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 : News Links and Chart Links -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (6437)	3/10/2003 9:19:22 AM
From: Les H	Respond to of 29597

Signs expected to hint war is near usatoday.com

To: Les H who wrote (6437)	3/12/2003 9:00:55 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29597

War Diary: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 Mar 12, 2003 The U.S.-British proposal appears to be dead in the United Nations Security Council. A Canadian proposal to extend the deadline an additional month was shot down by the United States. French officials said they were locked into their position. Some rumors in Paris were that if weapons of mass destructin were found in the next 24 hours there could be a shift, but it was difficult to tell if this was preparation for a shift in position or French irony. We suspect the latter. In a stunning statement, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the United States would be prepared to go to war even if Britain could not. When asked whether the United States would go to war without Britain given pressure on Prime Minister Tony Blair, Rumsfeld answered, "I think until we know what the resolution is, we won't know the answer as to what their role will be. And to the extent they are able to participate -- in the event that the president decides to use force -- that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they're not, there are work-arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase..." This caused a raging firestorm in London, where the government did not need this statement by Rumsfeld, since Blair was trying to contain his opposition. A few hours later, Rumsfeld reappeared and said, "I have no doubt of the full support of the United Kingdom for the international community's efforts to disarm Iraq. In my press briefing today, I was simply pointing out that obtaining a second (U.N.) Security Council resolution is important to the United Kingdom and that we are working to achieve it." Well, not quite. This is one of those interesting moments where the explanation for the statement really matters. There are three possible explanations. 1. Rumsfeld slipped, expressing publicly what had been discussed secretly within the Bush administration. 2. The British were asking for a time extension beyond what the Defense Department could accept -- and by making the statement, Rumsfeld was trying to lock the British into position, since the last thing that Blair can afford to be now is weak and indecisive. 3. There were those in the Bush administration arguing that there couldn't be a war without Britain, and that therefore the British request for an extension should be honored. Rumsfeld tried to flank them by publicly stating that British participation was not essential for the operation to go forward, trying to block those who saw a dependency on Britain. Either of the three explanations point to one salient fact -- British participation, while still likely, is no longer seen as assured. Reports that British units were not yet combat-ready, which surfaced in the British press on Tuesday, might have represented Blair's attempt to find a path for graceful retreat: The war would proceed, but the British, alas, could not participate because they weren't ready. The DoD position was given by Rumsfeld: The United States doesn't need Britain. This would explain the somewhat surprising delay in the war and the fact that U.S. forces have been building up to a somewhat higher number than was initially anticipated. U.S officials clearly have been thinking, over the last couple of weeks, of what a war without British participation would look like. We suspect that, for reasons not unlike those facing Bush, Blair does not have the option to retreat at this point. Abandoning war would destroy his political career as effectively as going to war. Indeed, his best solution might be to go to war and hope that success breeds forgiveness. But in any case, Rumsfeld's accidental or planned indiscretion revealed a critical fault line in the coalition. President George W. Bush's political position improved on Tuesday with the release of a poll that showed that public hostility toward the United Nations is growing and that most Americans no longer regard a U.N. resolution as a precondition for war. That is very good news for Bush, whose political position has been steadily deteriorating. It also indicates that the process of rallying to the president in time of international crisis is under way. Anti-French sentiment in the United States is now at unprecedented levels, and the spectacle of the French fighting with the United States over the votes of countries like Guinea and Angola has both undermined the public's perception of the process and created hostility toward France. At this point, a French veto would likely validate the war in the mind of a majority of the public. So Bush seems to have reversed his slide domestically, but his coalition cracked a bit wider on Tuesday. The war is on, but we would dearly love to know whether Rumsfeld planned that particular indiscretion or not. Also: Plan 7-day war in Iraq nydailynews.com Stepped-up air campaign marks beginning of war in Iraq globalsecurity.org