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: Jim Willie CB who wrote (103623)7/1/2003 12:08:44 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Britain Stirs, America Sleeps
____________________

by William Pfaff

Published on Monday, June 30, 2003 by the International Herald Tribune

PARIS -- The only member of the United States Senate who voted against granting war powers to President George W. Bush, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, holds that lies were told by the president to justify the Iraq war, and that eventually the truth will be out.

One would like to believe it true. But while Senator Byrd will be vindicated in the long run, the culture of lies that prevails in the Bush administration is an integral part of a larger culture of expedience and systematic dishonesty that dominates the present leadership of American political society and business. There is little reason to expect this soon to change.

Expedient lies have always been part of politics; and American business, at its higher levels, has often been crooked, but uneasily so, in conflict with the residual puritanism of the American establishment.

This puritanism was contemptuously discarded by the profit-driven business ethic that took over in the 1980s. Thus no effort is deemed necessary today to mask the connections of members of this administration with corporate profit-taking from defeated Iraq.

The personal links of high officials, including the president and vice president, with the commercial interests and business sectors that expect to profit from Iraq's reconstruction and the privatization of Iraq's resources are not only widely known but largely uncontroversial. In the past, they would have been considered scandalous.

As for the lies told to justify invasion of Iraq, one had no need to wait for Paul Wolfowitz to tell Vanity Fair magazine that the proclaimed threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - deployable within 45 minutes, as the president's ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair, helpfully added - was simply the theme of bureaucratic choice. True or not, it was plausible and could be sold.

In the lead-up to the war it was painful for an American to watch Secretary of State Colin Powell present to the UN Security Council as serious evidence of the Iraqi menace, the flimsy texts, equivocal photos and tissues of supposition that he reportedly did not wholly believe himself.

It was still more embarrassing to see Blair try to make the same case, because Blair really does believe in the cause. Now the credulous prime minister is the man in danger, not his friend in Washington. Parliament takes a graver view of governmental lies than the sitting United States Senate. A House of Commons select committee is taking evidence on the matter. Conservatives now lead Labour in the polls.

MI6 insiders, unwilling to take the rap for Downing Street, and senior retired CIA and State Department people have for many weeks been in the corridors and on the Internet to express outrage at the use by Washington and London of rigged intelligence on Iraq - reaching even into Bush's State of the Union message in January.

That these were lies was made obvious when the United States proved unable to give valid or even interesting leads on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the UN inspectors, when they went back into Iraq.

A good deal has already been written about corrupting the intelligence services to serve ideological interests. Not so much has been said about plain lies, which travel a long way in an electorate as uninterested in international affairs and as ill-served by press and television as today's American electorate.

Bush convinced the majority of Americans that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction but was about to use them against America. He convinced the public majority that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were linked, and that Iraq collaborated in the Sept. 11 attacks. He has now convinced the public that Iran is a nuclear threat, and 56 percent of American opinion would support military intervention in that country to deal with the claimed danger.

Presidential lies to Congress, strictly speaking, are constitutional ground for impeachment. They really are something more serious. They rupture the relationship of responsibility that is supposed to exist between president and public.

Partisan or personal interest and equivocation are one thing. Lies about matters of state, and about war, are another. To lie to the citizenry is to reject the confidence freely given a president. It destroys the moral bond that holds a democratic society together.

© 2003 the International Herald Tribune


commondreams.org



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (103623)7/1/2003 12:03:40 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
America's blunders leave the war unwon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Louis J. Cantori*
Editorial
The Baltimore Sun
published June 30, 2003

NEARLY 11 WEEKS after the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, expectations in Iraq are plummeting.

There has been no jubilant reception of the troops, and basic personal security, civil services, sound administration and democratic representation are virtually nonexistent. Most importantly, the military campaign continues. Americans are dying. American policy is faltering, if not failing. Military victory eludes the coalition forces.

According to Carl von Clausewitz in his 1832 classic On War, victory occurs when the enemy's army is destroyed, there is a formal surrender and, in particular, the enemy's will is bent to your own. He made the further point that this is accomplished by conquest, not by the "hearts and mind" war of "liberation" of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his Pentagon team - his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas J. Feith and others.

Further contributing to the inability to conquer Iraq was Mr. Rumsfeld's decision to adopt a force that was "fast and flexible," consisting of electronic air warfare, special forces and a light ground force. This force of 125,000 was able to win the battle of Baghdad, but just as the former Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, anticipated, it would have required a "mass" of 250,000 to bend the Iraqi will and win.

Mr. Rumsfeld fallaciously has confused the equipment heaviness of the Cold War-era Army with manpower heaviness and failed to understand the need for a troop "mass" to win wars. The issue is the need for increased speed, not reduction in numbers. The proof of this came April 9, the day Mr. Hussein's statue was toppled in Baghdad, when American forces stood by without orders to shoot looters and watched the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure just as Mr. Rumsfeld praised the precision of the aerial attack in preserving it.

The Rumsfeld team also has substituted wishful thinking for facts. As von Clausewitz further counseled, such wishful thinking by a military commander can create failure on the battlefield. For example, are Iraqi Shiites repressed democrats who could be counted upon to exultantly embrace coalition forces, or are they sincere patriots prepared to resist the American conquerors?

Perhaps most amazing is the recent surprise expressed about the fact that Muslims in the well-known Sunni triangle surrounding Baghdad are engaging regularly in fire fights around the towns of Fallujah, Tikrit and other places to the west and north of Baghdad. These Sunnis were not only the most loyal of Mr. Hussein's supporters, but their well-known tribalism was the basis of Baathist organizational control until 1991. Since then, because of the effect of U.N. sanctions, the government dealt directly with tribal leaders.

Even though the Baathist organization had declined since 1991, the Sunni triangle remains the epicenter of Iraqi nationalism. Therefore, there is a potent combination of strong Iraqi nationalism and tribal solidarity underlying resistance to the U.S. occupation.

Killing by American soldiers of Iraqi fathers at night and building soccer fields during the day for their children as a continuation of a "hearts and minds" policy is not working. When Iraqi demonstrators are fired upon and deaths occur, the perpetrator is viewed as the American invader and the offense is a blood offense that the Iraqi code of honor calls for revenge. This is a formidable military factor resembling the way in which similar tribalism strengthens the Jordanian army.

The Iraq war was fought in near-willful ignorance of such facts. What is occurring now was predictable. Neither those expert on Iraq within the U.S. government (the State Department, the National Defense University and, particularly, the CIA) nor the small group of highly expert American academics have been consulted by the Defense Department, Congress or the media.

Meanwhile, unhappily, the military campaign in Iraq continues, inconclusively. It is already a quagmire because the Americans cannot impose their will, and they cannot rebuild the country until they can impose their will. Until they do both, they cannot withdraw.

And, incidentally, what's happened to reconstruction?

_____________________________________

*Louis J. Cantori is a professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where he specializes in the Middle East. He has been a distinguished professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the U.S. Air Force Academy and the U.S. Marine Corps University, and is a former Marine.

Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun

sunspot.net