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.
Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: foundation who wrote (5915)3/7/2003 11:12:18 AM
From: John Hayman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12247
 
I did like this report though. Those French!
John

French Foreign Policy

If you're in a hole, stop digging. Unless, of course, you're France. At this writing, French diplomats continue their work to further isolate Paris from the majority of European capitals who will not be silent in the face of Jacques Chirac's appeasement of Saddam Hussein. Just how big a hole France has dug for itself is cogently explained by noted French philosopher André Glucksmann in "France's Five Cardinal Sins Over Iraq," which appeared in the International Herald Tribune on February 22. Above all, Glucksmann argues that current French policy remains morally bankrupt.

France's Five Cardinal Sins Over Iraq
André Glucksmann
International Herald Tribune
February 22, 2003

PARIS: The usual trans-Atlantic spats are growing into a full-blown divorce. It is time everyone swept off his own doorstep and closely examined his government's responsibilities. In my view, Paris has committed five cardinal sins.

1. Demolition. Responding to the eight-plus-10 European states that have sided with the United States, President Jacques Chirac sealed an "alliance for peace" with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on Feb. 10. In so doing, he revived in Central Europe the harsh memory of three centuries spent in the shadow - or under the heel - of the Russian "big brother."

With the European community divided and NATO splintering, the Franco-German duo calls itself "Europe" and says it speaks for 25 nations, but represents only three (thanks to Belgium). The "old European" couple criticizes American "arrogance" and "unilateralism," compliments that can easily be turned back on them. Is there a more insane way to saw off the branch you're sitting on? Is there a less productive path to European unity?

2. Moral scandal. The French-German-Russian coalition (joined by China and Syria) proclaims itself the "moral" axis, the "peace camp." But this "anti-war party" has its feet firmly planted in war. For those who may have forgotten, think of the Caucasus, where the Russian Army razed Chechnya's capital city, Grozny, and left from 100,000 to 300,000 cadavers in its wake.

No more horrific war is being waged against civilians today. The Holocaust Museum in Washington - which can hardly be suspected of spreading extremist Islamic propaganda - ranks the Chechen conflict No. 1 on its "genocide watch." What are the anti-war activists dreaming of when Chirac promises Putin his support?

In the name of "international law," Paris and Berlin are choosing curious allies. Witness the recent election, thanks to the abstention of the Europeans, of Libya to the chair of the UN Human Rights Commission! Putin, Jiang Zemin of China, Moammar Gadhafi of Libya, Bashar Assad of Syria: why is the "peace camp" attracting butchers?

3. Demagogy over democracy. Eighty percent of Westerners support peace over war. Who wouldn't? Draping themselves in "global opinion" and scoffing at other governments as "vassals" of the war clique, Paris and Berlin are recycling arguments used by the Stalinist "peace movements." The revolutionaries of yesteryear pitted "peoples" against "formal democracy." Do Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany today question the notion that, in a proper democracy, decisions are made not by polling institutes, or at the stock market, or in the streets, but in the voting booth? The elected representatives in London, Prague, Sofia, Madrid, and Warsaw are as legitimate as those in Paris and Berlin.

4. Powerlessness. The same global opinion polls, meanwhile, show that 75 percent of the world views Saddam as a threat to peace. While one actor can indeed trigger a conflict, it takes two to disarm. Yet for the past 12 years Baghdad has done nothing but deceive and delay. A malevolent state can easily camouflage instruments of biological and chemical terror, scientists agree. Dragging out inspections and adding inspectors will only allow the dictator to push the game into overtime forever.

5. Wait and not see. Well-meaning souls whisper, "Certainly the Iraqi tyrant is a villain. He's tortured, killed, gassed. But how many other leaders around the world have blood on their hands? Why pick on Saddam?" Because he is more frightening. Because he is an ever-present powder keg in the heart of a fire zone. Because we must stop him from playing with his apocalyptic matches.

Imagine Kim Jong Il, North Korea's leader, with his arsenal, ruling Iraq, threatening to pulverize not Seoul but Riyadh. The planet would be petrified! The Iraqi problem is not that of a local dictator, but a global peril. However, if you listen to the "peace party," it's always too early - "Iraq has no nuclear weapons; there's no need to intervene" - or too late - "North Korea has nuclear weapons; it's too dangerous to take action."

Paris and Berlin are living on a cloud. That does not mean American strategists are infallible or that we have to hand them a blank check.

The writer is a French philosopher. This comment was translated by Tony Paschall.



To: foundation who wrote (5915)3/7/2003 1:13:27 PM
From: foundation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12247
 
Why Hussein Will Not Give Weapons of Mass Destruction to Al Qaeda

by Gene Healy
March 5, 2003

Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.

Of all the reasons the administration has offered for war with Iraq, keeping chemical and biological weapons out of the hands of Al Qaeda resonates most strongly with the American people. President Bush used that frightening prospect to dramatic effect in his State of the Union speech: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

But the administration's strongest sound-bite on Iraq is also its weakest argument for war. The idea that Saddam Hussein would trust Al Qaeda enough to give Al Qaeda operatives chemical or biological weapons -- and trust them to keep quiet about it -- is simply not plausible.

Bin Laden, who views the rigid Saudi theocracy as insufficiently Islamic, has long considered Saddam Hussein an infidel enemy. Before Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, Bin Laden warned publicly that the Iraqi dictator had designs on conquering Saudi Arabia. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden offered to assemble his mujahedeen to battle Hussein and protect the Arabian peninsula.

Last summer, when CNN acquired a cache of internal Al Qaeda training videotapes, they discovered a Qaeda documentary that was highly critical of Hussein. Peter Bergen, the CNN terrorism expert who interviewed Bin Laden in 1998, noted that Bin Laden indicted Hussein, as "a bad Muslim."

That theme continues in the latest "Bin Laden" audiotape, released to Al Jazeera. In it, Bin Laden (or someone claiming to be him) urges Muslims to fight the American "crusaders" bent on invading Iraq. But even while urging assistance to Hussein's "socialist" regime, "Bin Laden" can't resist condemning that regime: "The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago .... Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden."

Of course, cooperation is possible; sworn enemies often collude when their interests coincide -- most famously in the Nazi-Soviet nonagression pact of 1939. But Hussein, as a student and admirer of Stalin, knows how that turned out -- with the Russian dictator double-crossed and almost destroyed by his Nazi ally.

No doubt Al Qaeda would accept chemical or biological weapons from Hussein. If he handed them over, the theory goes, he might be able to harm the United States without suffering massive retaliation because the strike would come via terrorist intermediaries. But the theory depends entirely on Al Qaeda keeping quiet about how they acquired the weapons. Why would they?

Al Qaeda wants the Hussein regime overthrown. There's also good reason to believe they want to incite a U.S. invasion of Iraq to draw new recruits into the Al Qaeda campaign against a so-called "Crusader"-Israeli alliance aimed at conquering the Middle East. Provoking a crackdown by the enemy has been a key terrorist strategy for as long as there have been terrorists.

Getting Iraqi WMD would allow Al Qaeda to kill two birds with one stone. They'd get to kill more Americans, and then, by revealing that Hussein gave them the weapons (perhaps on a satellite phone they know American intelligence is monitoring) they'd get a war that would finish Saddam's "infidel" regime and bring "the jurisdiction of the socialists" to an end. A war that promises to bring new Jihadis into the fold. And all that would be necessary for Al Qaeda to achieve these goals is to convince the Iraqi dictator to hand over the goods. Ask yourself: Did Saddam Hussein rise to the top of a totalitarian dictatorship by being quite so... trusting?

The idea that Hussein views a WMD strike via terrorist intermediaries as a viable strategy is rank speculation, contradicted by his past behavior. Hussein's hostility toward Israel predates his struggle with the United States. He's had longstanding ties with anti-Israeli terror groups and he's had chemical weapons for over 20 years. Yet there has never been a nerve gas attack in Israel. Why? Because Israel has nuclear weapons and conventional superiority, and Hussein wants to live. If he's ever considered passing off chemical weapons to Palestinian terrorists, he decided that he wouldn't get away with it. He has even less reason to trust Al Qaeda with a potentially regime-ending secret.

Of course, if regime change is coming anyway by force of American arms, Saddam Hussein "probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action." That's what CIA director George Tenet told the House and Senate intelligence committees last October, to the embarrassment of the Bush administration. Is Tenet right? We're about to find out.

cato.org