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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (46300)9/22/2002 11:22:04 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
The right would not have written these paeans to unlimited executive power if Gore would president. Just absolutely, no doubt

I daresay. The right wouldn't be running scared like the Dems are now, since the right is known as the 'strong' foreign policy team.

But you are mixing two issues. This was not a paean to untrammeled executive power without regard to the will of Congress; it was a paean to untrammeled Constitutional power without regard to the will of the UN, not the same thing at all.



To: JohnM who wrote (46300)9/22/2002 11:45:44 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Putting the World Trade Center in perspective...

csicop.org

<<...last September's auto crash victims each had families, friends, critical job responsibilities, and valued positions in their churches and communities. Their surviving children, also, were left without one parent, with shattered lives, and much poorer than the 9/11 victims' families, who were showered with 1.5 million dollars, per fatality, from the federal government alone...>>



To: JohnM who wrote (46300)9/23/2002 1:03:35 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Steyn thinks Bush is being too lethargic but the Dems are being such wimps that he's winning anyway:

Bush suckered the Democrats

Mark Steyn
National Post

Thursday, September 19, 2002

People keep asking me how this November's U.S. elections will go. To be honest, I haven't a clue. So I consulted the experts.

From The New York Times of September 1st:

"Domestic Concerns Take Center Stage In Congress Races

By Adam Nagourney"

But, then again, from The New York Times of September 6th:

"With Focus Shifting To Iraq, Domestic Issues Fade

By Adam Nagourney"

On the one hand, as Adam Nagourney (September 1st model) argues, "The fight for control of Congress is revolving this Labor Day more around domestic than foreign concerns, with candidates battling over corporate abuses, prescription drug costs and Social Security rather than the threat of terrorism or the prospect of a war against Iraq. The emphasis on these domestic issues at what is traditionally the start of the general election season would seem to give an advantage to the Democratic Party ..."

On the other, as Adam Nagourney (September 6th model) counters, "Events abroad, rather than the domestic issues pushed by Democrats this summer, could dominate the nation's political discussion for easily half of the general election campaign this fall. Several Republicans said today that the focus on Iraq would serve the political needs of their party going into the close Congressional elections ..."

What happened between September 1st and 6th is that the Democratic Party woke up and realized it had been suckered. Ever since the Afghan campaign wound down the best part of a year ago, President Bush has been talking about "regime change" in Iraq. Or, to be more accurate, he's talked about how he has "no plans" for regime change in Iraq "on my desk." This may well be true. They could be on the sideboard, or in the filing cabinet, or stashed behind the coffee percolator. My own hunch is that they're rolled up in the umbrella stand. At first, in the absence of anything exciting on the war front, all those poll-tested focus-grouped Democratic issues -- prescription drug plans for seniors, mandatory federal bicycling-helmet regulations, whatever -- seemed likely to fill the gap, as the first Mr. Nagourney so persuasively argued.

But, instead, as Bush carried on insisting that his desk remained free of war plans, Democrats were unable to resist piling on and started huffing that he'd jolly well better not think about invading Iraq without getting Congressional approval and going to the UN and answering a number of "troubling questions" party bigwigs claimed to have about the whole business. By this time, the President had gone off to play golf, leaving Democratic Senators to hog the airwaves week in week out with their various "concerns" about the Administration's policy on Iraq. With Mr. Bush temperamentally disinclined to use the bully pulpit, the Dems seized the pulpit and started bullying him.

And then, round about Labour Day, they wised up: They'd spent so much time yakking about Saddam that all their issues had dropped off the front page.

Now as readers may recall, I wanted Bush to invade Iraq by September 11th, and I feel that since the spring he's squandered his opportunity and lost the momentum. Among those of us on the right, this is still a minority view. Take Andrew Sullivan, for example: "It seems clear to me in retrospect," he wrote the other day, "that Bush's summer strategy has been really, really smart." Bush's summer strategy was to take the summer off. If I follow the argument correctly, it's that, by doing so, he allowed the Dems to overplay their hand, as the wily old fox knew they would. It is not necessary to agree with this theory to appreciate nevertheless that, up against the current Democratic leadership, even Bush's lethargy is a potentially lethal weapon.

So now, instead of fighting Saddam, the Democrats want to fight over the calendar. It's not so much that they're opposed to the war as that they're opposed to talking about the war, at least before election day in November. Out on the hustings, Democratic candidates glide past the war question like the Queen passing one of those mooning Maoris: Keep smiling and pretend nothing's happening. In this, they have the considerable assistance of the press. The American Prospect gave Minnesota leftie Paul Wellstone the full Monica the other day in a drooling campaign profile broken up by sub-headings such as "The Draw Of Conscience." " 'I believe in Paul's conscience,' says Karen Jeffords, a mental-health worker." The Senator, in return, "pledges" his "commitment" to federal funds for light-rail transportation. Paul's conscience on the bitterly divisive light-rail issue seems to be in cracking form, but where does it stand on the war? Whoops, gotta run.

My guess is he's opposed to it, but his party would rather he didn't say. If Senator Conscience comes out against it, he's likely to lose to the Republicans. If he comes out in favour, enough of his "progressive" base will defect to the Greens to throw the seat to the Republicans anyway. Most Democratic Senators voted against the last Gulf War. A majority would like to vote against this one, but not in the middle of election season. So now the party's frantically backpedaling: Good heavens, we know we said you needed to come to us for Congressional approval, but what's the hurry? How about if we leave it till December or the New Year? The new line is that, by bringing it to the legislature as Democrats demanded, Bush is now "politicizing" the war.

"The concerns we have about the politicization of this whole issue are ones that still exist," frets Tom Daschle, the Senate Majority Leader and putative Democratic Presidential candidate. His colleague Joe Biden is equally concerned. "Some issues are so serious, so important to the United States, that they should be taken as far out of the realm of politics as possible," he intones portentously. "This is one of those issues."

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be howling with laughter. Usually, when they call for something to be "taken out of politics," they're demanding that the Democrat line on, say, abortion or racial quotas be accepted as one of life's eternal verities and the very subject retired from political contention. But in this instance what Biden means is that the Democrats should not be forced to take a line at all: The President should protect them from the political consequences of having to reveal their views. "Some issues are so serious, so important to the United States that they can't be discussed in the national legislature, mainly because they might reveal the yawning chasm between me and the American people. The eve of an election campaign is no time to start forcing politicians to making our beliefs on major issues known to voters. An election ought to be about light-rail subsidies and which Senate candidate has the more stylish toupée."

The Democrat line on Iraq boils down to "We urgently need a debate but not for the next few months." The longer you stick to that, the more obvious it is what you really believe. And, even taken at face value, it's preposterous: If Democrats really have no views on the defence of the Republic, why exactly are they running for national office anyway?

But Dems don't need to be smart, just lucky. If Bush is planning to be at war by November 5th, the GOP could do surprisingly well. But, if we have another two months of unending drumbeat but no actual fighting, who's to say a bored public won't drift back to Democrat issues? November 2002 still seems most likely to preserve the perfect 50/50 split in the American electorate.

That's why the laughable cowardice of the Democrat position makes Bush's inertia, faintheartedness or (as Helprin sees it) "irresoluteness" all the more frustrating. The party is vulnerable in this new world: If Bush were to use the bully pulpit, he could change the dynamics of American politics. Instead, over these last six months, he's allowed the culture to slip back into its default mode -- which is to say fuzzily Democratic. The Dems may not benefit from that this November, but, if Bush doesn't get serious about this war, time is on their side.

nationalpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (46300)9/23/2002 2:29:44 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
unlimited executive power if Gore would president.

No, no, John. You don't want to go there. Gore would have been too busy giving this country away at the South African Conference last month to have done anything about Saddam. Arafat would not be cowering in his office today, but riding high. You don't want me to continue this type of rant, do you?

lindybill@dontgetmestarted.com



To: JohnM who wrote (46300)9/23/2002 3:37:18 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Now "Mt Sinai" is telling us how we are going to invade Iraq. When it comes down the mountain on a tablet, it must be so.:^)

September 23, 2002
U.S. Taking Steps to Ready Forces for Iraq Fighting
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT

[W] ASHINGTON, Sept. 22 ? Mobilizing for a possible attack on Iraq, American commanders have taken many steps to prepare and deploy their forces, Defense Department and military officials say. But the early steps have been calculated not to interfere with the Bush administration's campaign to build diplomatic and political support for taking action.

In interviews, these senior officials have described several important steps that the United States has taken to prepare for battle without going on a full war footing.

In one of the most significant steps, elite Special Operations troops have been told to separate from the military temporarily and to join C.I.A. units that could be used in any campaign. Those troops would bring their counterterrorism skills to covert missions while allowing the Pentagon to maintain that no uniformed combat forces were in action.

The Navy has accelerated training and maintenance schedules for many ships, including three aircraft carrier battle groups based on the West Coast, so that they could be ordered to steam toward the Persian Gulf on short notice.

Several thousand marines and Army ground forces, being deployed with heavy armor, are flowing into Kuwait as part of regularly scheduled exercises or troop replacements. But senior officials acknowledge that the fresh units or others timed to rotate out could be ordered to remain along the front with Iraq.

"The question is not what moves into the region," one officer said. "It's what stays."

The Pentagon last week resumed inoculating certain troops for anthrax, Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told Congress.

To some extent, the latest disclosures serve the military's purposes by indicating the readiness and resolve of American forces.

Some of the steps are described as prudent planning for a mission that has not yet been ordered by President Bush, who has received detailed options for consideration only recently. Some of the deployments are explained as contributing to the global campaign against terrorism, even though the forces involved are consciously placed where they would be available for quick use against Iraq.

Administration officials repeatedly state that Mr. Bush has made no decision about a war with Iraq, and senior military officials say they have received no orders for units to get ready to go to the Persian Gulf region on a mission to dislodge President Saddam Hussein from power.

Still, deployments under way enhance the already sizable force that has lingered in the region since the war with Iraq in 1991, including more than 20,000 American military personnel permanently based within close striking distance, the heavy equipment for at least four armored brigades, and Patriot antimissile batteries to protect them.

Preparations involving the Special Operations units reflect their decisive role during the war in Afghanistan, where they worked closely with intelligence agencies.

Senior officials who discussed their role in general terms said it was a standard procedure to prepare the units for contingencies, citing their particular combat skills. But the officials did not disclose details.

A senior Defense Department official said "some small handfuls" of Special Operations forces offered the kinds of abilities that would be useful to the Central Intelligence Agency.

Their missions would fall into broad categories like what the military calls "preparing the battlefield." As described in unclassified texts on military doctrine, that could include solidifying ties with opposition forces, scouting for arsenals of biological and chemical weapons and the artillery or missiles that would launch them and mounting sabotage raids against prized targets.

Senior military officials said no American military forces were operating in southern or western Iraq, although they would not say whether the C.I.A. was already undertaking missions there.

One senior official said a number of Americans from several federal agencies had flown in and out of the Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Iraq to coordinate with opposition groups there.

Navy officials said speeding up maintenance and training schedules for its West Coast-based carriers was a prudent precaution in case the Pentagon needed to move strike aircraft quickly to the Persian Gulf, where it could not be assured of operating from bases on land.

"We would like to move them up as much as possible," one senior officer said of readiness schedules for the three carriers, the Constellation, the Carl Vinson and the Nimitz.

Those carriers represent a quarter of the Navy's main strike force. Of the three ships, the Constellation, based in San Diego, would be ready to be deployed first. Others, having returned to home port more recently, would take months more to refit.

It takes several weeks for carriers on the West Coast to reach the Persian Gulf. Carriers based on the East Coast need less time to reach the eastern Mediterranean.

In addition to surveillance and strike aircraft, carrier battle groups include ships and submarines with long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles that can attack far-off targets.

The carrier that just arrived in the gulf region for a six-month tour, the Abraham Lincoln, would have a distinct advantage in any war against Iraq. The Lincoln is the first carrier to carry a 12-plane squadron of the Navy's new F/A-18E Super Hornets in its air wing. The Super Hornet is able to stay aloft longer without refueling and to carry more bombs than older versions of the plane.

Marine and Army units on regularly scheduled deployments to the gulf region could also be sent to Iraq if Mr. Bush ordered an attack.

A 4,000-soldier brigade of the Army's Third Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., is being deployed to Kuwait in phases this fall. The unit, which has M-1A1 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, is scheduled to replace a brigade from Fort Benning, Ga., by December.

"At this time there's no change in the schedule," said Maj. Mike Birmingham, a spokesman for the Third Infantry Division. "But we understand if things change, the brigade in Kuwait now could remain in place."

Similarly, about 2,200 marines from the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which recently completed an exercise in Jordan, are about to begin a monthlong amphibious assault exercise in Kuwait. That unit, too, could stay longer if necessary.

On the Horn of Africa, hundreds of Special Operations forces were sent to a French base in Djibouti to prepare for missions to capture or kill terrorist fighters seeking refuge in Yemen, Sudan, Somalia or elsewhere in the region, Pentagon officials said.

While the forces' role in a possible attack on Iraq would be "tertiary" to the deployment, one military official said, they add a potent and stealthy strike force to the region.

The Air Force, too, is taking steps to prepare for a war, bolstering the more than 200 warplanes ? attack jets and support aircraft ? already based in the region to enforce the no-flight zones over southern and northern Iraq. The Pentagon disclosed recently that it had asked Britain for permission to base B-2 stealth bombers at an air base on Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean.

In another sign of war preparations, the Central Command has said it is sending 600 military planners from its base in Tampa, Fla., to the Persian Gulf state of Qatar to test the command's ability to set up a headquarters in a crisis. But top Pentagon officials say the planners will probably form the vanguard of a new forward headquarters in the region, based at Al Udeid Air Base, outside Doha, the capital of Qatar.

Al Udeid, a sprawling base built on a desolate stretch of chalk-colored desert, has the longest runway in the Middle East, able to handle any American military aircraft. New hangars dot the base, each resembling a sand dune; the shape is designed to be hard to see and to deflect the radar of an enemy missile.

The military also can draw on a large force of troops and a large arsenal of equipment kept in the region after the 1991 war.

Warehouses in each of those countries hold about 115 M-1A1 Abrams tanks, 60 M-2A2 Bradley fighting vehicles, 100 armored personnel carriers, 25 mortars and 20 155-millimeter howitzers, said officials for Army forces assigned to the Central Command.

Ammunition is stored in both countries, with field artillery rounds in Kuwait. The Kuwait warehouses also hold 30 days' worth of food and fuel.

All of the equipment for another armored brigade from the Army and one from the Marine Corps ? another 9,000 troops ? is afloat on ships in the area, officials said.

Two Patriot antimissile batteries are in Kuwait and two more in Saudi Arabia. Military experts say the Pentagon may soon send Patriot batteries to Turkey and Qatar in advance of an offensive.

The permanent troop strength near Iraq includes about 9,000 Americans in Kuwait; more than 6,000 in Saudi Arabia; about 4,200 in Bahrain, home to the Fifth Fleet; and just over 3,300 in Qatar. Several thousand more Americans are stationed in Saudi Arabia, including a technologically advanced air operations center at Prince Sultan Air Base outside Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia initially indicated that it would not allow the United States to use its bases for a war against Iraq. But a senior Saudi minister suggested recently that his country would let the United States use its military bases in a United Nations-backed attack on Iraq.

Even before large numbers of combat troops flow into a combat zone, military logisticians will have made arrangements to feed, fuel and supply them. Whatever cannot be bought in countries where American forces are based, the military will have to supply on its own.

"Before the forces come in, you need to take care of water, fuel and utilities," said Gus Pagonis, a retired three-star Army general who directed logistics in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. "You want to go into the host country and find out how many trucks are available, where can I buy fuel, baked goods and vegetables."
nytimes.com