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 (53230)	10/19/2002 2:56:41 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Fight terrorism, not Iraq Argument > Leading Articles The Independent 20 October 2002 argument.independent.co.uk Within hours of last weekend's attack in Bali, President Bush and Tony Blair declared that it was possible to fight a war on two fronts, against terrorism and possibly against Iraq as well. A few days later it emerged that another "rogue state", North Korea, was already in possession of nuclear weapons. How should the US and Britain respond? Is there not a case for a pre-emptive strike against North Korea as well? That would mean a war on three fronts and before long it might mean war on four or five fronts, as North Korea is by no means alone in its appetite for nuclear weapons. As George Bush contemplates potential dangers around the world, the terrorists are wreaking havoc now. Tony Blair has been the most eloquent advocate of the pre-emptive strike, arguing persuasively that there would have been few takers for an attack on Afghanistan before 11 September last year, and virtually universal support afterwards. But the terrorist atrocity in Bali highlights the imprecision of that argument as well. In the so-called war against terrorism, the pre-emptive strike, in most cases, is meaningless. How would this strategy have prevented the devastation in Bali? Which state would have been the target for a pre-emptive strike? Terrorists are scattered in different countries, relatively small in number, but capable of causing carnage and wrecking economies. While international leaders have been busy trying to link the war against terrorism to their obsession with Iraq, the terrorists have been regrouping. Last month Clare Short warned that already, only a year after 11 September, the attention of the US and to some extent Britain had wandered from Afghanistan in spite of commitments from President Bush and Mr Blair. According to Ms Short, the warlords are functioning again outside Kabul. With good cause she fears that Afghanistan could become a breeding ground for terrorists once more. The old-fashioned notion of deterrence has worked in the case of Iraq. Saddam has not used weapons of mass destruction outside his country partly because he knows he would provoke a deadly response from the US. The tyrant shows every sign of preferring power to committing suicide. Yet the US and Britain seek a possible war that threatens to destabilise regions that are already terrorist breeding grounds. Consider the impact in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia, let alone the Middle East, of the US military occupation of Iraq that would follow the defeat of Saddam. War against Iraq is a perverse priority when it is already the terrorists who present much the bigger threat to international security.

To: JohnM who wrote (53230)	10/19/2002 3:41:03 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But the proper contrast is not between no costs and costs, but between the costs of invasion and the costs of deterrence. Agreed -- even assuming that deterrence is possible, itself a question. While they are, obviously, unknown and in a very serious sense, unknowable, at any given point, the costs of invading the Soviet Union in the late 40s was astronomical. It simply could not be considered. You mean that the American people had no stomach for it, and Truman demobilized. Militarily, it would have been far from 'astronomical' in cost since our economy outproduced the world, while one-third of the USSR lay in ruins. Not to mention the fact that we had nukes, and Stalin didn't. The cost of invading Iraq, now would not be in that league. But it should be factored into any conversation about deterrence. That the Bush folk never do that in their public statements is yet one more reason to have misgivings. The Bush crowd is already talking about a large war and a long occupation, quite publicly. Somehow, I don't think you'd be satisfied until they provided an exact price tag, which is of course impossible. I notice that the peacenik crowd never talks about the costs of deterrence, or whether deterrence is even possible. Yet that creates no misgivings on that side, hmmm why is that?