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: tekboy who wrote (51567)	10/13/2002 12:59:19 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Wars of Nerves By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Columnist The New York Times October 13, 2002 Living in Montgomery County, Md., these days with a sniper on the loose is an unnerving experience. We've all gotten to know our police chief, Charles Moose, through his news conferences during the past two weeks of random shootings. We've also gotten to know our pizza deliveryman better. Last Monday night my wife ordered pizza from the California Pizza Kitchen. When the deliveryman arrived, I was in the living room watching President Bush address the nation about Iraq. As my wife paid the pizza guy, she remarked to him that the pizza smelled great, "but I don't think my husband will get up because he's watching the news conference." "Oh," the deliveryman said, "has there been another shooting?" No, no, no, my wife explained, my husband is watching the president speak about Iraq. But who can blame the deliveryman for assuming that I must be watching a news conference about the shooter. If you had to drive around here at night, standing on people's doorsteps with your back to the street, all you'd be worried about would be the shooter, too. But he's hardly alone. There is something about these shootings that is touching deeper nerves in us all. The fact that the president speaks only about Iraq, while his neighbors down the street speak only about the shooter, reinforces the sense that this administration is so obsessed with Saddam it has lost touch with the real anxieties of many Americans. Mr. Bush wants to rally the nation to impose gun control on Baghdad, but he won't lift a finger to impose gun control on Bethesda, six miles from the White House. Personally, I'm glad Mr. Bush is focused on disarming Iraq's madman and tracing Iraq's Scud missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It's a worthy project. I just wish he were equally focused on disarming America's madmen, and supporting laws that would make it easier to trace their .223-caliber bullets and their weapons of individual destruction. A lot of us would like to see more weapons inspectors on the streets here, and in the gun shops here, not just in Baghdad. What's also frightening about this shooter, with his high-powered rifle, is that he could be the first real domestic copycat of 9/11, in terms of technique. That is, this shooter doesn't seem to be a serial killer with a political agenda or the perverse lust to look into the eyes of his victims before he snuffs out their lives. No, like Osama bin Laden, this shooter seems to get his thrills from seeing the fear in the eyes of the survivors — after he randomly kills his victims as if they were deer. And like bin Laden, this shooter is a loser who combines evil, cunning, technical prowess, a world stage and a willingness to kill everyday people doing everyday things to magnify that fear. By gunning down people pumping gas, mowing lawns and walking to school, the shooter is making America's capital area squirm. That's power. No wonder the note he apparently left said, "I am God." And no wonder the Bethesda Gazette, which normally covers school board meetings, carried a big headline that I never thought I'd see in my local paper. It said, "In the Grip of Terror," and the article included little bios of all the people killed. It could have been The New York Times on 9/12: "A County Challenged." Finally, whether or not this shooter is a twisted copycat, he is part of a larger post-9/11 trend. That trend is the steady erosion of our sense of security, our sense that while the world may be crazy, we can always crawl into our American cocoon, our sense that "over here" we are safe, even if "over there" dragons live. Well, "over here" is starting to feel like "over there" way too much. Over there, they just shot up U.S. marines guarding Kuwaiti oil fields, but over here, when I filled my car with gas the other day, I ducked behind a pillar so no drive-by sniper could see me; others hide in their back seats. Over there, Saddam terrorizes his people, but over here, my kids are now experts in the fine distinctions between Code Blue and Code Red. Code Blue means they're locked in their public school building because a potential shooter is in the area, and Code Red means they are locked in their classroom because there may be a gunman in the building. Frankly, I don't want to hear another word about Iraq right now. I want to hear that my president and my Congress are taking the real steps needed in this country — starting with sane gun control and sane economic policy — to stop this slide into over here becoming like over there. nytimes.com

To: tekboy who wrote (51567)	10/13/2002 1:36:34 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Is Bush provoking an attack? By Graham Allison Editorial The Boston Globe 10/12/2002 RANCHERS HAVE LEARNED painfully the wisdom of the maxim: when pursuing deadly rattlesnakes, don't provoke the fatal attack you are aiming to prevent. Does the Bush administration's chosen strategy of publicized preemption risk violating that prescription? President George W. Bush believes not. In this week's address to the nation, the essence of his argument for acting now is that we must hit Saddam before he hits us. Unless we take preemptive action to disarm Iraq and eliminate Saddam, he argued ''on any given morning,'' Saddam could surprise us with a chemical or biological 9/11. The nation's best intelligence analysts disagree. As the latest National Intelligence Estimate, declassified this week, states unequivocally: in the absence of a US attack, the likelihood of Saddam attacking us with chemical and biological weapons in the foreseeable future is ''low.'' On the other hand, if Saddam becomes convinced that we really are about to attack him to topple his regime, intelligence analysts conclude the likelihood that he would attack us with chemical or biological weapons is ''high.'' In sum: to prevent an attack the likelihood of which is low, the US is taking action that makes the likelihood of that attack high. Which of these conflicting judgments seems more likely to be correct: the president's or the intelligence community's? Since the competing bets are driven by strategic logic, not secret information, let us consider the question. Bush presented the basic facts clearly in Monday's address. We know that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons including ''anthrax and other deadly biological agents - capable of killing millions.'' We know that Iraq has ''a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.'' We know that he ''is exploring ways of using these UAV's for missions targeting the United States.'' We know that ''a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative could deliver'' biological agents to an American city. We know that those who hate America would be ''eager to use biological or chemical or nuclear weapons.'' Thus ''we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.'' The issue remains how best to prevent the worst from occurring. On the current path, for more than a year the Bush administration has broadcast its firm intention to change the regime in Iraq: to kill Saddam and everything he holds dear. Currently, the US is positioning military forces in the region in preparation for such an attack. A congressional resolution authorizing the president to take ''all necessary means'' has been passed. Shortly thereafter, a Security Council resolution authorizing intrusive inspections and, after Saddam stiffs inspectors, permitting a US-led military attack to disarm Iraq seems assured. Given this picture, what do we imagine Saddam is now planning for us? Given Bush's summary of Saddam's character (evil), his history (homicidal), and his intentions (ruthlessly hostile), is he likely to go down with a whimper - or a bang? Will he attack Americans here at home? Has he already dispatched operatives to American cities with biological weapons like smallpox? Will he attack Israel with biological weapons? Will he infect bases in the region where American troops are preparing to launch an attack upon him? If Saddam's overriding objective is his own survival, as we launch, or finalize plans to launch, an attack that threatens to extinguish him, is there any reason to expect him to do less than his best to kill as many Americans as possible? If the evidence the president cites is correct, the logic of the snake hunter's maxim would appear to lead inexorably to the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion: ''Conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'' Therefore, what to do? If one finds a pair of rattlesnakes in his backyard, backing off and hoping they slink away is not the answer. Nonetheless, prudence requires that before attacking a coiled rattler that has no escape route, we are as prepared as we can be to blunt its strike. President Bush asked: ''Does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?'' The answer is: it depends. Specifically, it depends on whether his offensive capabilities to harm us are growing faster than our capabilities to defend ourselves against the counterattack our action may provoke. Before taking action that will likely provoke the very attack we seek to prevent, Bush should assure Americans that our troops in the field and citizens here at home are prepared for the biological and chemical attacks the country's best intelligence analysts judge to be ''likely.'' Have you gotten your anthrax and smallpox vaccinations yet? _________________________________________________ Graham Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affaris athe Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company. boston.com

To: tekboy who wrote (51567)	10/14/2002 2:26:09 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Toward a human disaster By Kenneth H. Bacon Editorial The Boston Globe 10/14/2002 AS PLANNING for a possible attack against Iraq continues to make front-page news, but preparations for post-attack programs are getting much less attention. This is a mistake; war in Iraq would create a humanitarian disaster, including huge flows of refugees and a serious nutritional and public health crisis in Iraq. Surrounding countries estimate that as many as 1.5 million people will flee Iraq, and hundreds of thousands could be displaced within the country. The United Nations might need to feed seven to eight million people, about one-third of the country's population, according to some estimates. Unlike Afghanistan, where relief agencies have been working for years, there is little infrastructure to deal with a humanitarian disaster in Iraq. Stockpiling food, assembling supplies and medicine and building relief teams will take time and money, mainly from the United States. If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical or biological weapons to blunt an attack, the humanitarian crisis would be far worse. Thousands of people would be killed or incapacitated, but relief workers - the world's first responders to complex emergencies - would find it difficult to provide aid. Humanitarian workers are completely unprepared to work in the toxic conditions they could encounter in Iraq. Operating separately, officials from the UN, the US military and private relief agencies have begun preliminary contingency planning to address Iraq's post-conflict needs. The challenges are daunting. First, nobody knows if or when the United States will attack. The current speculation is that any attack would come in the cooler months of January or February, which would increase the need for shelter, blankets, and clothing. In addition, humanitarian planners don't know anything about the dimensions or targets of a possible attack; would it be focused on Baghdad or include other major cities, such as Basra and Mosul? Second, nobody knows if the war would stay limited to Iraq or spread to other countries, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Both UN and US analysts have concluded that Iraq has retained a missile program that could allow it to attack targets in other countries. Third, all planners are worried about a basic lack of assistance infrastructure in and around Iraq. For example, only a few international non-government agencies work in Baghdad, compared with the hundreds working in Afghanistan. As a result, there is no network for distributing aid quickly. The UN has less than 1,000 expatriate workers in Iraq, supported by a few thousand Iraqis. Most of the international workers administer the UN's oil for food program and would likely leave the country before hostilities start. Combat would generate a large and immediate need for food, shelter and medicine, both for refugees and those who survived the war within Iraq. But very little relief material is stockpiled in the area. Iran estimates that up to one million refugees could move toward its border, but there are currently enough supplies in place for 40,000. This problem can be solved with a combination of planning, time, and money. Thousands of tons of food, blankets and medical equipment must be stockpiled in the area as quickly as possible. Most of the refugees are expected to flee toward Iran and Turkey, although both countries currently contend that they won't accept new refugees. Nevertheless, supplies will have to be warehoused in Turkey and Iran so that assistance can be close to refugees in border areas. These logistical problems are small compared to what relief agencies would face if Saddam Hussein, desperate to repel attack, used chemical or biological weapons. The immediate fatalities and casualties could be extremely high, and the lingering toxic impact of chemical, and particularly biological, agents could complicate rescue and relief efforts. Relief agencies simply lack the experience, equipment and training to work in poisoned environments. In 1988 Iraqi forces killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons in the northern Iraqi city of Halabja. Dr. Christine Gosden, a British scientist who has studied the attack, concluded that ''treating immediately the victims of chemical attack is absolutely critical, not only for saving lives, but for preventing long-term radiation-like medical and genetic problems,'' such as cancer and birth defects. But Saddam's forces used a cocktail of chemical toxins - mustard gas and the nerve agents Sarin, Tabun, and VX - that made defense and treatment particularly difficult. No matter how complex the humanitarian challenges, they must be addressed quickly and forthrightly. The humanitarian costs are a necessary part of the calculus of war, and the United States must take the lead in confronting them. Preparation to save the people of Iraq is at least as important as planning to remove the president of Iraq. ____________________________________________________ Kenneth H. Bacon, a former assistant secretary of defense, is the president of Refugees International. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company. boston.com