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.

Strategies & Market Trends : World Outlook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (1408)	3/5/2003 9:45:42 AM
From: Les H	Respond to of 48936

War Diary: Wednesday, March 5, 2003 Mar 05, 2003 As the moon starts to emerge and the days to April dwindle, the United States continues to focus on the diplomacy of the situation. To be more precise, in spite of having no clear path to a successful U.N. Security Council vote, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell -- who has been making the rounds of European television -- said that he was optimistic about getting the needed majority. His problem, of course, is that a majority is not what is needed; what are needed are nine votes and no vetoes. It is possible that the United States can get the nine votes, but whether a veto can be avoided is more problematic. Russia's foreign minister indicated on Tuesday that he does not expect to abstain on such an important vote, and that Russia opposes war. That means that Russia will vote no and therefore veto. France has shown no sign of shifting its position, which means a veto there as well. The U.N. continues to appear to be a dead end. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said a "vote is desirable, not necessary." This reaffirms the U.S. position that Resolution 1441 gives the United States the right to go to war without any further U.N. votes. In other words, Washington would still like to get a go-ahead from the U.N., but if it can't it will go to war anyway. We remain where we have been. What has changed is that there has begun to be public speculation from inside the Bush administration about how the United States might manage an entry into war without a U.N. resolution. One proposal is that the United States will issue an ultimatum to Iraq, with a very short timeline, sometime next week. The president will deliver the ultimatum in a speech to the nation, at a press conference or in a cabinet meeting. One of the purposes of this would be to give weapons inspectors, aid workers and journalists enough time to get out of Iraq. The mystery that keeps growing is why the administration would wait another week to give the ultimatum rather than give it right now. One explanation is that the situation in Turkey so surprised Washington that it has been forced to revise its entire strategy. Certainly, the United States announced that it was sending another 60,000 troops to the region -- if not to Turkey, then to Kuwait. The force that is being built up is now moving to the 300,000 mark -- not yet at the Desert Storm level, but closer to that than any of the lighter options that previously were on the table. The massive buildup of forces beyond the expected numbers might be explained by the Turkish about-face, but simply shifting the equivalent force to Kuwait is not entirely explicable that way. Another explanation is that U.S. intelligence has re-evaluated the capabilities of Iraqi forces and that the attack is being delayed so that additional forces might be deployed -- increasing the amount of armor available for the southern front. Yet another explanation for the delay is that the United States is having serious problems with Britain. Prime Minister Tony Blair obviously wants a U.N. vote in order to firm up his domestic political position. Although we have not the slightest evidence for this, Blair might have told Bush that he would not go to war without a U.N. resolution. The United States is desperately trying to get such a resolution but -- knowing that the attempt might fail -- is sending additional forces to replace British forces that might not participate in the war. We are obviously grasping at straws. There is a mystery we have difficulty unraveling: The United States is delaying the war beyond what prudence would dictate. The public reason is that Washington wants to try for a U.N. resolution in spite of the fact that U.S.officials claim it doesn't need one. They appear prepared to wait until April, despite serious issues with weather. At the same time, the Bush administration is rushing additional heavy forces to Kuwait -- forces that might have been needed in Turkey but (a) shouldn't be badly needed in Kuwait and (b) which wouldn't have been available in Turkey by mid-month, even if Parliament had approved the deployment. What Washington is up to has become infinitely more difficult to understand than what is going on in any other capital. If this is a complex deception plan -- designed to convince everyone that Washington is completely confused -- it is working, which would make this a superb time for an unexpected strike. The other explanation is that Washington is as confused as it appears, and this is not a cover for anything beyond ... confusion. Meanwhile on Tuesday, the Pope asked people to fast against the war on Ash Wednesday. Given another two weeks of this, the war might be condemned by the United Jewish Appeal and the Mormon Church as well. And Fleischer made a strange statement on Tuesday: "The president has made clear that ... whether the United Nations votes or does not vote, that we will disarm Saddam Hussein with a coalition of the willing. We are proceeding with all the plans for the vote. Now, if you are asking me if all of a sudden support around the world crumbles and there is absolutely no one for it, I can't predict with metaphysical certitude every eventuality." The Bush administration has already enraged its enemies and baffled its friends. Now its pronouncements have become positively incomprehensible. If confusion is the strategy, it's never been done better.