SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (72980)2/10/2003 11:29:39 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Europe's gambit to forestall war

France, Germany, and Russia are set to offer a 'coercive' Iraq inspection plan at the UN Friday. Could it work?

By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – European countries bent on staving off a war with Iraq are pressing a high-stakes gamble that could either throw off the US military timetable - or precipitate war by pushing the US to act without the United Nations.
Germany - backed by permanent Security Council members France and Russia - is working on a plan to muscle up weapons inspections in Iraq with soldiers and military surveillance flights.

Deploying delaying tactics on another front, Germany and France teamed up with Belgium to block proposed NATO military protection of Turkey, the closest NATO country to Iraq, in the event of war. NATO countries were set to take up the Turkey issue again Monday after failing to reach an agreement Sunday.

The "enhanced" inspections proposal, which the German government calls "victory without bullets," is expected to be introduced to the UN Security Council Friday, when UN weapons inspectors provide an update on Iraqi cooperation.

"If [these countries] push too hard, they could force the US to go ahead with a 'coalition of the willing' but outside the UN, and that badly weakens the UN and works against the interest of countries like France," says Robert Lieber, an international relations expert at Georgetown University in Washington.

The idea of "enhanced inspections," first suggested by the French following Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council last week, is already being dismissed by the Bush administration as a "diversion" and "beside the point." For the US, the problem at this point is not finetuning the inspections, but acting on Saddam Hussein's continuing defiance of international orders to disarm.

But with a majority on the 15-member UN Security Council still expressing support for continued inspections, the international buzz around the proposal could at least stall momentum that the US and Britain believed was building in favor of a new UN resolution authorizing use of force.

Professor Lieber says the US stance - that "a second UN resolution would be nice and would make fighting the war easier, but is not legally necessary" - suggests to him that the US is not likely to "waste much time" with an "uncooperative UN."

The dilemma posed by US determination on Iraq means that even as countries focus their comments on Iraq and inspections, their real concern is how to handle their relations with the US.

Russia is a case in point. The government of President Vladimir Putin wants to nurture its nascent good relations with the US, but it also has an interest in perpetuating some aspects of Cold War-era global order - including the Security Council structure that gives it (along with France, China, the United Kingdom, and the US) a permanent, veto power. At the same time, it sees its economy increasingly tied to Germany and Europe.

"Russia has clearly made its choice, and it will stand with the Franco-German option," says Valery Fyodorov, director of the independent Center for Political Trends in Moscow. "We do not want to see the United Nations downgraded, or the advent of a world order based on US hegemony."

Insisting that Russia has received no guarantees on its oil and other economic interests in a post-war Iraq, Mr. Fyodorov says, "From this point of view, the Franco-German plan looks much better for Russia. It proposes a solution for Iraq which would be supervised and enforced by the UN - including, possibly, Russian peacekeeping troops - and that is a situation in which Russian economic interests in Iraq would be respected."

Yet while the German position is consistent with the anti-war policy of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, even some German analysts say the latest plan is primarily designed for domestic consumption and is likely to fail in the face of the US steamroller.

The initiative seems designed "for domestic rather than foreign policy reasons," says Frank Umbach, a foreign policy and security expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations.

Noting his own skepticism about the plan, Mr. Umbach says "This proposal assumes that Saddam Hussein would give in and give up control over Iraq, which would be nothing less than a peaceful regime change, and I cannot imagine that Saddam would agree to that."

Still, not all experts are dismissing the viability of the Franco-German proposal - or even the idea that the US might yet be open to accepting "coercive inspections."

"The administration's successful strategy so far has been to place itself two to three steps ahead of where they hope to get the international community [on Iraq], so I wouldn't expect them to be speaking now of toughening the inspections," says Jessica Mathews president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "I'd expect them to be out there with something tougher, so that others could come forward with something short of war," like coercive inspections.

Ms. Mathews and the Carnegie Endowment first proposed the idea of "coercive inspections" backed by soldiers and surveillance flights last fall. Ironically German officials rejected the idea at the time, saying it risked setting off a war.

But Mathews says support for the idea has increased as the prospects of war have grown.

"A lot of countries are willing to go very far" in pressuring Iraq for full disarmament, but they balk at war for regime change, she adds, "which has totally different implications for the region and for how the global community operates."

Under the German-French proposal, reported earlier this week in the magazine Der Spiegel, Iraq would effectively be put under a UN protectorate. The 150,000 U.S. soldiers currently stationed around Iraq would remain in place to ensure a peaceful invasion by UN soldiers and to back them up. The peacekeepers then would support the UN weapons inspectors, whose number would increase from currently 100 to 300. While France would monitor air space over Baghdad with "Mirage" surveillance planes, Germany would contribute "Luna" surveillance drones.

German Defense Minister Peter Strück told German radio Monday that talk of NATO's "blue helmets" in Iraq was premature, that the Franco-German plan was still under discussion and not yet ready for public debate. Remarking on US irritation that it had not been consulted about the idea, Mr. Strück said there was not yet anything concrete to share with the Americans.

With a growing list of countries signing on to support the American position on Iraq - and especially after chief UN inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei having failed over the weekend to elicit key concessions they sought from Iraq - the US can be expected to emphasize at the UN that continuing Iraqi defiance is the reason anything like the German plan is doomed to failure.

Still, the US had some cause for feeling it was being jumped in diplomatic corridors over Iraq. "Anyone who follows events around Iraq can see that, in essence, the positions of Russia, France and Germany practically coincide," Putin said before meeting with French President Jacques Chirac Monday. It spelled more diplomatic wrangling ahead.

Meanwhile, Turkish officials reminded NATO that, as a strategically vital member of the alliance, Turkey must be assured of NATO's protection in any war with Iraq.

"Rejecting Turkey's defense is critically important and may damage the future of NATO," says Murat Mercan, the deputy chairman of the ruling AK [Justice and Development] party. "When the real war comes and when there's an attack on Turkey, I'm sure NATO will defend its member country,"

www.christiansciencemonitor.com



To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (72980)2/10/2003 11:55:03 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Colin Powell myth.


Very good, Karen, you managed to find a columnist that would write something other than an "Hagiography" about Powell. It is difficult to find anyone who will put down Powell. Hell, Sorenson even went back to My Lai!



To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (72980)2/11/2003 12:22:41 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
COL Hackworth: A Warrior Against Gulf War II

By Ellis Henican
Newsday
Friday 24 January 2003

When war gets as close as this one is, I don't go looking for a dove.

Ramsey Clark, the Rev. Daniel Berrigan, the Quakers and college professors and European diplomats - I already know where they all stand. I want to do my war talking with a warrior.

A real American military man who fought for his country time and again, a soldier who stood in harm's way as the bullets and bombs flew in, as wars of grave national interest were lost and won.

Get me Hack.

David Hackworth is one of the most celebrated soldiers in modern U.S. history. He joined the merchant marine at 14, the Army at 15, and he's never looked back. He was the youngest U.S. captain in the Korean War, the youngest colonel in Vietnam.

As a soldier and later a war correspondent, he's been on a dozen battlefields, hot and cold. And he never became a Pentagon bureaucrat. Of all the medals that have been pinned to his uniform, it's the Combat Infantryman's Badge he's proudest of.

Now his country is tilting toward war again.

"Having thought long and hard about war with Iraq," Hackworth told me, measuring his words carefully, "I cannot find justification. I don't see a threat. They are not Nazi Germany. This is not the Wehrmacht. In no way does the situation in Iraq affect my nation's security. That is the bottom line of analyzing threats. 'Does this country threaten my country's security?' In this case, absolutely not."

The awesome risks of this war, he said, far outweigh the potential rewards.

"Focus on protecting the American homeland, which is not adequately defended," Hack said. "Nine-eleven proved that. All of the machinations that have gone on since then are more lip service and crowd-pleasing than real. Our borders are still wide open. Our ports are vulnerable, too. And there are plenty of sleeper cells - Middle Eastern terrorists living among us, waiting to do their thing."

Compared to that dark picture, Saddam Hussein should be an afterthought.

"I don't think militarily it will be a big deal to smack this little broken pussycat out of the way," Hackworth said. "Four weeks, he's history. He'll be tacked up on the barracks wall. Iraq is not a tiger that is roaring with nuclear weapons in each paw like North Korea.

"If you want to look at enemies facing our country, No. 1 is international terrorism, the folks that brought us 9/11. No. 2 is North Korea, which has a huge Army, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons - and ability to deliver them. The third is Iran."

But attacking Iraq could cost far more than most American's imagine, Hackworth said. "There's a real possibility we take catastrophic casualties."

With house-to-house combat in Baghdad, he said, the numbers could go a whole lot higher than the 148 battle deaths and 460 battle wounded from the first Gulf War. Higher even than the "160,000 disabled and almost 10,000 dead as a result of Gulf War illness. All of us that were there, we look in the mirror and still wonder if something is going happen to us."

Then there's the troubling question of once in Iraq, how do we ever get out?

"We're still in Japan, Korea and Germany 57 years after World War II," he said. "My guess is at least 60 years" in Iraq, costing as much as $2 trillion to $3 trillion.

And finally, what about all the anti-American sentiment this war will generate? "One and a half billion Muslims, who don't like us anyway. Now they're gonna look and say, 'Here come the crusaders again.'"

From their ranks rise the terrorists of tomorrow.

As he travels across the country, Hackworth told me, the vast majority of military veterans he meets see this war as a rotten idea.

"They've been there," he said. "They know war is not a blood sport, as cable news make it out to be. Cheney and Bush and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld - they've never stood and faced the elephant. These are the people who gush for war."

But don't expect the generals and the admirals to raise their own private doubts.

"Through the long eight-year bloodbath of Vietnam, not one general sounded off and said, 'Bad war, can't win it, let's get out.' They went along to get along. It's true again. The top generals are head-shakers."

As for the public, just watch how quickly the pro-war sentiment will evaporate.

"My parachute brigade was the first to go to Vietnam," Hackworth recalled. "Eighty-five percent of Americans were saying, 'Hey, hey, all the way with LBJ.' We were there a year, shipping body bags back home as fast as we could. Suddenly, the American public, which is so fickle, did a 180. 'Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?'"

But smart or not, we're going again, this life-long warrior warned, before getting back to his veterans, his bleak scenarios and his battle plans.

Even though the UN inspectors have barely begun their work. Even though containment has been working. Like a battle-sharp soldier, he's seen the pattern before.

"That comes from my experience in barroom fights - sad to say I've had a few - and on the battlefield," Hack said. "When the fist is drawn back and cocked and locked, it generally gets flung."

truthout.org