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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (409737)	5/28/2003 9:28:27 AM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

U.S. diplomats who quit to protest Iraq war warn that America isn't any safer Tuesday, May 27 @ 10:06:05 EDT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The three say they don't regret resigning and doubt U.S. any safer than before Saddam's ouster. By Malcolm Foster, The Associated Press NEW YORK - The three U.S. diplomats who resigned to protest the Iraq war say they're glad it ended fairly quickly but still think the war was unjustified - and doubt toppling Saddam Hussein has made Americans any safer from terrorist attacks. While there's no clear indication the recent suicide attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco were retaliation for the war, the ex-diplomats worry that the occupation of Iraq could spur similar assaults on U.S. targets - particularly if order isn't restored soon. "The longer we stay, and the more that people say the new Iraqi government is a lackey of the U.S., the more dangerous it is for Americans," said Mary Ann Wright, 57, the former deputy chief of mission at U.S. embassies in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Mongolia. Wright, also a former Army colonel, quit March 19, after resignations by John Brady Kiesling, the former political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Athens, and John Brown, who spent most of his 22 years with the Foreign Service in Europe and Russia. In resignation letters to Secretary of State Colin Powell, all three said they found the Bush administration's case for war unconvincing and its approach toward other countries condescending. The war, they said, would hurt U.S. interests, and they haven't changed their views. "I'm convinced that we've increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks," said Kiesling, 45, who asked in his letter to Powell if the administration had adopted as its motto a phrase by Roman Emperor Caligula: "Let them hate as long as they fear." President George W. Bush has said that by toppling Saddam, the coalition has removed an al-Qaida ally and cut off a source of funding and weapons for terrorists. And American officials have stressed that the coalition will withdraw from Iraq after a government that represents the Iraqi people is set up, but they have refused to put a timetable on the occupation. Brown says he still views the Iraq war as a diversion from the war on terrorism. "I'm glad there weren't more casualties, but I'm still not sure where the war fits in with our national priorities," said Brown. In keeping with its normal policy on personnel matters, the State Department had no comment on the resignations. Danielle Pletka, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute, disagreed sharply with the diplomats' criticisms, arguing that their opposition to the war implied it was acceptable to leave Saddam in power. "That's reprehensible from a foreign-policy standpoint and a moral standpoint," Pletka said. Saddam's removal "will not only make Americans safer, it'll make Iraqis safer." Brown, Kiesling and Wright said they're not apologists for Saddam, whom they described as a brutal dictator. They believe the invasion was unjustified because they doubt Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. Using pre-emptive military force to topple Saddam's regime will hurt American interests over the long haul - and could be used by others to justify attacks on the United States, they say. "Going into another country for regime change opens the box wide open for other people to use that rationale for whatever they feel they need to do for their national interests," Wright said.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (409737)	5/28/2003 9:29:40 AM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

UN chief warns of anti-American backlash in Iraq Tuesday, May 27 @ 10:04:59 EDT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Rory McCarthy in Baghdad, The Guardian The UN's most senior humanitarian official in Iraq warned yesterday that US attempts to rebuild the country were overly dominated by "ideology" and risked triggering a violent backlash. Ramiro Lopes da Silva said the sudden decision last week to demobilise 400,000 Iraqi soldiers without any re-employment programme could generate a "low-intensity conflict" in the countryside. "The reconstruction of minds is as important. We cannot force through an ideological process too much," said Mr Lopes da Silva, 54, a Portuguese UN official who served in Angola and Afghanistan before becoming the humanitarian coordinator in Iraq last year. In unusually frank comments, he said the first three weeks after the collapse of the Iraqi regime were characterised by "talk about grandiose plans and a lot of promises but there were no decisions". Since Jay Garner, the retired general appointed to lead postwar Iraq, was replaced this month by Paul Bremer, a former ambassador, decisions have begun to be made. But Mr Lopes da Silva echoed the concerns of international aid agencies and the Iraqi people when he said poor security remained the overwhelming problem holding back the restoration of power, water and health services as well as the political process. "The situation is improving but law and order is still the key," he said. It is clear many UN officials are frustrated to have been excluded from the running of postwar Iraq. Most of the decisions taken at the US authority's headquarters in Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace in Baghdad are made by Pentagon appointees who report to Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary. Arab specialists from the state department have been largely excluded and while British diplomats have had some influence on decision-making, the UN has hardly been consulted. Mr Lopes da Silva said the UN "disagreed" with some of the decisions made by the US-led authority in Baghdad. He was surprised the decision to disband the Iraqi military had not been accompanied by an attempt to reintegrate soldiers into society. "The way the decision was taken leaves them in a vacuum," he said. "Our concern is that if there is nothing for them out there soon this will be a potential source of additional destabilisation." Even US generals admitted at the time they feared the decision could worsen the lawlessness and looting. Mr Lopes da Silva said the demobilisation, along with tightened security in the capital, could force looters into the less well-guarded countryside. "What you are potentially going to create is more banditry and a low-intensity conflict in the rural areas," he said. "These edicts are seen very much just as ideological statements." Mr Lopes da Silva also questioned the authority's de-Ba'athification programme, under which up to 30,000 Ba'ath party officials are automatically excluded from office. "Many bureaucrats who have important experience that would help the new government were only Ba'ath party members on paper," he said. In another step against the Ba'ath party yesterday, US military officials fired the police chief for west Baghdad against the advice of several American soldiers. Abdul Razak al-Abbassi, who for the past three weeks has helped bring hundreds of officers back to work, was dismissed because he had been a senior member of the Ba'ath party under Saddam. On Sunday, the UN started its own re-employment programme which it hopes will provide 250,000 jobs in the next six months. Officials will now see if it can be expanded to include some Iraqi soldiers. Reprinted from The Guardian: guardian.co.uk