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


To: JohnM who wrote (93313)4/13/2003 10:28:48 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Chugging along in the Atkinson right now.


You may remember that the "Brotherhood of War" series opens with a tank action at Kasserine Pass. I hear Atkinson gives a lot of inside info on the American Commanders, which interests me.

Safire has been thinking about the same things I have.

April 14, 2003
The Best Defense
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

[W] ASHINGTON

"The best defense is a good offense." That favorite saying of heavyweight champion Jack Dempsey gets a half-million hits on Google, including George Washington in 1799: "Offensive operations, often times, is the surest, if not the only means of defence."

That's the essence of our new policy of pre-emption as a last resort. If threatened by a regime harboring terrorists or likely to provide them with mass-murder weaponry, the U.S. will not wait to gain world sympathy as the victim, but will defend itself by striking first.

That power to protect ourselves ? and our will to use that power ? was established in Afghanistan and driven home in Iraq. Dangerous dictators elsewhere as well as fair-weather friends no longer doubt America's seriousness of purpose.

First dividend of our new credibility can be seen in a sudden shift in attitude in and around North Korea. For six months we resisted paying another round of blackmail to Pyongyang for more of its nuclear duplicity. Instead, we called on its neighbors ? Russia, China and South Korea ? to join us in multilateral pressure to stop the North's nuclear buildup. They pretended it was solely America's problem, not their own.

While defeating Saddam, we let it be known that the U.S. was prepared to pull our 37,000 tripwire troops out of harm's way along the demilitarized zone, opening the possibility of an air assault on plutonium production. In addition, we hinted we would help Japan and Taiwan build their own missile shields, thereby diminishing the strategic power of China and Russia.

Lo! Reminded by Under Secretary of State John Bolton that rogue states like North Korea should take Saddam's lesson to heart, our sunshine allies suddenly decided the U.S. meant business.

In return for our not pressing the feckless U.N. Security Council to condemn the North for tearing up its nonproliferation treaty (toothless U.N. resolutions have become mere publicity stunts), the Chinese finally agreed to put diplomatic and economic heat on their reckless neighbor across the Yalu River.

Then Vladimir Putin, rattled by Paul Wolfowitz's mild suggestion that Russia forgive the $8 billion arms bill run up by Saddam's Iraq, ordered his foreign ministry to state ominously that Pyongyang's nuclear threat "goes categorically against Russia's national interests."

Kim Il Sung may be crazy but he's not stupid. With one end of the axis down, his many heroic statues look a little shaky. His South Korean counterpart, Roh Moo Hyun, whose own attitude toward the U.S. has undergone an after-Saddam epiphany, says that Kim was "petrified" by the speedy U.S. victory.

Yesterday, a Washington Post headline read "North Korea Drops Its Demand for One-on-One Talks With U.S." Although derided as bellicose by Democrats, President Bush's insistence on Kim's dealing with a coalition of those concerned may be working out peacefully. Different strokes for different dictators.

Thus may the credible threat of pre-emptive war obviate its carrying-out. Bush officials say we have good reason to suspect that Syria has been warehousing Iraqi weapons and ? in what Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called "a hostile act" ? was the conduit for the illegal shipment of Russian arms. Plain logic suggests Syria is probably now hosting Iraq's most wanted killer-scientists.

Do we threaten to invade Syria? No. Do we put the economic squeeze on the stumbling young Assad, now that he is no longer propped up by a lucrative smuggling trade with his fellow dictator in Baghdad? Yes. And after coughing up Saddam's mafia, Syria ? in the aftermath of Saddam's downfall ? might also be persuaded to end its occupation of Lebanon and support of Hezbollah terror.

If we steadily introduce free enterprise and the rule of law into a loose confederation; if we expect little gratitude from Iraqis exercising the freedom to complain loudly and a lot of carping from "the little three" in Paris, Berlin and Moscow ? then Americans could possibly achieve what seems as far-fetched as defeating fascism in the 40's and Communism in the 90's.

We could give liberty a chance to take root in the land of Job. Then our children may be able to lay down the burden of a great offense because there will be less need for a best defense.
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (93313)4/14/2003 8:29:36 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Boy, is Hanson "On the Money" today! I compared the attitude here to the Roman Senate, he compares it to the Greek Assembly. History never changes, I guess.

April 14, 2003 7:15 a.m.
Our Western Mob
From the graveyard of Kabul to the quagmire of Iraq to the looting of Baghdad.

The jubilation of liberating millions from fascism and removing the world's most odious dictator apparently lasted about 12 hours. I was listening to a frustrated Mr. Rumsfeld last Friday in a news briefing as he tried to deal with a host of furious and crazy questions, a journalistic circus that was nevertheless predictable even before the war started.

I thought immediately of the macabre aftermath to the battle of Arginusae in 406 B.C. After destroying a great part of the Peloponnesian fleet in the most dramatic Athenian naval victory of the war, the popular assembly abruptly voted to execute six of their eight successful generals (the other two wisely never came back to Athens) on charges that they had failed to rescue seamen who were clinging to the wreckage.

The historian Xenophon records the feeding frenzy and shouting of the assembled throng. Forget that Sparta felt beaten and was ready for peace after such a catastrophic defeat; forget the brilliant seamanship and command of the Athenian triremes; forget that a ferocious storm had made retrieval of the dead and rescue of the missing sailors almost impossible; forget even that to try the generals collectively was contrary to Athenian law. Instead the people demanded perfection in addition to mere overwhelming success ? and so in frustration devoured their own elected officials. The macabre incident was infamous in Greek history (the philosopher Socrates almost alone resisted the mob?s rule), a reminder how a society can go mad, turn on its benefactors, throw away a victory ? and go on to lose the entire war.

Something like that craziness often takes hold of our own elites and media in the midst of perhaps the most brilliantly executed plan in modern American military history. Rather than inquiring how an entire country was overrun in a little over three weeks at a cost of not more than a few hundred casualties, reporters instead wail at the televised scenes of a day of looting and lawlessness.

Instead I had been expecting at least some interviews about bridges not blown due to the rapidity of the advance. Could someone tell us how special forces saved the oil fields? How Seals prevented the dreaded oil slicks? Whose courage and sacrifice saved the dams? And how so few missiles were launched? Exactly why and how did the Republican Guard cave?

In short, would any reporter demonstrate a smidgeon of curiosity ? other than condemning a plan they scarcely understood ? about the mechanics of the furious battle for Iraq? It would be as if America forgot about Patton?s race to the German border, and instead focused only on Frenchmen shaving the heads of Vichy collaborators, or decided that it had not been worth freeing the Italian peninsula because a mob had mutilated and hung Mussolini from his heels. Did any remember what had happened to a Russian armored column that tried to enter Grozny to control that city? Did any have a clue what Germany or Italy was like in June 1945?

What was striking about the Iraqi capitulations was the absence of general looting on the part of the victorious army. From the fall of Constantinople to the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait City, winners usually plunder and pillage. American and British soldiers instead did the opposite, trying to protect others? property as they turned on water and power. That much of the looting was no more indiscriminate than what we saw in Los Angeles after the Rodney King Verdict, in the New York during blackouts, or in some major cities after Super Bowl victories, made no impression on the reporting. Remember this was a long-suffering impoverished people lashing out at Baathists ? not affluent, smug American kids looting and breaking windows at the World Trade Organization in Seattle.

A terrorized people, itself looted and brutalized by fascists for three decades, understandably upon news of liberation feels the need to steal back from Baathist elites and government ministries what had been taken from them. This is not an excuse for general lawlessness, but rather a reminder that freedom for the oppressed sometimes goes though periods of volatility and messiness.

All this was lost on our journalistic elite, who like Athenians of old wished to find scapegoats in the midst of undreamed good news. Dan Rather, for example, finished one of his broadcasts from liberated Baghdad with an incredible ?before? and ?after? footage of his entry that should rank as one of the most absurd pieces of the entire war coverage. Tape rolled of his initial drive a few weeks ago to Saddam?s HQ, when the roads were once safe from banditry and free of destruction. Then in glum tones he chronicled his harrowing current arrival into Baghdad amid craters and gunfire.

Mr. Rather ? so unlike a Michael Kelly or David Bloom ? forgot that he was now motoring right smack into a war zone. And he seemed oblivious that just a few weeks ago he had just conducted a scripted and choreographed interview with a mass murderer. Consider the sheer historical ignorance of it all: Was Berlin a nicer place in 1939 or 1946? And why and for whom?

The machinery of a totalitarian society, of course, can present a certain staged decorum for guests who are brought in to be manipulated by dictators. How many were shot in dungeons during his visit, he never speculated. In contrast the first 48 hours of liberation are scary ? who after all could now put Mr. Rather up at a plush state-run hotel and shepherd him in to the posh digs of Saddam Hussein with the security of an armed Gestapo? That the chaos Mr. Rather witnessed was the aftermath of a 30-year tyranny under which one million innocents have been slaughtered made no discernable impression on him ? nor did the bombshell story how the Western media has for years collaborated with a horrific regime to send out its censored propaganda.

Next I turned on NPR. No surprise. Its coverage was also fixated on the looting, and aired several stories about the general shortcomings of the American efforts. Again forget that a war was waging in the north, that Baghdad was still not entirely pacified, and that there was the example of a normalizing postbellum Basra. No, instead there must be furor that the United States had not in a matter of hours turned its military into an instantaneous police, fire, water, medical, and power corps.

Personally, I was more intrigued that in passing the same reporter at last fessed up that during all of her previous gloomy reports from the Palestine Hotel of American progress, she and others had been shaken down daily for bribe money, censored, and led around as near hostages. It is impossible to calibrate how such Iraqi manipulation of American news accounts affected domestic morale, if not providing comfort for those Baathists who wished to discourage popular uprisings of long-suffering Iraqis.

There is something profoundly amoral about this. A newsman who interviewed a state killer at his convenience later revisits a now liberated city and complains of the disorder there. A journalist who paid bribe money to fascists and whose dispatches aired from Baghdad in wartime only because the Baathist party felt that they served their own terrorist purposes is disturbed about the chaos of liberation. Now is the time for CNN, NPR, and other news organizations to state publicly what their relationships were in ensuring their reporters? presence in wartime Iraq ? and to explain their policies about bribing state officials, allowing censorship of their news releases, and keeping quiet about atrocities to ensure access.

In general, the media has now gone from the hysteria of the Armageddon of Afghanistan to the quagmire of Iraq to the looting in Baghdad ? the only constant is slanted coverage, mistaken analysis, and the absence of any contriteness about being in error and in error in such a manner that reflected so poorly upon themselves and damaged the country at large at a time of war. It is as if only further bad news could serve as a sort of catharsis that might at least cleanse them of any unease about being so wrong so predictably and so often.

In the weeks that follow, the media, not the military, will be shown to be in need of introspection and vast reform. Partly the problem arises from the breakneck desire of reporters to obtain near celebrity status by causing controversy and spectacle. Many (especially executives) also came of age in Vietnam and are thus desperate to recapture past glory when once upon a time their efforts made them stars and changed our national culture. Reporters are cultural relativists, who never ask themselves how many more people are tortured and die because of their own complicity with a murderous regime. Ignorance also is endemic. Few read of history?s great sieges and the bedlam that always follows conquest, liberation, and the birth of a new order. Arrogance abounds that journalists are to be above reproach and thus deserve to be moral censors in addition to simply recording the news.

So while it is censorious of politicians and soldiers, the media is completely uninterested in monitoring its own behavior. Would Mr. Rather have gone to Berlin amid the SS to interview Hitler in his bunker as the fires of Auschwitz raged? Would NPR reporters have visited Hitler?s Germany, paid bribes to Mr. Goebbels, and then broadcasted allied shortcomings at the Bulge, oblivious to the Nazi machinery of death and their own complicity in it?

There is also a final reason that explains our demand for instantaneous perfection. It is often a trademark of successful Western societies that create such freedom and affluence to fool themselves that they are a hair?s breadth away from utopia. Journalists who pad around with palm pilots, pounds of high-tech gear, dapper clothes, and expensive educations have convinced themselves that if lesser people were as caring or as sensitive as themselves then we could all live in bliss. The subtext of the daily Western media barrage has been that if we were just smarter, more moral, or better informed, then we could liberate a country the size of California in days, not weeks, lose zero soldiers, not a 110, and be instantaneously greeted by happy Iraqis who would shake hands, return to work, and quietly forget thirty years of terror as they voted in a Gandhi.

Anything less and Mssrs. Rumsfeld, Meyers, Franks, ?the plan,? ? somebody or something at least! ? must be held accountable for the absence of utopia.

But that is a word, they should remember, that means not a ?good place? but ?no place? at all.
nationalreview.com



To: JohnM who wrote (93313)4/14/2003 9:39:18 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"Meanwhile, back in Havana." Didja ever think, John, that if a "Pinochet" type had done this to his dissenters in some South American country, the left here would take to the streets? Why don't they? Because Castro is a hero to them. He gets a pass.

You probably think it is because Bush has been arrogant toward Castro. Hurt his feelings, I guess. I would love to see us drop off the 3rd ID on the way home from Iraq for a vacation at Gitmo. And while they were there.....:>)

THE ECONOMIST

Repression in Cuba Disappearing into a Caribbean gulag
Apr 10th 2003 | HAVANA


A FEW of them, such as Raúl Rivero, a poet and writer, and Martha Beatriz Roque, an economist, are well-known in human-rights circles abroad. But what is striking about the vast majority of the dissidents hauled before Cuba's summary courts over the past ten days is their seeming ordinariness. Of the 78 assorted democrats, independent journalists and human-rights campaigners rounded up by the security police last month, 49 live in the obscurity of the provinces.

That, of course, may be precisely why Fidel Castro's Communist government sees them as threatening. In just three weeks, Mr Castro has all but snuffed out the weak flame of opposition on the island. The detainees were hauled before courts surrounded by police and packed with government supporters, and from which foreign diplomats and journalists were barred. Accused of conspiring with American diplomats against Mr Castro's government and revolution, they were swiftly dispatched for jail terms averaging around 20 years. Since many of the dissidents are aged between 50 and 60, in practical terms they are being put away for life.

This sudden crackdown is a harsh reminder to Cubans that as long as Mr Castro is alive, any dreams of regime change will remain just that. But it also marks a new period in his 43-year rule. Ever since European communism's demise left his country isolated and in shambles, he has allowed token dissent as he searched for improved political and economic ties with the capitalist world. So what has prompted such heavy repression?

On the face of things, Cuba's small, isolated and harassed opposition movement is no match for a government that controls all the levers of power and enjoys a media monopoly. But Mr Castro clearly takes it seriously. At the trials, the government produced as witnesses eight security agents who had infiltrated opposition groups. That will sow suspicion among dissidents who remain free.

The best-known of these is Oswaldo Payá, who last year won the European Union's Sakharov human-rights prize. He heads the Varela Project, a petition drive seeking a referendum on democratic reform. At least 46 supporters of his Christian Liberation movement were among those arrested. As he stood outside Havana's main court this week, Mr Payá said that Mr Castro's aim was to shatter an opposition movement that had gained strength, unity and legitimacy. He promised to continue with his petition drive. With many of his grassroots organisers taken out, that may be hard.

According to senior Cuban officials, the crackdown was prompted not by the growth of domestic opposition but by the stance of President George Bush's administration. They say that Cuba's toleration of token dissent was a response to the Clinton administration: it was perceived to be unfriendly to Mr Castro's exiled foes in Miami, and saw dissidents as a means to rapprochement and peaceful change. By contrast, they argue, Mr Bush's government represents the most dangerous threat they have faced since the 1959 revolution. They say that over 30 Cuban-Americans, many of them Mr Castro's bitter foes who favour military action to overthrow him, now have government jobs in Washington.

In Havana, the United States is seen as fomenting internal opposition to create the conditions for intervention. A week before the crackdown, Mr Castro denounced James Cason, America's top diplomat in Cuba, as a ?provocateur?. Mr Cason had met dissidents across the country, publicly backing them while attacking the regime, and allowed them to use the United States' Interests Section and his own residence for their meetings.

According to Mr Cason, the Bush administration will now consider further hardening its policy towards Cuba. The United States' Congress is unlikely to relax any further America's trade embargo against Cuba. Protests have come, too, from many of Cuba's main trading partners. Canada has protested at the severity of the sentences. Sweden said that Cuba has jeopardised its chances of joining the European Union's Cotonou trade pact.

But such protests are unlikely to be heeded. Cuba-watchers say that, in weighing important decisions, Mr Castro's first consideration is his political control of the country, and his second concern is his traditional foes in Washington and Miami. The reactions of his friends and economic partners in other parts of the world come a distant third.

economist.com