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 : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (3025)	11/21/2002 5:16:36 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

A tale of two Powells Harlan Ullman URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20021121-79978547.htm The tale is the same. In two different capacities, Colin Powell has persevered in helping position the United States to prevail in times of major crisis. The first time was 1990 when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The second is today as secretary of state. As everyone knows, the crises were over Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein. After Iraq seized oil-rich Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush defined the strategic choice as whether to "defend" Saudi Arabia against an Iraqi invasion and rely on peaceful sanctions and diplomacy to restore Kuwaiti sovereignty or take the offensive and "eject" Iraq by war. The senior civilians favoring war thought it could be won with a force of as few as 250,000. Operation Desert Shield began deploying forces into the Gulf for the defensive mission. Throughout the early fall, no final decision had been made and the press characterized Gen. Powell as a "reluctant warrior" preferring political pressure to war. But, Gen. Powell had a different view and intent. On the afternoon of Oct. 30, 1990, the elder Mr. Bush met in the White House with his national security team. The day had not started well. Congress had just adjourned for the midterm elections. That morning, a congressional delegation led by Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and House Speaker Tom Foley confronted Mr. Bush over Iraq. The president was handed a letter signed by 81 members of Congress. Gravely concerned that "war may be imminent," the letter warned the president that "The consequences [of war] would be catastrophic — resulting in the massive loss of lives including 10,000-50,000 Americans. This can only be described as war. Under the U.S. Constitution," Mr. Bush was gratuitously reminded, "only the Congress can declare war." Mr. Bush later wrote he expected Congress to bring impeachment proceedings against him if he stumbled. Mr. Bush opened the crucial afternoon meeting with the key questions. Does the U.S. limit its actions to defend Saudi Arabia and rely on sanctions? Or does it drive Saddam out of Kuwait with force? When the discussion turned to the offensive option, Gen. Powell was asked what size force would be needed. His calculated reply was about 500,000 troops, nearly double the figure required to defend. As a number of participants later noted, Gen. Powell's answer provoked audible gasps of alarm. But the fact is that by recommending such a large force, Gen. Powell guaranteed that if it were war, the United States would win overwhelmingly and with fewest casualties. Gen. Powell, of course, was proven correct. The military victory was one of the most one-sided in history. When he became secretary of state 10 years later, he found himself at odds within the fledgling administration. Major policy differences surfaced so much so that the media declared Mr. Powell isolated by the "hard-liners" who had the president's ear. Mr. Powell, the former general, was the reluctant warrior in an administration filled with civilian hawks. After September 11 and President Bush's call for a regime change in Baghdad and the prospect for war, Mr. Powell's influence was regarded as waning further. Mr. Powell could pointedly joke that from the conservative side The Washington Times was calling for his dismissal for not following the tough Bush line toward Iraq while the "other" Times in New York was asking him to resign on principle to protest the White House's excessive "unilateralism." Mr. Bush, supporting his chief diplomat, thought that divide was a good balance. Any question of Mr. Powell's standing, however, changed after the U.N. Security Council's recent unanimous vote to compel Iraqi compliance with prior resolutions forbidding it weapons of mass destruction. That vote was rightly seen as a victory for the Bush administration, the United Nations, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and, especially, Mr. Powell who prevailed in convincing the president that winning international support was vital in winning the ultimate battle against Saddam whether or not force was used in anger. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the U.N. vote was only the first step in what will be a long, difficult and possibly bloody process if Iraq refuses the Security Council's will. Mr. Powell's next challenge is to move the administration and the international community to define the nature of a post-Saddam world should war against Iraq follow or, worse, if little or flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction is uncovered by U.N. inspections. When it comes to designing broad conceptual frameworks, Mr. Powell readily acknowledges he is not a Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Shultz or James Baker. But the two portraits on the wall of his private office of predecessor secretaries of state are instructive. They are of Thomas Jefferson and George Marshall. As the nation moves from "the end of the beginning" to the next of possibly many phases in dealing with Iraq, there will be subsequent tales. Let us hope they are as good as the first two. Harlan Ullman is a columnist for The Washington Times. His latest book is "Unfinished Business: Defusing the Dangers that Threaten America's Security." The October meeting discussed above is treated in greater detail in his book.

To: calgal who wrote (3025)	11/22/2002 12:51:18 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

U.S. drawing positive responses for help in event of Iraq war URL:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-11-21-iraq-help_x.htm WASHINGTON (AP) — The worldwide response to U.S. requests for help in the event of war with Iraq is cautiously positive, Bush administration officials said Thursday. A key Arab country, Saudi Arabia, has assured the United States it would provide logistical support, two U.S. officials said. It is essentially a "wink-and-a-nod" reply, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, and help is contingent on limited use of Saudi territory. Another key country, Turkey, which was the launch pad for U.S. warplanes in the 1991 war with Iraq, has responded there is a new government in Ankara that would have to study the request. About 50 nations around the world have been approached, through cables and by U.S. diplomats in the capitals. President Bush also has lobbied NATO allies at a summit meeting in Prague, the Czech Republic. Administration officials stressed only preliminary discussions have been held. A smattering of responses have been received, and they were broadly supportive, a senior official said. In several instances, U.S. ambassadors were told the idea of a coalition sounded good and there would be a formal response later on. Several governments said they were keying their positions on what the United Nations does. The Security Council on Nov. 9 unanimously approved a resumption of weapons inspections and warned Iraq defiance could bring "serious consequences." Most countries on the Council intend to have it meet again to consider the consequences if the inspectors are denied access to suspect sites. Bush has not said whether he would go to war with Iraq, but Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC-TV on Thursday that President Saddam Hussein "is playing the same old game. He's not cooperating and he will frustrate the work of the inspectors." "That will be a big signal to the international community as to what we might have to do in he future." Powell said. President Jacques Chirac of France said Wednesday in Prague that the United States cannot determine on its own whether to wage war against Iraq. The U.N. Security Council "is the only body established to put in motion action of a military nature, to take the responsibility, to commit the international community," Chirac said. In the 1991 Persian Gulf war, former President Bush and then-Secretary of State James A. Baker III methodically built a coalition that included Egypt, Syria and several other Arab states that forced Iraq out of Kuwait. But the current president has said the United States might act alone, or with a few allies, to disarm Iraq if it defies the U.N. inspectors. Britain almost certainly would join the United States, as it did in the two-month struggle to win Security Council authorization for a tough stance toward Iraq. Romania has pledged its support and Bulgaria would grant the United States use of airspace and Sarafovo airport, currently the base for U.S. tanker aircraft involved in the anti-terror war in Afghanistan. But Australia said it was too early to talk about committing forces. Japan would not confirm receiving a request from Washington, and South Korea, which hosts about 37,000 U.S. soldiers, said it was undecided. Germany, publicly at odds with Washington over Iraq, said it was reviewing the U.S. overture "with a view toward Germany's non-participation." Belgian officials confirmed that U.S. officials had approached them, but said no specific requests had been made. "The Americans would give us a list and we would have to choose what we can give: boats, planes, etc. But we haven't had such a request yet," Capt. Olivier Del Tedesco, the armed forces spokesman, said. In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan would not respond directly when asked whether China had been approached for help. He said Beijing would prefer a "political solution to the Iraqi issue." Meanwhile, Pedro San Juan, a former director of political affairs at the United Nations, said the United States should not go to war with Iraq. San Juan, in an interview, said a war could create a huge crisis in the Persian Gulf, the source of 30% of the oil used by the United States. He questioned that Iraq posed a threat to U.S. security with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. San Juan asked: "Why are we going to risk an entire economic relationship with Europe and a world depression?" Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.