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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (13869)	3/3/2003 10:24:00 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 89467

oriononline.org

To: lurqer who wrote (13869)	3/4/2003 5:57:34 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The Latest From The Conservative Cato Institute... Bush's Middle East Plans Imperil U.S. Security and Economy by Christopher Preble The Cato Institute March 4, 2003 cato.org [Christopher Preble is director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.] President Bush's Feb. 26 speech for the American Enterprise Institute shows once again his unwavering commitment to a regime change in Iraq. The president's broader message -- that the war on Iraq is a first step in a long march toward promoting democracy throughout the Middle East -- suggests a new phase in American involvement abroad. This new direction will threaten American security, harm economic prosperity, and impinge on individual liberties. Although the president repeated that the "safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat" posed by Saddam Hussein, a war on Iraq makes us all less secure. Witness the recent "Orange Alert" issued by the Department of Homeland Security. If you corner a snake, it may bite. In the same vein, the Bush administration's war warnings, and the presence of nearly 200,000 U.S. troops in nations surrounding Iraq, might precipitate pre-emptive terrorist strikes. Notwithstanding the presumed Iraqi threat, the president spoke eloquently of the plight of the Iraqi people, and of the need for taking action on humanitarian and philosophical grounds. "America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty," he said, "both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq." Bush appealed to his audience, and to all Americans, to assume responsibility for liberating Iraq, even though he admitted such a task would not be easy. Indeed, the president and his supporters have underestimated how difficult it will be to create a free and prosperous Iraq out of the ashes left behind by Saddam Hussein. Promoters of nation-building in Iraq, including many who scorned similar efforts by a Democratic administration a few years ago, point to nation-building successes in Germany and Japan following World War II. Along these same lines, Bush declared that "[r]ebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment" and that the United States would "remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more." But there are still more than 70,000 U.S. troops in Germany and 50,000 in Japan, and this lingering troop presence has given rise to a virulent anti-Americanism. If these "success" stories reflect the model for post-war Iraq, we should expect U.S. troops to remain in this troubled region for many years. On a broader level, liberals and conservatives alike who support a war in Iraq are exhibiting a level of hubris rarely witnessed in human history. Bush is correct, of course, in arguing that, "It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the" desire for freedom and democracy. But the practical application of that desire cannot be exported by the American military, complete with a "Made in America" stamp. It is perhaps understandable that most Americans see few limits to this nation's ability to spread democracy. But there are limits, and there are costs. An expansive and far-flung U.S. empire -- even an empire dedicated to the noble mission of promoting democracy -- must be policed by an American military already strained to the breaking point. The Bush administration requested $380 billion for the military in the FY 2004 budget, and this request does not include any money for the war in Iraq. Some of the administration's internal estimates predicted that the war could cost as much as $200 billion. Critics fear that it could go higher. The true costs, however, are more difficult to measure. There was an outpouring of international support following the horrific attacks of 9/11. Much of that goodwill has dissipated as world opinion has turned against a Bush administration deemed bent on war at all costs. Those who wish us ill can and will mischaracterize our good intentions. The American people must recognize that a benign mission of liberation may become an obligation of occupation, even if the war on Iraq is completed quickly and with a minimal loss of life. If a lengthy occupation occurs, as seems likely, we should expect that those who already hate us would use the excuse of an American troop presence in the Middle East as a vehicle to promote their mission of violence against Americans around the globe. 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403 Phone (202) 842-0200 Fax (202) 842-3490 All Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute

To: lurqer who wrote (13869)	3/4/2003 11:30:12 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 89467

Advisors warn Bush he faces "humiliating" defeat on world stage By Capitol Hill Blue Staff Mar 4, 2003, 06:22 capitolhillblue.com Senior aides to President George W. Bush say he faces a humiliating defeat before the United Nations Security Council next week. Secretary of State Colin Powell, fresh from his latest round of meetings with representatives of countries on the Security Council, delivered the bad news to Bush on Monday. "You will lose, Mr. President," Powell told Bush. "You will lose badly and the United States will be humiliated on the world stage." Some White House advisors are now urging the President to back off his tough stance on war with Iraq and give UN weapons inspectors more time. "We have no other choice," admits one Bush advisor. "We don't have the votes. We don't have the support." Powell told Bush on Monday that Turkey's refusal to allow U.S. troops to stage at the country's border with Iraq doomed any chance of consensus at the UN. "Many were watching Turkey," Powell told Bush. "Had they agreed, it might have helped us sway critical votes." Some Bush aides now admit privately that the President, for all his tough talk, may have to back down and postpone his plans to invade Iraq in the near future. "The vote in Turkey fucked things up big time," grumbles one White House aide. "It pushes our timetable back. On the other hand, it might give us a chance to save face." "Saving face" means backing away from a showdown with the UN Security Council next week and agreeing to let the weapons inspection process run its course. "The arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed gives us some breathing room," says a Bush strategist. "We can concentrate on the favorable publicity generated by the arrest and the valuable intelligence we have gained from that event." Mohammed, arrested in Pakistan, masterminded the 9-11 terrorist attacks. CIA agents found computer files, memos and other materials which pointed to plans for new attacks against the U.S. "The prudent thing to do would be to let Iraq cool off on a back burner and concentrate on Mohammed," says Democratic strategist Arnold Beckins. "Saddam isn't going anywhere. There's too much heat on him right now for him to pull something." Right now, only the U.S., Britain and Spain favor immediate military action against Iraq. With most of the other allies lining up against the U.S., Bush faces both a diplomatic and public relations nightmare if he proceeds against Hussein without UN backing. "We've always needed an exit strategy," admits one White House aide. "Circumstances have given us one. We shouldn't ignore it." © Copyright 2003 by Capitol Hill Blue