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


To: Mannie who wrote (15049)3/19/2003 9:27:34 PM
From: abuelita  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
The war may be the most controllable situation we see. Who knows what will follow.

....chaos, i fear.



To: Mannie who wrote (15049)3/20/2003 1:03:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
<<...I can't say that I really know any Gulf War vets well enough to know their opinions, but in just listening to people as I run around the city, I hear very few that are happy with the way our President handled the situation. Many feel that Saddam needed to go, but W seemed focused on war.....any attempt at diplomacy was just hoop jumping. Many people feel that we exhibited poor judgement and damaged or inflamed international relationship needlessly.

My Dad is a vet and quite conservative, he is very unhappy...>>

Scott: Thnx for sharing...I have heard similar concerns from friends and from relatives around the country -- even from my uncle who used to be very conservative (he was a VietNam war hero and is a retired opthamologist who now volunteers on medical missions to help eradicate polio in countries like Pakistan and Sudan...In the last two years he has become increasingly cynical about the management of our Foreign Affairs and he has great concerns about sending our troops into Iraq when other options may not have been exhausted...He agrees with many of the 'Veterans For Common Sense' folks and knows some of them).

I support our troops 100% and I know they will follow through on their mission to the best of their ability.

Yet, I feel 'the Nation Building' effort in Iraq once we control the country will be much more complex than many Administration officials could ever imagine...There has never been a democracy in that country over the last 3000 years...We can assist the innocent Iraqi citizens in some rebuilding efforts BUT if he become viewed as a colonialist or an occupying power in an Arab country The United States will dramatically increase the risk of stimulating more terrorism on our shores....JMHO.

regards,

-s2@letrememberourtroopstonight.com



To: Mannie who wrote (15049)3/20/2003 1:24:40 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Ready for the Peace?

By BOB HERBERT
Columnist
The New York Times
March 20, 2003


Now that U.S. strikes against Iraq have begun, we should get rid of one canard immediately, and that's the notion that criticism of the Bush administration and opposition to this invasion imply in some sense a lack of support or concern for the men and women who are under arms.

The names of too many of my friends are recorded on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial for me to tolerate that kind of nonsense. I hope that the war goes well, that our troops prevail quickly and that casualties everywhere are kept to a minimum.

But the fact that a war may be quick does not mean that it is wise. Against the wishes of most of the world, we have plunged not just into war, but toward a peace that is potentially more problematic than the war itself.

Are Americans ready to pay the cost in lives and dollars of a long-term military occupation of Iraq? To what end?

Will an occupation of Iraq increase or decrease our security here at home?

Do most Americans understand that even as we are launching one of the most devastating air assaults in the history of warfare, private companies are lining up to reap the riches of rebuilding the very structures we're in the process of destroying?

Companies like Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Bechtel Group understand this conflict a heck of a lot better than most of the men and women who will fight and die in it, or the armchair patriots who'll be watching on CNN and cheering them on.

It's not unpatriotic to say that there are billions of dollars to be made in Iraq and that the gold rush is already under way. It's simply a matter of fact.

Back in January, an article in The Wall Street Journal noted: "With oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia's, Iraq would offer the oil industry enormous opportunity should a war topple Saddam Hussein. But the early spoils would probably go to companies needed to keep Iraq's already rundown oil operations running, especially if facilities were further damaged in a war. Oil-services firms such as Halliburton Co., where Vice President Dick Cheney formerly served as chief executive, and Schlumberger Ltd. are seen as favorites for what could be as much as $1.5 billion in contracts."

There is tremendous unease at the highest levels of the Pentagon about this war and its aftermath. The president and his civilian advisers are making a big deal about the anticipated rejoicing of the liberated populace once the war is over. But Iraq is an inherently unstable place, and while the forces assembled to chase Saddam from power are superbly trained for combat, the military is not well prepared for a long-term occupation in the most volatile region in the world.

What's driving this war is President Bush's Manichaean view of the world and messianic vision of himself, the dangerously grandiose perception of American power held by his saber-rattling advisers, and the irresistible lure of Iraq's enormous oil reserves.

Polls show that the public is terribly confused about what's going on, so much so that some 40 percent believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. That's really scary. Rather than correct this misconception, the administration has gone out of its way to reinforce it.

I think the men and women moving militarily against Saddam are among the few truly brave and even noble individuals left in our society. They have volunteered for the dangerous duty of defending the rest of us. But I also believe they are being put unnecessarily in harm's way.

As a result of the military buildup, there is hardly a more hobbled leader on earth at the moment than Saddam Hussein. A skillful marshaling of international pressure could have forced him from power. But then the Bush administration would not have had its war and its occupation. It would not have been able to turn Iraq into an American protectorate, which is as good a term as any for a colony.

Is it a good idea to liberate the people of Iraq from the clutches of a degenerate like Saddam Hussein? Sure. But there were better, less dangerous, ways to go about it.

In the epigraph to his memoir, "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson quoted a 13th-century king of Spain, Alphonso X, the Learned:

"Had I been present at the creation I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe."

nytimes.com



To: Mannie who wrote (15049)3/20/2003 4:23:10 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Scott: This Minister From Seattle Captures The Way I Feel Right Now...

Alternative is partnering with others
By ANTHONY B. ROBINSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
Thursday, March 20, 2003

seattlepi.nwsource.com

In the church we are midway through the season of Lent, the 40-day period of preparation for Easter. Lent begins, every year, with the account of the 40-day temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. This temptation does not, however, consist in the debauchery often associated with temptation. It consists not in appeals to be less than human but to be more, to be as God, and to reach for powers not rightfully our own.

As the United States wages war against Iraq, without the support of the United Nations, or of most of our allies, or of world opinion, my apprehension is that we have succumbed to the temptation to reach for and exercise a power that is not rightfully ours. Not content to be one among the nations of the world or to live within limits, we seem intent on playing God.

I may, of course, be wrong. Perhaps we alone, along with Britain, have the courage to resist evil. Such is the president's argument. There are reasonable people who share his views, who believe we ought to have moved against Saddam Hussein long ago, and that the responsibility for this war is his, not ours. They may be right. But I am not persuaded.

Not only am I not persuaded about the war itself, I fear the path and role the United States is taking in the world. The war itself will probably be relatively brief and successful, in military terms. Certainly we must hope so, both for Americans serving in the military, and also for the people of Iraq. Iraq today is a country where the majority of the population is under age 15, or as a friend put it, "Iraq is a middle school with a standing army and a dictator."

While I grieve the immediate horrors of war, I worry even more about the path we are on as a nation, and about the war's aftermath. The president and key administration players have a grand vision for redrawing the map of the Middle East. First, democracy in Iraq, then the two-state solution in Israel, which will prompt democratic insurgencies in Iran and Syria. It is a grand vision, one New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman called "breath-taking." It is not only that, it is playing God.

By now, the major events and themes of 2002 have faded from memory and public view. But they offered instructive warnings. The big events of last year were the business scandals, for which Enron became shorthand, and the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church. Both are stories about power, power unchecked and without limits. The lesson of 2002 was Lord Acton's, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." But the lesson of 2002 has been lost on the present administration and president.

The end of the Cold War has meant that American power is unopposed and unchecked. There is no more Soviet Union over against us. It is a uni-polar world, a development that has been hailed as a victory. But every victory holds hidden within it the seeds of defeat. Within the success of the Cold War's end, lies the temptation to brook no limits on American power, and to pursue our perceived national interest unchecked. I doubt that the present administration would have come into office with such a cavalier attitude about international treaties, or the need for multilateral action were it not for our present pre-eminent and unchecked power.

The French and Germans have been trying to tell us, along with much of the rest of the world, that it is in our own self-interest, not to mention the world's, to accept limits on our power and not overstep our bounds. The president has taken the opposite path, threatening from the beginning to go it alone.

Now the die has been cast. We have begun a war that may be over, in one sense, in a matter of weeks. But since the president has pledged to bring stability, freedom and even democracy to Iraq, and hopes to reconfigure the region, it will not be over for a long time. We have been seduced by our own success, beguiled by the notion that we can re-arrange the world by force of arms. The alternative is not indifference to the world or isolation. It is working in partnership with others, acknowledging their interests and needs, and thus accepting limits on our powers.

Wendell Berry wisely observed, "We can make ourselves whole only by accepting our partiality, by living within our limits, by being human-not by trying to be gods." I may be wrong. I hope that I am. But I fear we have fallen prey to temptation, the temptation to play God.
__________________________________________

Anthony B. Robinson is senior minister at Plymouth Congregational Church: United Church of Christ in Seattle. E-mail: trobinson@plymouthchurch seattle.org



To: Mannie who wrote (15049)3/21/2003 9:01:52 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Little-known pilot shaped U.S. strategy in Iraq

By Jack Kelly
Post-Gazette National Security Writer
Friday, March 21, 2003

The man who is perhaps most responsible for the U.S. military strategy in Iraq never wore a general's stars, and, during his lifetime, was despised by most who did.

Accolades from the brass, like medals awarded fallen soldiers, have arrived posthumously for John Boyd.

"John Boyd is one of the principal military geniuses of the 20th century, and hardly anyone knows his name," said John Thompson, a former Canadian army officer who is managing director of the MacKenzie Institute, a Toronto-based think tank which studies global conflict.

The ruse the United States pulled in launching the war against Iraq with a cruise missile attack on Saddam Hussein and his high command could have come straight from Boyd's playbook, said retired Gen. Michael Dugan, who was chief of staff of the Air Force during the buildup to the first Persian Gulf war.

The CIA planted a false rumor with a British television network that Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz had defected, hoping Aziz would go on Iraqi television to deny it. He did. The CIA tracked him back to a bunker, and the Navy and the Air Force destroyed it with cruise missiles and bombs.

"The ability to find out where this bunker was and the ability to react in minutes certainly was consistent with John Boyd's thinking," Dugan said.

"John Boyd was a thinker ahead of his time. Without giving him a lot of credit, the U.S. military is following his ideas."

Lt. Col. Rich Liebert, who teaches tactics at the Army Command and Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., agreed.

"The constant references to, and the delay of the 'shock and awe' bombing campaign, is the kind of psychological warfare that Boyd recommended to paralyze the enemy," as well, he said.

Nevertheless, a serving Army officer, a military reformer who admires Boyd, thinks that while many generals and admirals now pay lip service to Boyd's ideas, most still do not put them into practice.

"Most of the generals want to inflict shock and awe on an enemy that is already shocked and awed," said the officer. "The Philadelphia police department under Frank Rizzo could have taken Baghdad by now."

Never lost a dogfight

John Boyd grew up in Erie and joined the Air Force in 1951. He served in Korea, but his reputation as one of the greatest fighter pilots in history was earned at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, where he taught air-to-air combat at the Fighter Weapons School.

Nicknamed "40 Second Boyd" because he could always maneuver his plane onto the tail of "enemy" pilots within 40 seconds, he never lost a mock dogfight.

Boyd attributed his success to thinking faster than his opponents did. Before anybody can do anything, he has to see what's going on, figure out what it means, decide what to do about it, and then do what he decided to do, Boyd noted. He coined the acronym "OODA loop" to describe the process. It stands for: Observation. Orientation. Decision. Action. If you can go through the OODA loop faster than your enemy, you'll live and he'll die.

From the Civil War through Vietnam, U.S. military strategy has been based on what strategists call the "firepower-attrition" model. Basically, you get more and bigger guns than your enemy, then blast away until you win. It works if you can get more and bigger guns, but the results are usually bloody.

Boyd didn't discount firepower. But he said deception and speed were more important. Confuse your enemy about your intentions, and then press him so hard that he doesn't have time to think. If you get far enough inside your enemy's OODA loop, he'll get confused and demoralized. And if he gets demoralized enough, he may surrender without fighting.

As brilliant an engineer as he was skilled as a pilot, Boyd played a major role in the design of the F-15 and the F-16, mainstays of the Air Force fighter fleet. His genius won him powerful friends. But his abrasive manner won him more enemies. He was passed over for promotion to general and retired from the Air Force in 1975.
After Boyd left active duty, he developed what came to be famously known within military circles as "The Brief," a six-hour slide show of his ideas. Few of the ideas were truly original.

His concept that the primary target should be the enemy's mind he borrowed from Sun Tzu, a Chinese sage who lived about 2,500 years ago.

His notion that initiative in combat should flow from the bottom up he took from German army experiments in World War I.

His insistence on close pursuit of the enemy to keep him off balance he took from Soviet military doctrine circa 1930.

But Boyd was a great simplifier and synthesizer.

Gaining converts
Most generals and admirals considered Boyd and the handful of acolytes he attracted in the Pentagon's civilian bureaucracy as pains in the rear. But two who were impressed by his theories were Vice President Dick Cheney, then a congressman from Wyoming, and Gen. Alfred Gray, commandant of the Marine Corps from 1987 to 1991.

Cheney was secretary of defense during the first Gulf war, and he has credited Boyd's influence as a major reason he changed the battle plan for the liberation of Kuwait from a frontal assault, which could have led to many American casualties, to the "left hook" that proved so successful.

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf had presented Cheney with a plan for a head-on offensive. "Not only did Cheney reject it, he used Boyd's colorful language to do so," wrote Boyd's biographer, Robert Coram.

As vice president, Cheney exerts considerable influence on strategy in Iraq as one of President Bush's inner circle of war advisers. But the most significant convert may have been Gray, who first heard Boyd's briefings as a colonel. Later, as commander of the Second Marine Division, and later still as commandant of the Marine Corps, Gray was in a position to implement Boyd's ideas about "maneuver warfare."

Their first combat test came in Grenada in 1983. They passed.

"We've got two companies of Marines running all over the island, and thousands of Army troops doing nothing," an Army general was quoted as saying at the time. "What the hell is going on?"

Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney, Boyd's closest associate for many years, said, "The Marines [later] used Boyd's tactics in the first Gulf war, and they worked like gangbusters."

As the Marines showed success after success with their maneuver-warfare doctrine, elements of Boyd's thinking began percolating into the Army.

"If the Marine Corps picks it up, the Army's first reaction is to try to discredit it," said retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a leading military strategist. "If it proves to work, they'll copy it and claim it was their idea all along."

The service that has been most resistant to Boyd's ideas, ironically, is the Air Force. When Boyd died in 1997, only two Air Force officers attended his funeral. Dozens of Marines showed up.

post-gazette.com