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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (100592)	6/7/2003 4:04:03 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

Yeah? So who's going to be in the posse? Me? Derek@imtooyoungtodie.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (100592)	6/7/2003 11:56:03 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

The 'E' Word By NIALL FERGUSON We may now be witnessing the most radical reshaping of the Middle East since it acquired its modern form (and many of its modern problems) in the wake of World War I. What the British Empire began, the American Empire may be about to finish. Most of us are compulsively pessimistic about the Middle East; too many "road maps" have led over cliffs. But this time there's a real chance it could be different. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein has been the mother of all wake-up calls. Unlike his predecessors, who thought peace could be brought by touchy-feely peace talks, Mr. Bush has grasped that military power is key: the magical spear that heals even as it wounds. By showing them just how easily Saddam could be overthrown, Mr. Bush has made it transparent to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia that Saddam's fate could befall them too. I don't believe anyone in the Pentagon wants to stage another invasion soon; their hands are full. The aim is to put the frighteners on the region's Muslim powers. And it's working. When five Arab leaders met Mr. Bush on Tuesday, they pledged, with manifest penitence, that they would henceforth actively fight "the culture of extremism and violence." Not just al Qaeda: Hamas and Hezbollah too. And that is precisely why, to the astonishment of many, Ariel Sharon seems ready to make the concessions without which no peace is conceivable. For the first time in his life, he has acknowledged that the West Bank and Gaza have been under Israeli "occupation." He has pledged to "evacuate unauthorized outposts." And he has agreed to the creation of an independent Palestinian state with "territorial contiguity" (the week's key word). None of this would be happening if Mr. Bush had not established his credibility in the region by force. * * * So what's the catch? It lies in the paradoxical nature of American power. In 2000, Mr. Bush talked as if he wanted to diminish America's military presence overseas. But Sept. 11 led to a 180-degree turn in his thinking. His administration produced a National Security Strategy that stated an intention to extend the "benefits of freedom" to "every corner of the world," and asserted the right to pre-emptive military action against any threat to America's security. Many critics have seized upon this "Bush doctrine" as a dangerous, even revolutionary departure from post-1945 U.S. practice. I am not so sure. For one thing, it is eminently desirable that free markets, the rule of law and democracy should be introduced in countries currently languishing under rogue regimes. For another, regime changes of the sort we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq are an indispensable element of the war against terrorism. Terrorists are sustained by dictatorships and flourish in conditions of anarchy. The terrorist threat will never be contained if the U.S. does not eradicate breeding grounds. And a strategy of global containment is not really a major departure in policy. The radical aspect of the doctrine is not the theory but the practice. When Mr. Bush says he is prepared to fight terror in "every corner of the world," he really can. And he really does. If this isn't imperial power, I don't know what is. But here's the paradox. Vast though America's military power has become, the idea that the U.S. has become an authentic empire remains entirely foreign to the majority of Americans, who uncritically accept what has long been the official line: that the U.S. just doesn't "do empire." "America has never been an empire," Mr. Bush declared during his election campaign. "We may be the only great power in history that had the chance, and refused." Speaking on board the Abraham Lincoln, he echoed that: "Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home." Days earlier, Donald Rumsfeld had been asked by al Jazeera if the U.S. was engaged in "empire-building in Iraq." "We don't seek empires," shot back Rumsfeld. "We're not imperialistic. We never have been." The Victorian historian J.R. Seeley famously joked that the British had "conquered and peopled half the world in a fit of absence of mind." The Americans have gone one better. The greatest empire of modern times has come into existence without the American people even noticing. This is not absence of mind. It is mass myopia. Unfortunately, this myopia is one of the things that makes the American empire very different from -- and, I believe, less effective than -- the last great Anglophone empire, the British one. Americans have no qualms about sending their troops to fight in faraway countries. But they expect wars to be short and the casualty list to be even shorter. Since the war in Iraq officially ended, 40 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives, some as a result of terrorist attacks. Already there is a queasiness about this. When can our boys come home? The realistic answer is: not for at least five years, the minimum duration of occupation that will stabilize Iraq. And if the British experience of governing Iraq after World War I is anything to go by, 40 years might be more realistic. Alas, nobody in Washington is willing to contemplate a military presence on that time scale. The U.S. may be a "hyperpower," the most militarily powerful empire in history. But it is an empire in denial, a colossus with an attention deficiency disorder. That is potentially very dangerous. I began on a note of optimism, pointing out just how much has been achieved by the war against Iraq. If Saddam's overthrow marks the beginning of a sustained attempt to build peace in the Middle East, we will have cause to celebrate the advent of this American empire. But if Iraq is just another ephemeral military adventure, then I am filled with foreboding. For the moment America loses interest in what it has initiated, the cycle of terror will resume. Mr. Ferguson is the author of "Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power" (Basic Bks., 2003). online.wsj.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (100592)	6/7/2003 2:28:27 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

New mass grave found in Iraq Another mass grave has been discovered in Iraq at Salman Pak, just south of Baghdad, in the grounds of what used to be a sprawling military complex. Relatives of missing people have begun excavating the site and on Saturday morning they recovered at least five bodies. Local residents say they helped bury more than 100 bodies at the military complex in April and they believe many more may be hidden underground. They say the victims were young men killed in early April, after the American-led invasion had begun. One body was dressed in pyjamas, another had been blindfolded, while a third had his hands tied and had been shot in the back of the head. Many of those looking for relatives told Reuters news agency they had not heard of the grave until a Shia party, Daawa, which lost many of its members to Saddam Hussein's death squads, organised a trip to the site. MASS GRAVES IN IRAQ Kirkuk: Kurdish officials report discovery of 2,000 bodies Muhammad Sakran: Reports say more than 1,000 bodies found Babylon: Children's bones reportedly among remains found Al-Mahawil: Up to 15,000 bodies feared buried Najaf: 72 bodies found Basra: Grave believed to contain about 150 Shia Muslims Abul Khasib: 40 bodies reportedly found Most Iraqis at the site are from Baghdad's Sadr City, a Shia slum formerly known as Saddam City. Many arrived with white sacks filled with cloth to carry away the remains of the dead. One of them, Kathim al-Darajee, says he spent 10 years at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and left with only one eye because the other was removed during torture. "I am looking for my nephew. They showed him and others on television after they were tortured and said they were guilty of opposition to Saddam," he said. Beyond these freshly-dug graves lie rows and rows of furrowed earth, where earlier victims of the regime may be buried, says the BBC's Chris Morris. Forensic task There is a huge forensic task to do here, but hardly anyone available to help, our correspondent says. British forensic experts are investigating grave sites, but the identity of those buried will not be easy to establish because those searching for loved ones are unknowingly tampering with the evidence. "Iraq is the land of mass graves and secret prisons," said one man. Suspected mass grave sites have been identified right across the country. Human rights groups believe that more than a quarter of a million people disappeared during the long rule of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party. Story from BBC NEWS: news.bbc.co.uk Published: 2003/06/07 12:33:44 GMT © BBC MMIII