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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (79533)3/4/2003 2:35:29 PM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Refusenik! Actually anti-soviet there.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (79533)3/4/2003 10:05:39 PM
From: tekboy  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Very interesting...Elliott Abrams' purge at NSC...

tb@don'tbetonapostwarpeaceprocessmove.com

washtimes.com

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

Staff change means Mideast policy shift

Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent

Published February 25, 2003

     A staff shake-up at the National Security Council is likely to mean the United States will take a harder pro-Israel stance in the Middle East, several serving and former intelligence officials tell United Press International.
     According to these sources, Elliott Abrams, the controversial former Reagan administration official who President Bush last December appointed to the NSC to take charge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, has removed several staff members who were regarded as even-handed on the issue.
     Ben Miller, who was on loan from the CIA and who had the Iraqi file at the NSC, was "abruptly let go," according to former long-time CIA Middle East analyst Judith Yaphe.
     Yaphe, whose account was confirmed by administration officials speaking on condition of anonymity, said two other officials, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, have also been removed from the NSC. Leverett, who was also seconded from the CIA, had worked at the NSC since February 2002 and was appointed senior director for Middle East initiatives on Dec. 3, 2002 -- the same day that Abrams took up his post.
     Mann was on loan to the NSC from the State Department where a colleague described her as a "a pure Foreign Service Officer type."
     A White House official said that the moves were part of the usual staff turnover at the NSC.
     Leverett was an advocate of the so-called "roadmap" for a Palestinian-Israeli peace, according to former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vince Cannistraro.
     NSC spokesman Sean McCormack told UPI that there had been no firings, but acknowledged that Miller was changing assignments. He said Miller had been detailed to the NSC from the CIA and his tour had come to an end. He said that Leverett was still at the NSC, but was also coming to the end of his tour.
     Asked why he would be leaving a post to which he was only appointed Dec. 3, McCormack said only that staff rotations at the NSC were standard.
     Neither Mann nor Miller returned phone messages. Staff in Leverett's office said he was on long-term leave and could not be reached for comment.
     Josef Bodansky, the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terror and Unconventional Warfare, confirmed that Miller had been fired. He said Miller's leaving was very abrupt. He said Abrams had "led Miller to an open window and told him to jump," adding, "that's his (Abram's) management style."
     Bodansky confirmed that Mann and Leverett had also been told to leave.
     He said that Abrams believes "a strong Israel will prove to be the U.S. cornerstone in the Middle East." As a result, Abrams "is not going to yield to those who want to pressure Israel over the Arab-Israeli peace process." Bodansky said Abrams will "impose a policy and administer it very vigorously."
     Yaphe added, "The clean sweep would indicate Abrams is going to bring in his own people."
     Elliot Abrams was appointed Dec. 3, 2002, to be the NSC's senior director for Near East, Southwest Asian and North African affairs with responsibility for Arab-Israeli issues, according to the White House.
     Until his new appointment, Abrams had been the senior director of the NSC's Office of Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations, a post he took up in June 2001, according to the White House.
     In 1991, Abrams was indicted by the Iran-Contra special prosecutor for giving false testimony before Congress in 1987 about his role in illicitly raising money for the Nicaraguan Contras. He pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information to Congress in order to avoid a trial and a possible jail term.
     He was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush along with a number of other Iran-Contra defendants on Christmas night 1992.
     Cannistraro said that the shake-up means Abrams and the White House, "are getting rid of people willing to compromise on the Arab-Israeli dispute." Referring to the 1993 land-for-peace deal between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, he said, "It's pretty well known that Abrams is no friend of the Oslo Accords."
     According to one State Department official, Abrams was critical of then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak for withdrawing from Lebanon and hailed the election of Ariel Sharon as prime minister, being "enamored of Sharon's security through strength line."
     Tony Cordesman, Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was critical of the changes, saying that Miller, Mann and Leverett "were among the saner minds discussing the Arab-Israeli issue."
     Abrams, he said, "is remarkably unqualified for his job."
     In a recent New York Sun article, a commentator on Iraq who follows the Iraqi opposition movement, Laurie Mylroie, called Miller's leaving "very important."
     She added: "You need people there who will carry out the administration's policies. He was reflecting the CIA's position, which is to be hostile to a democratic future for Iraq."
     Mylroie did not respond to repeated requests for comment from UPI. But Yaphe called her assertion "ridiculous."
     "The agency is in no way opposed to a democratic Iraq," she added.
     Incoming officials in Washington often appoint subordinates with whom they see eye-to-eye. There is no information available as to who will replace the three officials.
     

Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (79533)3/4/2003 11:47:54 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
March 5, 2003
Chicken à la Iraq
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

[W] hat you now see unfolding before your eyes is the last few minutes of a game of geopolitical chicken between George Bush and Saddam Hussein. It's called: Whose Coalition Will Break First?

Let's start with Saddam. Surely the funniest line of the week was his spokesman's explanation of why Iraqi TV was not showing Saddam's men destroying his Al Samoud missiles, as the U.N. had demanded. The Iraqi spokesman said it was because if the Iraqi people saw this, they would be so angry at the U.N. there's just no telling what they might do. Right, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bus.

The reason Saddam is not showing this to his people is because it makes him look weak, and his whole regime depends on his maintaining a facade of invincibility. Giving into the demands of the bespectacled Hans Blix is not a healthy thing for Saddam. It's like the Godfather taking up knitting. It evinces weakness, and Saddam rules by fear. The minute he looks less ferocious, he is in danger from those around him. This is not Norway.

What continues to breathe life into Saddam's camp is not the Arab street (which already smells his weakness and mostly wants him gone) but the French street, which is so obsessed with countering U.S. power that it can't acknowledge what is happening right before its eyes: Saddam is finally doing some real disarming, not because the U.N. sent more inspectors to Baghdad, as France demands, but because Mr. Bush sent the 101st Airborne to Kuwait.

But Mr. Bush also has some dangerous blind spots. Every day he asks us to ignore more and more troubling facts, and every day it seems more and more that Mr. Bush has mustered not a coalition of the willing, but rather, as one wag put it, "a coalition of the billing." It is very disturbing that so many of our "allies" have to be bribed or bludgeoned into joining this war.

The Turkish Parliament's vote against allowing U.S. troops to use Turkish bases is stunning when you consider that the Bush team had offered the Turks a dream package ? $6 billion in aid and new weapons, and veto power over the future of Iraq's Kurds. But there is something admirable about the Turkish democracy's refusing to be bribed into a war its people don't want. It would be shameful for us to force the Turks to vote again ? considering that their Parliament gave this war more thought than the U.S. Congress.

Indeed, our own Congress is being asked to suspend belief yet again and accept Mr. Bush's promises that this war, soaring oil prices and a weakening dollar won't bust the budget even more than his tax cuts already have. And when the respected U.S. Army chief of staff wisely cautioned that stabilizing Iraq could require some 200,000 troops, the Bush team told us to ignore him, too. Troubling.

But it's also probably too late. For Mr. Bush and for the U.S., the costs of leaving Saddam in place ? having made Washington blink and abandon its allies in the region ? would be enormous. I suspect that when the small group of war hawks persuaded Mr. Bush to begin a huge troop buildup in the gulf back in July ? without consulting Congress or the country ? they knew that it would create a situation where the U.S. could never back down without huge costs.

This reminds me of the joke about the man who gets lost and asks a cop for directions, and the first thing the cop says is, "Well, you wouldn't start from here." No, I wouldn't have ? but here is where we've been put. So those who argue against the war have to admit that doing nothing now would mean perpetuating Saddam's tyranny and giving succor to all dictators. And those, like myself, who have argued that removing Saddam is the right thing to do have to admit that the risks of doing so are rising so high, and the number of allies we have for the long haul becoming so few, that it may be impossible to do it right.

We could still get lucky and find that Mr. Bush's decision to begin this game of chicken by throwing away his steering wheel leads Saddam to cave or quit. The only other way out is a last attempt to forge a new U.N. resolution that would set specific disarmament targets for Saddam that, if not met by a specific date, would trigger U.N. approval for the use of force. France, Russia and China could say they bought time, and the U.S. could present Saddam with a united front ? which is the only threat that might get him to comply without a war. Otherwise, brace yourself for the crash and hope for the best ? because we're all in the back seat.

nytimes.com