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: JohnM who wrote (75235)2/18/2003 3:13:10 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
WaPo predicts at least two more weeks of heavy diplomatic lifting:

2-Week Window Frames Bush's Decision on War

By Mike Allen and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 18, 2003; Page A01

President Bush plans at least two more weeks of diplomacy before deciding whether to attack Iraq and may support a deadline for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to visibly destroy his chemical and biological weapons, administration officials said yesterday.

Officials said the United States and Britain are likely to push for an enforcement resolution in the U.N. Security Council this week. One option under consideration was a demand for "actual disarmament" by Iraq within a specified number of days, a senior administration official said.

"It would say, 'This is your last window,' " the official said.

Meeting in Brussels yesterday, the 15 European Union leaders agreed that U.N. weapons inspectors should be given more time to find and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and declared that a war against Iraq "should be used only as a last resort."

Officials here and in London discussed how to regain momentum lost last week, when chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council that progress was being made, even though Baghdad was still not cooperating fully with disarmament demands. A majority of council members, including France, Russia, China and Germany, said that inspections should be given more time before there was any consideration of the use of military force.

As the administration has tried to sustain pressure on Iraq, it often has implied during the past two months that a final deadline was near. Officials suggested yesterday that Bush's rough timetable has always been slightly longer than many diplomats assumed when he announced Jan. 30 that the issue of how to deal with Hussein would be resolved in "a matter of weeks, not months."

But this time, the administration appears to have left little room for retreat from a timetable heading toward a final decision in about two weeks. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sunday implied that what she called a "diplomatic window" would close following the next Security Council meeting at the end of this month, when members will again hear an assessment from Blix of Iraqi cooperation. She was dismissive of a French suggestion that the council schedule yet another meeting on March 14.

U.S. and British military deployments to the Persian Gulf region will then have reached levels more than adequate for an attack by early to mid-March. Although senior military officials have said that troops could remain in the region for "months" without any action, planners have expressed concern about fighting in the intense heat that falls over the region in early spring.

While the administration has consistently maintained that it does not need another Security Council resolution to launch an attack against Iraq, it has so far bowed to the wishes of Britain and Spain, its two main council allies. Dozens of other countries whose support the administration has claimed also have said they would prefer a U.N. imprimatur on any action.

In addition to a possible final deadline for Iraq, other possible provisions for a new resolution include declaring that Iraq already has violated the November council demand that it disarm immediately and completely. The resolution would not spell out any consequences requiring members to agree to military action, but the administration would assert that such approval was implied. Officials said they are not interested in a scenario where a further debate about the consequences would begin after a deadline or final "material breach" had been decided.

Among the tests for Iraq that officials are considering is insistence that weapons scientists and technicians be allowed to travel outside the country for interviews with U.N. inspectors. But administration officials, while saying it might be possible to write a list of tasks tightly enough, expressed misgivings about the deadline approach.

Some pointed out that Bush might find himself in a box if Hussein complied. The real fear, a senior official said, is that even the appearance of compliance would encourage council members who have already said they believe progress is being made. Also, Bush's aides have said repeatedly that Iraqi cooperation thus far has been focused on process, such as allowing the inspectors access to suspected weapons sites, while the administration wants results on substance, such as the voluntary giving up and destruction of weapons it says Iraq is concealing.

The administration is hesitant to lobby for a new list of procedural demands, officials said, and is concerned that Iraq would use such an approach to further delay the process with attempts to negotiate. "The question is: Are they able to do enough on each [demand] to give the appearance of complying?" an official said. "You agree in principle, and then they try to drag it out for months."

But while all the diplomatic options have drawbacks, the administration also believes that a new resolution could greatly expand the support, including financial contributions, that the United States would receive from other nations for a post-Hussein occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Officials made it clear that Bush is going to continue to work with the United Nations for several more weeks, after which he is prepared to go to war without U.N. approval if he is convinced no headway is being made, they said.

Bush's aides insisted that he will not be slowed down by opposition that was clear in Friday's Security Council meeting, or by the millions of protesters around the world who marched against war over the weekend. They said he is continuing to make alternative diplomatic and military plans in case the council fails to approve a resolution endorsing an attack on Iraq, his aides said.

"Sometimes the demonstration of pursuing the alternative plans helps push the likelihood of a resolution," the senior official said, adding that the alternative plans nevertheless are very real.

Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga said after meeting with Bush at the White House yesterday that "time is very short, and I think that we will be seeing developments within a matter of weeks." Bush "has reaffirmed his commitment and sees it as the responsibility of the United States to guarantee that Saddam Hussein is disarmed," the Latvian leader said in the snowy White House driveway. "And he says, 'We will see to it. We will do it.' "

Bush's meeting yesterday was indicative of the attention he is lavishing on smaller nations as he builds his coalition in the face of resistance from several of the traditional powers of western Europe. Latvia, a former Soviet republic, is one of 10 Central and Eastern European nations that have publicly expressed support for Bush's approach to Iraqi disarmament.

Bush's week of heavy diplomacy includes a meeting Wednesday in the Oval Office with NATO Secretary General George Robertson. On Saturday, at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., he will consult with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, and the two will hold a joint news conference.
washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (75235)2/18/2003 3:27:42 PM
From: carranza2  Respond to of 281500
 
You can avoid the discussion if you wish as it is obviously your right to do so. I'm nevertheless setting forth the fallacies in the M&W argument for anyone who does wish to discuss them with me.

The linchpin in the M&W argument is that Saddam can be deterred and that he attacks only when he perceives that his enemy is weak and he is comparatively stronger. He supposedly uses a rational calculus in doing so.

I disagree with this notion but I'm willing to concede it for purposes of argument. However, I am not willing to concede the fact that containment has been a bad joke and that Saddam could very well be armed with nukes in the near future should things keep going in the same direction.

The question, then, is this: assuming Saddam can be deterred and is a rational calculator of risks, what will be his risk assessment when he is armed with nuclear weapons? Let me suggest how it might go:

1.- Kuwait is a plum to be picked because the Americans will not send their troops into nuclear combat. I'll threaten nukes against Israel if they make enough noise. [You might recall that Saddam has been quoted as saying that his primary mistake in attacking Kuwait was doing so before he had obtained nukes. As an interesting mental exercise, try to reconfigure history if he had nukes in '90 and '91--this will give you a taste of what will happen if the failed containment policy is pursued.]

2.- Saudi Arabia can be also be picked because the Americans will not send their troops into nuclear combat and risk destroying Islam's holy sites. I'll threaten nukes against Israel if they make enough noise.

3.- The Israelis can be deterred and cowed since, as a small country, they cannot risk nuclear attacks.

4.- With nukes I can control ME oil and force the Americans and the West into significant concessions.

That is exactly how a "rational" deterrable Saddam would think if he were armed with nukes. This scenario fits perfectly within the M&W scheme and is the reason why their argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.



To: JohnM who wrote (75235)2/18/2003 4:42:13 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
'Why war?' needs answer


By ROBERT STEINBACK
Columnist
The Miami Herald
Posted on Tue, Feb. 18, 2003
miami.com

Let's make clear what the impending war in Iraq is not.

It is not a war to liberate the Iraqi people.

More than a few hawks are putting forth this fiction to soothe the sting of what war really would be: History's first instance of America choosing to invade and occupy a sovereign nation that poses little discernible threat to this country or our allies.

The liberation hawks were inspired by President Bush, who, in his State of the Union message, referred to an America willing to make a ``sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.''

This is breathtaking sophistry. We're going to liberate a population by killing them? How many Iraqi deaths have we decided are worth sacrificing for Iraq's freedom -- 500? 50,000? More?

It reminds me of the wicked line from the animated movie Shrek in which Lord Farquad tells the knights competing for the chance to rescue Princess Fiona from the fire-breathing dragon, ``Some of you may die, but it's a price I'm willing to pay.''

The liberation claim is part of the convoluted stew of rationalizations that the Bush administration has cooked up to obscure what is nothing less than the abdication of the very principles of peace, justice and law upon which America was founded.

We've been told we're going to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction we haven't located yet; to retaliate for links to al Qaeda that are historically tenuous; to eliminate a man for actions he might take some day; to liberate an oppressed people we didn't care about before Sept. 11.

Which is it? It doesn't matter to the Bush administration, as long as you accept any of the above.

It's the absence of a clear rationale for war that inspired millions of demonstrators around the world to voice their opposition over the weekend. It should be noted that nothing of the sort was seen prior to the Gulf War, because the reasons for war were evident to all, and because the world acted in concert to reverse Iraqi aggression.

It's a fair assertion that the Iraqis would be better off without Saddam Hussein in power, even before considering if any alternatives might be worse.

But it isn't up to the United States to decide when a people must be freed. A people's liberation -- especially from an oppressor spawned from within, like Hussein -- isn't something for outsiders to choose or impose. The agitation for liberation must first come from the oppressed people themselves.

When a population has decided on its own to make such a sacrifice, the door then opens for outside support. Yet even as American ''liberators'' gather on Iraq's doorstep, one hears little enthusiasm from the Iraqis for the coming conflagration.

Pre-Dubya America placed its faith in peacefully exporting the ideals of democracy, liberty, capitalism and self-determination, concepts that inspired lovers of freedom the world over to accept the risks of challenging oppressors. Now, no matter what guise we adopt, the United States in Iraq will be an invading army bent on reshaping a foreign land to suit our own purposes.

Hawkish syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer cut through the lame liberation rationalizations to make exactly this case for war. In his column in the Feb. 17 edition of Time, Krauthammer argues that post-Sept. 11 America should use its military power to reshape troublesome parts of the world: ''A de-Saddamized Iraq . . . would provide friendly basing not just for the outward projection of American power but also for the outward projection of democratic and modernizing ideas,'' he wrote.

In an Internet piece, he was more direct: ``It's about reforming the Arab world . . . We haven't attempted it so far. The attempt will begin with Iraq.''

This is the same reasoning used by such notables as Adolf Hitler and General Tojo, who used military invasion to reform Europe and the Pacific to suit their own purposes. As distasteful as these parallels may seem, the question must be asked: What makes our rationale for invasion any different?

Haven't we abandoned American ideals the moment we attempt to impose them by force?



To: JohnM who wrote (75235)2/18/2003 5:31:07 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I made it to the Lounge Chair at Borders this morning, and read Robert Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power." My advice is read the article instead. (Listed in this Thread's Header".) The book is just an expanded version, with nothing new to speak of, IMO.

I was browsing Mona Charen's new book, "Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First." I guess she wants to "mine" the market Coulter found for her right wing book. It reminded me of all the things the right fought for before the collapse of the Soviet Union that the left would just as soon forget. The "Revisionist History" we are getting is that everybody in America was unified against the Soviet Union. Ha! She opened with a favorite quote of mine from Sydney Hook I had not heard in a while. Rings very true today.

It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion - for jackals, not men; and those who are prepared to live like men and, if necessary, die like men, have the best prospect of surviving as free men and escaping the fate of both jackals and lions.