcefully against the Taliban, and to help uproot Al Qaeda from their land. American officials made visionary promises that this time round they would not turn their backs on Afghanistan after victory.

The US would not have had to underwrite the rebuilding of Afghanistan on its own. It had a broad coalition ready to help. But this vital reconstruction effort required American leadership just as much as the military effort did.

So far, Washington's commitment to spearheading the real social and political rehabilitation of Afghanistan has fallen far short. Afghans still face a chronic lack of public security. Now the administration wants to shift attention – and massive spending – to preparations for a foolhardy new venture in Iraq.

It is not too late to reverse course. Many international statesmen stand ready to help explore the kinds of initiatives that can ease worries about Hussein's weapons programs, and deescalate tensions. There are measures short of war that can and must be tried – with Iraq, as with North Korea.

Nor is it too late to do better by Afghanistan, either. What it takes in both cases is a reconnection with the deep lesson of last Sept. 11: American interdependency with the rest of the world.
_________________________________________________

• Helena Cobban is the author of five books on international issues.

csmonitor.com



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (6192)9/14/2002 6:13:25 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Drumbeat of war drowns out concerns of average Americans

BY MARIE COCCO
Syndicated Columnist
Posted on Fri, Sep. 13, 2002

The public prayers are finished, the saturation coverage wrung out, the documentaries shelved in history's library awaiting time's critique.

America wakes today to the usual clatter, the humdrum of workday worries punctuated by the presidential beating of war drums.

It is hard to remember when some other rhythm was heard. War is replacing remembrance, even as the nation seems dazed and divided by the speed with which an old enemy, Iraq, has re-emerged.

We are told we must engage in a permanent, global war. Yet most of us are asked to pay no price, bear no burden. The home front remains a disengaged place. And in this place, the sense of national purpose that sprung from the events of Sept. 11, 2001, finds its opposite in national neglect of everything else.

This is nothing like World War II, when women worked the factories. When men who remained behind were willing conscripts for civil defense. When sacrifice was asked, and made.

In this year since the terrorists struck, the everyday concerns of average Americans have been pushed aside. Not because of a deliberate plan to dedicate ourselves to some larger purpose. But because of the deliberate scheme of public officials to avoid responsibility.

The federal government's ledgers have gone from black to alarming red. Surpluses that were once supposed to finance the onrushing retirement of the baby boom generation have disappeared, replaced by recurring deficits projected to total $229 billion over the next four years.

The price of war? Not really. Spending related to the attacks of Sept. 11 accounts for about 10 percent of the loss of previously anticipated surpluses, according to Congressional Budget Office figures.

The cries of workers whose retirement savings were looted by corporate crooks or decimated by stock market losses were heard, briefly, above the din of war talk. Yet Congress is now busy diluting even the pallid pension-protection measures that lawmakers introduced in the spring. Even Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's effort to limit — but not ban — a corporation's ability to use company stock for its 401(k) matching contributions has been blunted. Thanks, lobbyists.

Meanwhile, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the federal agency that insures the old defined-benefit pensions that are meant to give workers a guaranteed, steady income in retirement, reports a record jump in the number of private pension plans that are underfunded. That is, they do not currently have assets sufficient to pay promised benefits. In 2000, 87 plans reported they were underfunded. In 2001, that tripled to 261. Stock market losses and low interest on investments are the chief culprits.

And what of today's retirees?

They are struck, again, by the blow of HMOs pulling out of Medicare. Or they are stuck paying higher charges to those HMOs that remain. Next year an estimated 200,000 elderly people will lose HMO coverage, bringing to 2.4 million the number dropped since 1998. The managed-care industry was promoted as the answer to Medicare's every problem. The answer has proved wrong. No one comes forward with another.

Even the stooped grandmothers, with their tales of splitting pills in two so as to afford their prescriptions, have gotten the official brushoff. Prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries is another priority pushed down the list.

By year's end, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that about 2.2 million Americans who were thrown out of jobs by the terrorist attack or by the economic doldrums that preceded and now follow it are expected to run out of unemployment benefits before finding work. During the recession of the early 1990s, Congress moved four times to make sure benefits kept flowing to laid-off workers. So far in this downturn it has acted only once, and only grudgingly.

Perhaps we are at a juncture of history where there can be one, and only one, priority — national security. But no one has explained this to us, or asked for perseverance on all others.

No one has come right out and said forget about your standard of living, your retirement hopes, your ability even to pay for drugs you need to stay alive. When this week's tears finally dry, it is time to look clearly at this failure, and demand an explanation — or action.

------------------------------------------------------------
Cocco (e-mail: is cocco@newsday.com) is a columnist for Newsday, 235 Pinelawn Rd., Melville, NY 11747. Distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group.

twincities.com