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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (88960)	4/2/2003 12:01:55 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I hope you heard Elliot Cohen on PBS tonight. There was a real donnybrook about the Pentagon leaks. PBS had dumped two of their retired military "Analysts," kept the retired SF Colonel, and added a retired Marine Colonel who chewed nails. Cohen's attitude was that the behavior of the Pentagon Military in leaking to the press was outrageous and disloyal. Either shut up or resign. I think the Marine was in favor of finding and shooting them. :>) Cohen's argument was a better version of what I have been posting. That there are Army Officers pissed about the cancellation of the Crusader, and the personnel reforms that Rumsfeld is making. These men would not tolerate this kind of disloyal behavior from Captains who worked for them, and they should not engage in it toward Rumsfeld.

To: JohnM who wrote (88960)	4/2/2003 1:59:16 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Wider still and wider American tactics are helping Saddam Leader Wednesday April 2, 2003 The Guardian Threatening the neighbours is hardly the best way to rally Muslim support, or at least to elicit Muslim and Arab understanding, for America's cause in Iraq. But in recent days, senior Bush administration figures have gone out of their way to warn Syria, Iran and others of unspecified unpleasant consequences should they in any way interpose themselves between Washington and its objectives. Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld initiated this ill-considered trend, claiming that Damascus was supplying military technology to the Iraqi army. He offered no public evidence to support his allegation, basing his information on US intelligence - a branch of the federal government whose assessments and predictions are daily shown to be less and less intelligent. Mr Rumsfeld's rumblings were quickly echoed by the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, whose capacity for objective thought appears to diminish steadily the longer she remains in office. Then, more surprisingly perhaps, Colin Powell took up the cry. "We are demanding more responsible behaviour from states that do not follow acceptable patterns of behaviour," Mr Powell said. Singling out President Bashar Assad's government (which is fiercely critical of the US-led invasion), he warned that "Syria bears the responsibility for its choices and for the consequences". Note the imperative use of the verb "demand". This grammatical mood seems suited to Washington's present imperial mindset. Note, too, the phrase "acceptable behaviour". Is it possible that Paul Wolfowitz's dream has come true and the US already believes it is the Middle East's arbiter and overlord? And if Iran and Syria and others refuse to bow the knee, will they be invaded, too, with Britain loyally tagging along? These American delusions are dangerous. Widening regional destabilisation was one of the reasons why so many people and nations opposed this foolish war. By issuing such provocative threats, even if they are essentially pre-emptive, the US behaves recklessly. The Iraqi regime must be delighted. It is already doing its level best to portray the conflict as one between the entire Arab "nation" and the US, between Islam and the west, between the righteous and the "Zionists". Its call for Arab volunteers appears to be having some success. Its resort to suicide bombings, or "martyrdom operations", creates an entirely deliberate, emotive association with the Palestinian intifada. Iraq's guerrilla tactics, increasingly indistinguishable in the American military mind from terrorism, are leading to ever more frequent, unacceptable civilian deaths at the hands of US soldiers unaccustomed and untrained for unconventional warfare. This in turn is intensifying the broad sense of outrage across the Arab and Muslim world and with it, a regrettable sense of solidarity. As the west's forces lay sacrilegious siege to the holy city of Najaf, as Shia clerics issue fatwas enjoining the faithful everywhere to rise up and repulse the "infidels", as Islamic Jihad sees an opportunity to spread its twisted creed of horror and rejection, as Israel's defence force gives handy tips to American commanders about how to attack and occupy Arab communities, and as George Bush stands up in Philadelphia and mouths crass platitudes about liberating Iraq even as his bombs rain down, little wonder that the Arab street cries out for vengeance. A wonder, in this context, that retaliatory terrorist attacks on western civilian targets have not yet begun. This steady radicalisation of Muslim opinion, this broadening polarisation and alienation of the Arab and western spheres is exactly what Tony Blair and others in Europe strove to prevent when the US "war on terror" was launched after September 11. Pro-western, so-called moderate Arab regimes also greatly fear what may yet ensue, not least Saudi Arabia. Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, glumly predicts the war will produce "100 Bin Ladens". He may well be right. The US could not find a clear link between Iraq and al-Qaida. Now by its own woeful blunderings, it is creating one.