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.

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

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15661)	3/27/2003 4:35:24 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

A fair analysis of how we got here, from there, where there is 11 Sep: spiked-online.com When it comes to the current US/UK war against Iraq, the daily bombardment of news and analysis leaves us none the wiser about what is going on now, why it is happening, and what the outcome might be. As the world watches, uncertain and perplexed, as events unfold, one key question is not being asked. How did we get from 11 September to here? How did we get from a major terrorist attack on New York and Washington to a war against Iraq? How did we get from a reactive 'war on terror' against the shady, stateless forces of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network to a proactive military campaign against the Iraqi nation state? How did we go from a world ordered around the multilateral institutions of NATO, the European Union and the United Nations to one where the USA and Britain end up going it alone? One favourite theory doing the rounds is that of the 'hawks conspiracy'. Ever since 11 September, the theory goes, certain members of the Bush administration have had their sights trained on Iraq, just waiting for the chance to push the button. But what we are witnessing now is anything but a concerted, conscious strategy by America to control the world. On the contrary: as each event has unfolded, things have spun further out of everybody's control. ... The political reaction to 9/11 was an attempt to cohere both the citizens of America, and the Western world, around an appropriate response to the terrorist attacks. Bereft of any positive sentiment to appeal to, the US and other Western elites latched on to society's receptiveness to fear. From new security measures to official advice about dealing with terrorist attacks, from anti-terrorism legislation to grand statements about protecting the Western world from an ever-expanding 'axis of evil' abroad, there was a concerted attempt to use 9/11 to bring people together, and to use the need for protection as a way of boosting the legitimacy of their leaders It didn't work. Far from bringing people together, the emphasis on terror post-9/11 fuelled suspicion of others, and pulled people further apart. And far from providing Western leaders with a new role as protector in a risk-averse world, the strategy encouraged pre-existing cynicism and deepened doubts about the legitimacy of the elite. ... Fear does not make political leaders legitimate - it only makes the public more suspicious and scared. In this context, it is little wonder that US and European politicians, in reacting to 11 September, soon set their sights on Abroad. ... But the Afghan campaign was a mess. What started as a war for bin Laden's head foundered when bin Laden was nowhere to be seen; what started as a war against stateless terrorists foundered when Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regime refused to accept the war. So it became a war against the Taliban, more like the West-against-a-third-world-state conflicts of the past; and then it became a war of humanitarian liberation by default, in a way that made the humanitarian claims look like a PR add-on. Ranged against a pitiful enemy of peasants in rags, the military still managed to get bogged down and commit unfortunate errors, like bombing Afghan wedding parties. Eighteen months on, and there is still no sign of bin Laden, no end to the fighting, and the original war aims have been revised so many times that they have been forgotten. Both in symbolic and practical terms, the Afghan campaign became a problem. Which might possibly have been manageable - if it weren't for Iraq. ... Now the West's most unpopular war has started, many are fond of arguing that the USA always had its sights on war with Iraq, whatever the UN inspectors managed to achieve. Clearly there are a few hawks in the Bush administration suffering from a case of Hussein-on-the-brain, and comments like Bush's 'we're talking about the guy who tried to kill my dad' do not help much. But let's be clear about one thing. Whatever the USA's plans in relation to Iraq, the US administration never intended to embroil itself in a war that would split the UN Security Council, give the green light to third world countries to raise two fingers in opposition, estrange the voting public from the political elite, and lose the lives of US soldiers. I don't entirely agree, since I do think some leading BUsh cabinet members have been pushing this since day 0, but interesting... If Iraq is the answer, what's the question? <g>

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15661)	3/27/2003 10:56:25 AM
From: Clappy	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 89467

U.S. planning more invasions, McGovern says jsonline.com By BRUCE MURPHY bmurphy@journalsentinel.com Last Updated: March 26, 2003 Former U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern charged Wednesday that President Bush intends to invade North Korea and Iran after finishing with Iraq. Reports from Journal Sentinel Middle East correspondents: KATHERINE M. SKIBA: Embedded with 101st Airborne Division based in Fort Campbell, Ky. Attached to the 159th Aviation Brigade, which conducts air assault missions from helicopters. "Even now, these wars are being planned by the current administration," McGovern said. "I'm positive, based on conversations with people close to the White House, that plans are in place for the next invasions." McGovern did not disclose who his sources were, and attempts to get a response were not successful before deadline. McGovern was in Milwaukee to speak at the Great Decisions conference Tuesday night, and at the First Unitarian church Wednesday. He noted that American soldiers still patrol Korea, more than 50 years after the war there, and predicted the Bush agenda could involve American soldiers overseas for decades. McGovern, a decorated World War II veteran who ran unsuccessfully for president in 1972 as an opponent of the Vietnam War, said he supported the Gulf War but opposed the current action. "This is clearly an American invasion. The chance of Iraq attacking the U.S. is about the same as attack from Mars," McGovern said. "Everybody knows Osama bin Laden was the man who conceived the 9-11 attack, but by harping on this, (the Bush administration) has gradually convinced 51 percent of the American people that Saddam was behind it." McGovern said the Sept. 11, 2001, attack was done by religious extremists, whereas Hussein is "a hard-bitten atheist. I don't think he'd give Osama the time of day." McGovern compared the action in Iraq to Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. "The Japanese tried to put out that line, that they thought America was going to attack them, and this was a pre-emptive strike. That didn't sell at the war crimes trial (after World War II)." Noting that Japan's plotters were found to be war criminals, McGovern said, "it's quite possible an action of that kind (by the World Court) would be brought against Bush if there are a lot of people killed in a country we've invaded." McGovern, who was a history professor before going into politics, predicted the doctrine of pre-emption could tie the hands of future presidents. "If we were to protest a pre-emptive attack by Pakistan on India with nuclear weapons, we'd have no influence at all if we ourselves had used that doctrine in Iraq and probably in places to come. We'd have no moral or political foundation to stand on," he said. McGovern, who is 80, was president of the Middle East Policy Council from 1991 to 1998 and currently serves as the United Nation's global ambassador on hunger. He said America's international standing has declined markedly because of the Iraq war. A version of this story appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on March 27, 2003.