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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ForYourEyesOnly who wrote (5390)	2/5/2003 3:18:29 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Powell's burden At the U.N., he should address tough questions that Bush so far has evaded. Lead Editorial The Philadelphia Inquirer Posted on Tue, Feb. 04, 2003 U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell will address a full house tomorrow at the United Nations Security Council. All 15 members have said they will attend to hear him offer evidence of the menace Iraq poses to the world. Millions more people will be listening closely. Americans, especially, need answers about why war, why now, and how, once the battle is won, the peace will be kept. Strange how, even as President Bush has warned that war with Iraq is only weeks away, the U.S. administration has yet to lay out all the information it says it has that supports speedy and preemptive use of military force. You'll get no dispute here with the notions that Hussein is a thug who eagerly seeks forbidden weapons and that Iraq and the world would be better off were he ousted. But where the Bush administration has come up light so far is evidence that Saddam Hussein represents such an imminent danger that world attention should shift from dismantling the international terror network to dumping the Baghdad bully. This is why so many American citizens and allies who have no illusions about Hussein remain queasy about this preemptive invasion. Here are some questions Mr. Powell ought to address if he and his boss want to quell that queasiness. Why is the White House so sure that immediate military action is the only course for neutralizing Saddam Hussein? President Bush wouldn't lead the United States into its first preventive war - which carries enormous implications for American foreign policy - on the basis of fuzzy information that can be interpreted many ways, would he? Even if Mr. Hussein has biological and chemical weapons, as is likely, does he have the technology to deliver them? While it undoubtedly would be horrible if Hussein were to pass these ghastly weapons on to terrorists, why would he suddenly run counter to his typical behavior and align himself with al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups he does not control? What evidence, in fact, does Washington really have that Hussein is aligned with al-Qaeda? The information presented so far is thinner than the crosshairs on a gun sight. Even if Mr. Powell does release more persuasive proof, why is a tenuous connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda more threatening than al-Qaeda's well-known connections to Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Capturing Baghdad and removing the tyrant might prove as effortless as President Bush's defense theorists seem to believe. But what if it's not so neat? How well are we prepared for the chance that a cornered Hussein might use these weapons, perhaps against his own people? Or that the invasion might bog down in a bloody siege of Baghdad? Will a war in Iraq use so much personnel, money and materiel that the American campaign in Afghanistan, far from over, will be neglected? That could make it easy for Muslim extremists to reestablish themselves there - turning a battlefield victory into a strategic defeat. Does the Bush administration have a realistic plan for stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq the day after the war ends? How will it prevent bloody chaos without getting sucked into a quaqmire occupation? After all, its record in Afghanistan is not wildly encouraging. Here's how things are in Afghanistan, a little more than a year after the main fighting there ended: The security situation deteroriates toward chaos, with more and more solitary attacks against American soldiers and officials in the new Afghan government. How much might the war and reconstruction of Iraq cost? Estimates by Washington think tanks and congressional staff put that amount at upwards of $200 billion. How can the United States afford that bill, especially if only a few rich allies sign on and Mr. Bush gets the tax cuts he seeks. He seems blithe about bequeathing a mammoth debt to future taxpayers. The next question is perhaps the most important one, and might be most appropriately answered directly to the American people. Will taking down Saddam Hussein really make Americans safer at home and abroad? Attacks on America, American global interests, or American allies may well occur soon after the first bomb lands in Iraq. Al-Qaeda and other groups may find thousands and thousands of angry young Muslim recruits lining up to join their ranks. Meanwhile, depending upon how the war and its run-up go, the United States could lose allies that are essential to combating worldwide terrorism. Iraq is one of those painful riddles to which there are no fully satisfying solutions. There may be sound evidence and logic for a preemptive strike against Iraq. But Mr. Bush and his advisers have not made the case by simply repeating the obvious - that Hussein is a bad actor who can't be trusted - while evading the really hard questions. philly.com