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: JohnM who wrote (52409)	10/16/2002 1:16:12 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Rush to war could sabotage Rumsfeld plan for success USA Today 10/16/02 In the long corridors of the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is known for his ''Rumsfeld's Rules,'' a collection of wisdom he has compiled over three decades on how to succeed in Washington. Now he is applying the same methodical approach to determining when U.S. military force should be used. As the United States gears up for a showdown with Iraq, Rumsfeld's guidelines, first disclosed by The New York Times this week, provide the Bush administration with a valuable blueprint to determine whether it has laid all of the groundwork to maximize the odds of victory and prepare the public for the difficulties that lie ahead. The Defense chief describes them as a checklist to ensure ''a full appreciation of our responsibilities, the risks and the opportunities.'' Yet holding the administration's actions up to Rumsfeld's penetrating questions spotlights significant holes in its preparations for anything but a best-case scenario. Without bracing the public for the possibility of a war that produces high U.S. casualties, increased terrorism or wider conflict in the Middle East, the administration risks eroding support crucial for effective wartime leadership. That is a troubling failing as debate begins in the United Nations today on an Iraq resolution. Its aim is to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with a decade-old requirement to let U.N. weapons inspectors certify that he has eliminated chemical and biological weapons and materials for building a nuclear bomb. Ideally, a strong resolution would demand unfettered inspections and authorize force, should Saddam again balk. That way, if inspections fail, President Bush would have important global backing for a strike on Iraq if he decides it is necessary. The administration's diligent efforts to work through the U.N. are testament to its determination to follow some of Rumsfeld's principles. Among them: laying out the reasons for confronting Saddam, marshaling public support, pursuing diplomacy to avert a conflict and ensuring that U.S. forces aren't constrained in pursuing their mission. But continued resistance to the military option from France and other allies that feel the United States is rushing to battle is just one indication the administration hasn't met Rumsfeld's standards for preparing Congress, the American public and U.S. allies for the perils of a new war. Other areas where the administration falls short of Rumsfeld's commandment that it promise ''no more than we can deliver'': * Casualties. Rumsfeld says the public ''should not be allowed to believe an engagement can be executed . . . with few casualties.'' Yet the president hasn't steeled Americans for major casualties. Bush warned in an Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati that ''military action could be difficult'' and that there is no ''easy or risk-free course of action.'' That's too vague for a public clearly worried about heavy U.S. losses. A USA TODAY/CNN/ Gallup Poll released that same day showed support for war with Iraq slipping from 51% if 100 U.S. troops died to 33% if 5,000 were killed. * Risks. Rumsfeld warns that the risks of taking action ''must be carefully considered'' along with the dangers of doing nothing. The administration has repeatedly made the case against inaction -- the possibility that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons and strike the USA. But it has not been equally candid about the dangers of action. Administration critics warn that Iraq could bomb Persian Gulf oil facilities, causing a global economic crisis. Or it could attack Israel, setting off a wider war in the region. And a U.S. assault could spark increased terrorist attacks on Americans. * Goals. Rumsfeld says U.S. forces should be used for ''achievable'' goals. U.S. military superiority makes the ouster of Saddam appear realistic. But Bush's goal of turning Iraq into a democracy is an enormous challenge, considering the repressive regimes that dominate the region and Iraq's own history of ethnic conflict. * Honesty. Rumsfeld urges U.S. leadership to be ''brutally honest with itself, Congress, the public and coalition partners.'' Yet the administration has not produced compelling evidence to support its claims that Saddam is linked to al-Qaeda terrorists, is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons or intends to strike the USA. To the contrary, the CIA has played down Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda and a possible first strike. Before the first war with Iraq, the Powell doctrine, named for then-general Colin Powell, helped the USA avoid another Vietnam by calling for clear objectives, overwhelming force and an exit strategy. Rumsfeld's guidelines provide a path not just to military success, but also to global support. But as the thoughtful nature of his memo suggests, the process doesn't lend itself to shortcuts. Bush has credible guidelines for confronting Iraq from one of its staunchest hawks and savviest political observers. The new ruminations by the author of Rumsfeld's Rules are worth heeding with care. usatoday.com

To: JohnM who wrote (52409)	10/16/2002 1:20:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting article on the state of Palestinian reform. The author thinks getting rid of the PLO is job one. Excerpt: As such, reform has become the language in which the battle to shape Palestinian identity is being waged. It is a clash of two conceptions of Palestinian nationhood. One is the extreme nationalism of the PLO: violent and inherently hostile to the concepts of good governance and freedom. Indeed, the PLO's vision is but one manifestation of the broader crisis of Arab politics gripping the region, propelling its tyrannical leaders to escape the looming upheaval arising from their failures by diverting its energy outward into violent attacks against the West and Israel. The second idea, represented by local-oriented elites, is more moderately nationalist. It dreams of a democratic, liberal Palestine, rooted in Western traditions. The PLO, though its reform efforts, seeks to consolidate its role as vanguard of regional revolution. But other Palestinians understand that the region suffers an epidemic of tyranny. Rather than lifting the plague, these Palestinians see conflict with the West as a drenching rain to chill their recovery. ... In the battle for the Palestinian soul, the U.S. must answer Arafat's challenge to Bush and remain unequivocal and unwavering. If America is to help put an end to Arab-Israeli violence and bring responsible politics to this unfortunate region it must continue to follow its most cherished principle, freedom — and choose its allies within Palestinian society accordingly. And that effort begins with the rejection of the fundamentally anti-democratic current leadership. U.S. policymakers should cease meeting PA's ministers and PLO's delegates and instead endorse and pin their hopes for reform on Palestinian voices that are genuinely interested in creating a Palestinian democracy. Only then will American policies on the Arab-Israeli conflict compliment and reinforce rather than contradict its broad efforts to bring about a fundamental change in Arab politics as a whole — the real objective of our current war. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-wurmser101602.asp

To: JohnM who wrote (52409)	10/16/2002 1:25:59 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Pursue national interest, not personal By Glenn Hameroff Editorial South Florida Sun-Sentinel Posted October 14 2002 Saddam Hussein is one of the more evil and treacherous characters on the world scene. However, President George W. Bush is violating the famous advice offered by the Corleone family in The Godfather. President Bush is allowing his personal feelings to cloud his judgment. His needs to complete the job his father started and avenge the Iraqi-orchestrated attempt on his father's life have become geopolitical/economic blinders. We stand at the pinnacle of world power, but that does not allow us to ignore the political and geographic realities of a war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein is not the only despot developing weapons of mass destruction. Are we planning to attack every nation that is developing this capacity? During the second half of the 20th century we successfully contained the far superior nuclear arsenal of the Soviet "Evil Empire." It would seem plausible that one Trident submarine stationed in the Persian Gulf could rain terrible retribution on any Iraqi transgressions. Hussein used poison gas on his own people and during the war with Iran, but faced with nuclear retaliation he chose not to introduce these weapons into Desert Storm. The fear that he would use his weapons of mass destruction against Israel ignores the reality that Israel may have 100 nuclear weapons. I have no doubt that Israel would employ these in either a preemptive or retaliatory attack. Our belief that Hussein would give these weapons to stateless suicide terrorists lacks both proof and defies the traditional hostility between his secular Baath Party's rule and Islamic fundamentalists. Before we go "to the mattresses," we had better consider some of the costs and benefits of toppling Hussein's regime. Are we prepared to invest the time, men and materials to carry out regime change in Iraq? What if regime change backfires and Iraq becomes a radical Islamic Republic? What will the defeat of Iraq do to the balance of power in the region? Are we willing to put Iran on our military attack list? How many American and Iraqi casualties will make us feel it was all worth it? Might the oil-producing nations of the world retaliate with a recession-deepening oil price increase? The best possible outcome is the removal of Hussein and creating a democratic regime. We would also be removing a potential member of the world's nuclear club and a rogue member to boot. The club will then have only 20 to 30 members by mid-century, not 21 or 31. Most of the evidence suggests that an attack on Iraq contains much greater risk than possible rewards. Yet, Congress seems bent on granting a blank check to the president to conduct an undeclared war. Only a small group of Republicans and Democrats have the political courage to question such a grant of power. Mr. President, you must guide the country by pursuing concrete national interests; ideology and emotions can cause many unplanned disasters. _________________________________________ The author is a retired teacher and resident of Delray Beach. Copyright © 2002, South Florida Sun-Sentinel sun-sentinel.com

To: JohnM who wrote (52409)	10/16/2002 1:38:26 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

got that judgment from friends--that his later books were not as good as his earlier ones. I have read the the "D-Day" one I am reading is his best. So far, I agree. If you don't want WWII Military, then I suggest the Lewis and Clark one, which is one hell of a good read.

To: JohnM who wrote (52409)	10/16/2002 4:18:59 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Ambrose's new book about the Mississippi River might appeal to you, except that it has nothing to do with foreign relations. It's just plain old fashioned history. Lots of nice pictures. I decided not to buy it because I already know pretty much everything in it, being a Mississippi River history buff. Because I already know the material I can clearly see his pastiche technique in it - tending a lot towards secondary sources with a sort of cut and paste effect, but he draws together a lot of different material into a reasonably strong narrative.