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


To: Just_Observing who wrote (11705)2/22/2003 1:53:49 AM
From: Patricia Trinchero  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25898
 
Great article.......the next few days will be most interesting.

I just heard on the radio tonight that the Spanish leader is down in Crawford.......frankly, at a time like this I think all world leaders should be in their capital cities.
SOmetimes I think Bush goes to Crawford because his daddy is camped out there and can talk to the leaders without alerting the press to his presence.

From that article, it appears that Bush's war may cause regime change in many countries besides Iraq!

Pat



To: Just_Observing who wrote (11705)2/22/2003 3:47:47 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 25898
 
Don't we remember the Vietnam quicksand?
----------------------------------------------

A 21st-Century Tet?
By Colbert I. King
Columnist
The Washington Post
Saturday, February 22, 2003

Thirty-five years ago this month, the unthinkable happened, or at least we thought so at the time. The U.S. Embassy in well-fortified Saigon fell under enemy attack. I was then assigned to our embassy in Bonn. A TV news clip showed a couple of embassy civilians and uniformed U.S. military personnel fending off the dozen or so Viet Cong commandos who had invaded the U.S. compound. One of the civilians was wielding an automatic weapon high above his head, firing on targets over a wall. I knew him from Washington.

But there we were in 1968, overseas and assigned to embassies as attaches. The State Department diplomatic list described us as "regional administrative specialists." Forget that "administrative" part: Our job was to see that clandestine agents bent on obtaining sensitive information, or armed insurgents out for blood, didn't penetrate the security of U.S. diplomatic missions or compromise our personnel. But blood had been drawn in Saigon. When it was over, all the Vietnamese commandos were dead, but so were some Americans and South Vietnamese.

That day in February 1968 and the days of fighting that followed in Saigon and key South Vietnam district capitals came to be known as the Tet offensive. It mattered not that the U.S. Embassy was never overrun, or that the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong paid a heavy price in lives for their attacks. The surprise military offensive was a giant media and psychological success for the North Vietnamese. In his book "My American Journey," Colin Powell wrote: "Tet marked a turning point, raising doubts in the minds of moderate Americans, not just hippies and campus radicals, about the worth of this conflict, and the antiwar movement intensified."

Today American military might dominates the world. But there is, at least in some quarters, a disquieting feeling that without drawing a drop of American blood, the setbacks in the U.N. Security Council a week ago, the standoffs with NATO and the waves of global protests against a U.S.-led war on Iraq may come to be seen one day as our 21st-century diplomatic Tet.

The Vietnam analogy is, I know, pretty gauzy. It doesn't hold up in many respects. But Tet comes to mind because at the time it happened we regarded it not as an event that turned the tide but rather as a defeat for the enemy. It was to be seven more years before the military of North Vietnam would march victorious into Saigon.

Current plans call for taking out Saddam Hussein. Fine. But there's more to come after he's gone. And that's the worry. Where is this dream of making Iraq a model of Middle East democracy and an American-led transformation of the Arab world taking us?

Today the absence of support from a broad international coalition, and the millions in the streets protesting a possible war with Iraq, are not regarded by the Bush White House as serious cause to pause. The administration instead is emboldened to push ahead.

Those in it choose to grumble about French President Jacques Chirac as if his challenge to U.S. dominance is the reason for worldwide demonstrations. They sneer at the Germans and Belgians for standing in the way of the United States.

But French and German leaders, opportunists and saboteurs though they may be, are not the reason public opinion overseas has swung against the Bush policies. Paris and Berlin are being given too much credit. And protesters didn't turn out on five continents, including the largest demonstration in British history, out of some misguided sympathy for Saddam Hussein.

What we are witnessing, along with the diplomatic offensive, however much we don't like it, is broad popular opposition to U.S. policies. That radicals and leftists are among the leadership of the protesters cannot take away from the cross section of people who turned out against the war.

Even at home, the case for war is not a slam-dunk for the administration. Yes, a majority of Americans, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, support action to take out Saddam Hussein even if the Security Council objects, provided key allies are with us. But a majority also oppose a postwar rebuilding burden that would require the long-term presence of U.S. troops as well as the outlay of billions of dollars to stabilize a defeated Iraq. Yet the Bush administration, as The Post reported this week, plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, including the direction of the country's reconstruction and the creation of a "representative" Iraqi government.

Let's get this straight: Hussein is a menace and should be disarmed by force if necessary. Ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction is one thing, however. Taking over and running the country is quite another.

Imagine what an American occupation force in Iraq will do for anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Does the administration know what it is getting into? Are Americans ready to pay that high a price?

Which gets me back to Vietnam. In his book, Powell complained about having to fight in Vietnam while "back home, the administration was trying to conduct the war with as little inconvenience to the country as possible." True, unlike then, reserves now have been called up. But Powell's Vietnam complaint that "taxes to finance the war had not been raised" applies today. We're deepening the deficit by giving tax cuts to the better off.

Powell also wrote: "War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support. . . . You do not squander courage and lives without a clear purpose, without the country's backing, and without full commitment."

Are the American people committed to governing Iraq, to having a U.S. administrator run an American-created civilian government in a Muslim and Arab country, with all that entails?

In a speech a week ago in New York, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shared his thoughts on the right and wrong way to go about helping nations recover from war and regain self-reliance. His object lesson was Afghanistan, but it could apply to Iraq.

"From the outset of the war, our guiding principle has been that Afghanistan belongs to the Afghans. The United States does not aspire to own it or run it," he said. Which explains, he said, why the United States deliberately decided against following the Soviet example of sending in a massive invasion and occupation force. Instead, he said Gen. Tommy Franks put together a coalition and kept the "footprint modest." Rumsfeld cautioned against establishing a long-term foreign presence in a country, and he warned of "well-intentioned foreigners [who] arrive on the scene, look at the problems and say, 'Let's fix it' " without regard for unintended adverse side effects.

Rumsfeld told his audience: "Iraq belongs to the Iraqis, and we do not aspire to own it or run it." He spoke of working with American partners to help the Iraqi people establish a new government, not complete unilateral control of a post-Hussein Iraq.

Powell wrote in "My American Journey" that his generation of soldiers vowed that when their turn came to call the shots, they would not quietly acquiesce in war for "half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand or support. If we could make good on that promise to ourselves, to the civilian leadership, and to the country, then the sacrifices of Vietnam would not have been in vain."

So if Rumsfeld means what he said, and Powell believes what he wrote, are we planning to plunge deeper into a postwar Iraq?

Don't we remember the Vietnam quicksand?

e-mail: kingc@washpost.com

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com



To: Just_Observing who wrote (11705)2/22/2003 6:50:24 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 25898
 
LET US HAVE NO ILLUSIONS

An American Crisis
By Joe Quandt
CounterPunch.org
2-21-3

Let us have no illusions.

In Baghdad, once I'd gotten to know someone fairly well, they'd often ask me point blank: "The war, Joe... when is it coming?" And searching my eyes, it was clear that they weren't looking for comfort. They wanted the unmitigated truth.

They need, of necessity, to ask these hard questions. The 8-year war with Iran in which 200,000 died; the Gulf War, which took possibly another 300,000 besides wrecking the entire infrastructure; 12 years of U.S.-enforced U.N. sanctions, which have cost them an additional million lives-23 years of sustained economic and military conflict have simply made the Iraqi people immune to illusions, in the matter of war.

Let us, like the Iraqis, have no illusions.

I was in the states at the end of September when the House of Representatives handed the president a gun. I was in Baghdad when the Senate loaded it for him. History repeats itself, as the power to make war is now invested in the person of one, fallible man. Was not the American Revolution fought to prevent a king from making war at his subjects' expense?

As the "Old Europe" of Germany and France makes waffling attempts to assert their independence from Washington realpolitik, Eastern European nations are lining up to take their places at the table. Washington will not lack for lackeys, because power makes money makes power makes money, and this is the first lesson of politics. Have no illusions; other nations will not come to our moral rescue. It may seem ridiculously obvious to you that if the inspectors remained in Iraq for the next 75 years it would still be just plain cheaper than any other solution.

You may be angry at how deeply your civil rights are being slashed at, and recreated in the image of a neo-conservative New World Order.

Or you grasp all too well that it is U.S. arms sales around the world that make inevitable the endless cycle of big and little wars to come, for the next hundred years.

Maybe it's equally clear to you that any future U.S. treaty is a thing of convenience, to be abrogated when its purpose has been served... That the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Accords, bans on nuclear and conventional weapon testing, research into alternative energy sources, all of these are only impediments to "preserving the American way of life"...

That the War on Terrorism is simply a convenient place to focus American fears now that Communism is dead, and the Pentagon needs a new justification for its ever-expanding budget...

That this war on terrorism, the war in Afghanistan to secure right of way for the natural gas reserves of central Asia, the war for the oil of Iraq, the not-so-coincidental turmoil in Venezuela...these are only the opening gambits in the U.S. bid to secure the fossil fuel resources of the entire planet, in order that we may dictate terms to the rest of the industrialized world.

Ask the shoeshine boys, the art dealers, the doctors, the cafe operators, the hotel staff, ask anyone in Iraq why the United States is coming there. They have no illusions. "It's the oil, we know," they say, shrugging their shoulders as though this is a commonplace, known to every child.

In ancient Assyria, war was not dressed up in Patriotism or the tattered gown of Democracy or a distorted Moral Righteousness fabricated from the loving words of long dead Holy Men. War was an undisguised grab for the wealth of another state, the losers impaled or sold into slavery. And you had to face your "enemy".

Will the government of Pakistan, a nation that possesses nuclear weapons, be destabilized? Will the Israelis use the occasion to push the Palestinians into Jordan? Will Turkey finally move on Iraqi Kurdistan? Will the Shia'a majority of southern Iraq link up with Iran or simply demolish itself in endless revolt against the American invaders? How many more Saudi terrorists will be inspired to action? How long before the New Hiroshima, and what unfortunate land will suffer it?

Hundreds of thousands would die in such a war, but that is academic, an historical footnote, statistics. Lives mean nothing to this administration, yours, mine, or the Iraqis'. Have no illusions.

Dare we note that, should the Iraqis put up a stiff resistance, the American military machine will merely back up, and then, oh my fellow citizens, then we will see a demonstration of Weapons of Mass Destruction such as the world has not previously witnessed.

Debate or forget all of the above, but be assured of one thing: the present crisis is over nothing less than the American Soul.

So why, in a world pitching giantly out of control, would you bother to raise your tiny voice, against a din of violence, waste, fear, greed, and "gut feelings", that seeks to drown out any rational consideration of events? We raise our voices because we are Americans...unlike the Iraqis, we can still raise them. We raise our voices because we have children...and parents...and loved ones...and cherished ideals that we'd like to hang onto, and we realize that everywhere an American bomb falls, an Osama bin Laden seed is sown.

We raise our voices because the right of assembly has not yet been taken from us. We raise our voices because our government's arrogant denial that all the peoples of this planet are beautiful and necessary parts of creation, this arrogance is now attributed to the American people as well, and soon it will be unsafe for us to travel outside of our borders.

We raise our voices because the incontrovertible result of war is more war.

We raise our voices because we have galloping inequities in our schools, in Corporate America, in our inner cities, and the 100 or 200 or 900 billion dollars we would squander on further brutalizing our brothers and sisters in Iraq would be better spent otherwise than in financing the theft of that nation's natural resources, to fill the pockets of the conglomerate that is running this country.

* * *

Writing in the early Baghdad evening, I often watched the sun setting over the Tigris River. There, in the Cradle of Civilization, one was, perhaps, more keenly reminded of the flickering and snuffing out of civilizations, and by a small leap, to grasp the historical illogic of war as a problem solving device.

We raise our voices because we must. Because our hearts tell us that the clock is ticking, not quite as loudly as it's ticking for the Iraqis, but time is running out on the American Dream. Have no illusions: An attack against Iraq will be one of the cataclysmic events in American history, on a par with The Civil War and the Great Depression. Would it not signal to the world that democratic principals and Jeffersonian humanism have no more significance in the American ethos than they did in Nazi Germany? And to send that message is to invite a return to international barbarism, but on a scale we must shudder to contemplate.

We raise our voices because there's a drunk at the wheel. Approaching the wall, the catastrophe ever more imminent, we begin to see, with growing and terrible clarity, who and what drives the American State. There is precious little time left in which to grab the keys and avert this self-inflicted disaster.

We raise our voices in the certainty that even should the dreaded Battle of Iraq come, it need not, must not, will not stun us into silence.

And the clock is still ticking...

Joe Quandt is a 52-year old actor/cab driver/activist/teacher/poet living in the Albany, NY area. He traveled to Baghdad on the 49th Voices in the Wilderness delegation, during the month of October, 2002. He can be reached at: <mailto:Ytonthemoon@aol.com>Ytonthemoon@aol.com

counterpunch.org