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.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158347)7/4/2003 1:15:57 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
What has Iraq got to do with the war on terrorism?



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158347)7/4/2003 1:28:35 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
<<A Day After Bush Assurances, 10 U.S. Soldiers Hurt in Iraq
Thu Jul 3, 2:55 PM ET


By AMY WALDMAN The New York Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq (news - web sites), July 3 A day after President Bush (news - web sites) asserted that coalition forces in Iraq were prepared to deal with any security threat, American troops came under attack again today, with 10 soldiers wounded in three separate incidents.

"We're still at war," Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez of the Army, the commander of coalition forces in Iraq, said in a news conference today. While saying that the attacks did not appear to be centrally or even regionally coordinated, he asserted that there had been an "increase in sophistication of the explosive devices used" against American forces.

In a strategy apparently designed to undermine the resistance, the American administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, announced this afternoon that the State Department was offering a reward of up to $25 million for either the capture of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) or information confirming his death. The reward for similar information about Mr. Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, is $15 million apiece.

"Until we know for sure, their names will continue to cast a shadow of fear over this country," Mr. Bremer said in his weekly address to the Iraqi people.

The $25 million reward for Mr. Hussein is the same amount offered for Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), the leader of Al Qaeda.

This morning's attacks occurred in diverse locations: a Sunni area west of Baghdad that staunchly supported the former regime, a Shia neighborhood in Baghdad and the center of the city.

In the Baghdad neighborhood of Kadhimiya, a soldier from the First Armored Division on foot patrol at 2:30 a.m. local time was wounded after a gunman opened fire. The soldiers returned fire, killing the gunman and wounding a 6-year-old boy with him, according to an American military spokesman.

In the city of Ramadi, about 65 miles west of Baghdad, six soldiers were wounded when their two-vehicle convoy drove over an improvised explosive device at 6:30 a.m. The city's Sunni Muslim residents were among the core of Saddam Hussein's base of support, serving as army officers and officials in his government.

Ramadi has become a center of resistance to the American-led occupation. It is only about 30 miles west of Falluja, where an explosion at a Sunni mosque killed at least six people on Monday night. A coalition investigation blamed the explosion on a bombmaking class being held in a building adjacent to the mosque, but many residents accused the Americans of firing a missile into the mosque and promised revenge against American troops.

In Baghdad, just before 10 a.m. local time, a man on foot fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a three-vehicle military convoy moving down Haifa Street, a busy thoroughfare in central Baghdad. One Humvee was struck, wounding three soldiers, witnesses and a military spokesman said.

Witnesses also said that in response, soldiers in one of the other vehicles opened fire indiscriminately, seriously wounding, and possibly killing, at least one Iraqi driver nearby. Blood pooled next to the slain driver's blue Volkswagen Passat soon after the attack.

The attack suggested that the urban warfare that had so concerned military planners before the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime was materializing in unexpected forms. The attack against the three-vehicle convoy on Haifa Street was at least the second rocket-propelled grenade assault in broad daylight in Baghdad this week.

In both cases, the attackers escaped. Whether out of fear or sympathy for their cause, bystanders and witnesses have done nothing to help coalition forces apprehend attackers.

On Wednesday, President Bush challenged Iraqis who were attacking American-led forces and said the assaults would not cause the United States to leave prematurely.

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there," Mr. Bush said. "My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

Soldiers who arrived at the scene of the rocket-propelled grenade attack in Baghdad this morning crouched by their vehicles or pointed their weapons at the high-rise apartment buildings lining that section of the street. In the distance, an AK-47 rifle sounded.

A crowd of people, meanwhile, gathered around the destroyed Humvee and looted it, taking whatever they could remove. Children and adults climbed on top, stomping on it and chanting, "God bless Mohammad!" Then someone set the vehicle on fire and the crowd backed away, watching it slowly burn. Children hurled rocks at the blaze.



More American reinforcements arrived to clear the crowd and guard the vehicle. An armored vehicle drove through and paused, training its gun first on the crowd and then on the apartments above. Helicopters circled low overhead.

Some bystanders expressed support for the attack. "All men should fight," Nidhal Latif Tawfiq said. "If I wasn't a woman, I would go to that car," she said of the Humvee surrounded by looters. "I have no job."

The crowd's ire seemed to be fueled by a lack of jobs and electric power in Baghdad most parts of the city still have no more than 8 to 10 hours of electricity a day.

"It's not because of Saddam people are doing these things," one man said. "It is because there's no government, there's no electricity, and just false promises."

A 12-year-old boy, Ghanim Hamid, carrying part of a military food ration taken from the Humvee, asked if it were true that the Americans were withholding water and power from the Iraqis because the troops were being shot at.

"Get out from our country," someone had scrawled on a wall nearby. It was written in English, so there was no mistaking its meaning.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158347)7/4/2003 1:35:37 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
One U.S. Soldier Killed, 19 Wounded in Iraq
9 minutes ago


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - One U.S. soldier was killed and 19 were wounded in two attacks in central Iraq (news - web sites) on Thursday night, the U.S. military said on Friday.

A sniper shot dead one American soldier in Baghdad, while the 19 U.S. soldiers were wounded in an attack near the town of Balad, north of the capital, a military spokesman said.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158347)7/6/2003 3:36:59 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

ASHINGTON

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as charg?d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tom?and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake ?a form of lightly processed ore ?by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq ?and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

Continued
1 | 2 | Next>>

nytimes.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158347)7/7/2003 3:00:12 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Macho U.S. runs into Arab male pride

RICHARD GWYN

Washington believes that the root cause of the continuous, and escalating, attacks and ambushes and sniper shootings of American soldiers in Iraq is Saddam Hussein.

Hence the just announced bounty of $25 million (U.S.) for information leading to Saddam's arrest, or of confirmation of his death, with similar bounties of $15 million (U.S.) for his two sons, Uday and Quasay.

Up to a point, this analysis is sound. So long as he remains in hiding and alive, Saddam will stir up resistance by his loyalists and be able, to some degree, to organize their activities.

The fear — more accurately, the sheer terror — he inspired among ordinary Iraqis will silence those who might otherwise have warned the Americans of impending ambushes or have helped them track down those responsible (of whom noticeably few have been arrested).

Most worrying, the longer Saddam remains uncaptured — he's now survived for more than two months — the more likely he is to come to be regarded as a symbol of defiance, a local hero, sort of. This would be especially infuriating to Americans.

A good case can be made, though, that in Iraq the Americans are now facing a much more dangerous enemy than Saddam. That enemy is Arab male pride.

Firing at, and every now and then, actually hitting, an American soldier represents a chance for ordinary Iraqi men to regain some sense of their manhood.

Until now, these Iraqi males have been impotent. For a quarter of a century, Saddam did to them and with them whatever he wanted, including periodically ordering them out in the streets to ecstatically chant his praises for the TV cameras.

During the Gulf War of a decade ago, and earlier this year during their invasion of Iraq, the Americans revealed the Iraqis as a nation of impotents as they bombed them with planes and missiles, against which the Iraqis could do nothing except shake a fist at the sky. The actual capture of Baghdad was humiliatingly easy.

Now, though, the masters of the universe are down at the level of ordinary Iraqis as they drive about in their Humvees and go on foot patrols in between the mud-brick houses,. At the street level, all that awesomely efficient military high-technology, including body armour, is vulnerable to the simplest of weapons, a Kalashnikov rifle, a rocket-propelled grenade, a homemade car bomb.

There certainly is some organization to the resistance. But mostly, it is an expression of macho pride and of resentment against an outsider in a land where everyone has a gun, much as in Somalia where the raggle-taggle militia in Mogadishu managed to down two Black Hawk helicopters and drive the Americans out.

For Americans, dealing with the enemy of Arab male pride is going to be especially difficult. They aren't natural imperialists, which is to say that unlike, say, the British and French in their hey day, they find it difficult to be really brutal, at least so face to face, as opposed to from a safe distance. Their military doctrine depends upon the use of massive firepower, which makes civilian deaths certain, which indeed is often the real objective of their attackers who will "win" the war on the airwaves of TV stations like Al Jazeera and Al-Arabyia.

The Americans aren't going to leave Iraq. The whole visionary project of "revolutionary transformation" to which President George Bush has committed himself — of the entire Middle East that is — depends upon success in Iraq (and also upon a successful peace settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians). And the loss of face would be unsustainable, to say nothing of the possible loss of the next election by Bush (in the U.S., public support for the war is now starting a distinct decline).

But they do need help. A critical turning point is coming ever nearer. This would be when the United Nations, already increasingly active in humanitarian work in Iraq, has to take over the principal political responsibility there.

Contingents of peacekeepers from other countries would still be vulnerable to local attacks. And the bulk of the soldiers would still have to be American and British.

But attacking the U.N. wouldn't satisfy Arab male pride and patriotism in the way attacking the masters of the universe does.

This kind of turnaround would be exceedingly difficult for Bush to swallow. And almost as difficult for the U.N. and for the countries, many in Europe, that would have to provide the peacekeepers. The clear winners, though, would be the Iraqis themselves.

thestar.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158347)7/7/2003 3:04:42 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Fatigued, US troops yearn for home

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD – Facing repeatedly delayed go-home dates and attacks by elements of a population they were sent to protect, American troops in Iraq are under increasing stress. The killing of a US soldier Sunday at Baghdad University epitomizes the non-combat violence that leaves US forces on tenterhooks - and waiting for a ticket home.
"A lot of guys, because the dates have been tossed around, have lost hope," says Capt. John Jensen, an engineering battalion chaplain. "Nobody's been able to answer that question: when?"

Soldiers who came to Iraq expecting to spend their time in combat have found themselves, after the war proper, mired in the day-to-day realities of maintaining order and rebuilding a battered nation. "The actual combat happened very fast, so the biggest stress we see now is peacekeeping," says Col. Robert Knapp, who heads the 113th Medical Company combat-stress unit on the grounds of the presidential palace in Baghdad.

"Our people are not really trained for peacekeeping, and not equipped for riot control. They are trained to fight the enemy and kill them," Colonel Knapp says.

The troops came to Iraq prepared to fight; but after President Bush declared the end of major combat on May 1, their workload has included containing looting, restoring social services, and training Iraqi policemen.

The bloody shift from war to occupation has already taken 26 American lives since then.

And with an average of 13 contacts a day with armed resistors, American troops ply the roads of Baghdad nervously and often get stuck in traffic, leading exposed soldiers to brandish assault rifles, and keep their pistols drawn.

The trauma of this conflict is varied: Soldiers say they have seen remarkable scenes of killing and carnage; others speak of fears they face daily, doing urban patrols against an unseen, ghostlike enemy. Others have been away from home too long, with the absence and new dangers fraying their families' patience.

One result is that the US Army is planning a screening process and two-week "decompression" session for soldiers going home, to look for danger signs, reacclimatize them to civilian life, and advise them on getting to know loved ones again.

The military community was shocked by the murder last summer of four wives in six weeks at Ft. Bragg, NC, after Special Forces returned home from Afghanistan. [Editor's note: The original version of this story incorrectly stated the location of Ft. Bragg.]

Ready to go are units like the 3rd Infantry Division (3ID), which fought its way up from Kuwait, carried out the bold "Thunder Run" into Baghdad in the early days of April - and a quarter-year later is still kicking around in the flash point city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad.

"The frustration is so great, you just wonder if it's going to cause someone to snap," says Maj. Patrick Ratigan, chaplain for the 2nd Brigade Combat Team in Fallujah. This unit was told that the way home was through Baghdad, and subsequent exit dates have come and gone, as the deployment stretches to 10 months.

"They are tired, and there is a lot of tension with marriages. Wives are frazzled with kids; they are experiencing the same frustration," says Chaplain Ratigan.

One soldier that came to him in recent days was meant to be married on July 5 - a date with special meaning to his fiancée, and one that looked likely when the unit shipped out last September.

The war itself and its aftermath are also having an impact, the chaplains say.

"Some people have seen a lot of bodies, and others had to collect them and were traumatized by that," Ratigan says. The Army's aim is to avoid a repeat of Vietnam, when "soldiers were in a firefight today, and tomorrow they come home and are unwelcome."

"I don't know how anybody is going to be when we get back. I'm a changed person," says Staff Sgt. Antony Joseph, a public-affairs officer in Fallujah. "You can't see death and destruction and not be changed by it. What does it do to those who cut people down? Some have seen their friends die next to them."

Such events have been felt throughout the 3ID, which was counting on victory parades, not largely ungrateful and sometimes hostile Iraqis. Unlike Gulf War I in 1991, this for many was up close and personal.

"I never saw any bodies back then, but this time we would pull into somebody's backyard and start shooting," says Juan Carlos Cardona, a field artillery sergeant and platoon leader, who leads day and night patrols west of Baghdad. "Intelligence was telling us that anybody you saw could be a terrorist - that was a new experience."

Though Sergeant Cardona says Iraqis have yet to unanimously praise their efforts at winning hearts and minds - by distributing fresh water in a local village and protecting propane supplies - he dreams every day of going home. After his alert level has been so high for so long, though, he says he will ease into it.

"I've already told my wife that I'm not going to drive for a week or two, and I'm probably going to be afraid to drive at night," Cardona says. "That stuff messes up your mind - you're driving at night, then think you see an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] aimed at you."

Soldiers say they are also concerned about their reception and worry that the negative press about the US inability to stamp out resistance, heavy-handed behavior, and mismanaging the occupation will take some of the shine off their swift assault on Baghdad.

"We are not seeing people exhausted, but people with discipline problems - another sign of combat stress," says Colonel Knapp. "If they had gone home sooner, they would go home to a parade, put on their ribbons, and felt much better about themselves."

The combat stress unit at the palace usually receives five or six cases a day, who are screened, and often stay for several days, for counseling and group therapy on issues like anger management.

Separation is especially difficult now, since the "war mission" has changed, Knapp says. "The message they hear from home is: 'The war is over, why aren't you coming home?' The feeling from the US of being needed is not as much as it could be."

Maintaining a sense of pride and self worth is the message the chaplains send repeatedly, despite what they see as disparaging reporting in the US media about the occupation.

"These guys are still heroes, did a fantastic mission, and are still up to it," says Chaplain Jensen. "If you ask them to go back to the front line to combat and give them bullets, they would do it."

Still, for most, the war ended three months ago, and they were expecting a civilian administration, and Iraqis themselves, to take over. Going home has become a fantasy.

"I never thought I would miss so many things: washing the dishes for my wife, a shower once a day, a beer here and there, and relaxing and listening to music - all this sort of good stuff," says Cardona.

"I can't wait just to curl up with my wife, and wake up and not worry if I am going to get killed."

csmonitor.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (158347)7/7/2003 3:19:51 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Weapons of Mass Distraction
by Charles V. Peña

Charles V. Peña is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Almost two months after a swift and decisive military victory, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have yet to be found in Iraq. At a minimum, this is an embarrassment for the Bush administration. And if WMD are eventually found, it won't matter because Iraq was not a threat to the United States in the first place -- a point many observers gloss over.

WMD was the primary justification for launching a pre-emptive war against Iraq. Before the war, President Bush accused Iraq of having WMD and enough material "to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people ... more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure ... as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." Secretary of State Colin Powell reinforced Bush's claims at a February presentation to the United Nations Security Council, where Powell provided photographic and audio intelligence as evidence to make the administration's case.

The current situation is rich with irony and contradiction. According to the administration, the U.N. weapons inspectors were incapable of finding any WMD because the Iraqi regime was engaged in an elaborate game of cat and mouse, moving weapons around to stay one step ahead of the inspectors (assuming they knew where to look in the first place). Furthermore, the inspectors were unable to interview scientists and officials with knowledge about WMD without fear of intimidation and retribution by Iraqi "minders."

Now, U.S. weapon inspectors have unimpeded access to Iraq. Most of the people who are supposed to know something about Iraq's WMD have been rounded up and are able to freely divulge their secrets. Yet the United States has been no more successful than the U.N.

The ultimate irony is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's statement that finding WMD in Iraq is "going to take time, and we're going to have to be patient." Time and patience are what the administration was unwilling to give the U.N weapons inspectors.

The administration is confident that weapons will eventually be found. But what really matters, it says, is that the world is now a better place because the coalition has rid Iraq of an evil dictator and liberated the Iraqi people from his brutality. This revisionist rationale appears to satisfy most Americans. British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- who is under fire from the Tory and Liberal Democrats and his own Labour Party, especially for his claim that Iraq had WMD that could be launched within 45 minutes -- is repeating the same mantra, but not getting the same reception.

Senate and House intelligence committees have started closed-door hearings about the quality of the intelligence and how it was used by the Bush administration. A similar investigation is underway in the British Parliament. The obvious story in the making is about false premises for war and the potential fall from grace of Bush and Blair if WMD are not found in Iraq.

The less obvious, but more important, story is if WMD are found in Iraq. The discovery of such weapons would not justify the war. Nor would it vindicate the administration because the administration will still have to explain how Iraq posed a direct and imminent threat to the United States. Defeating Iraq's military in three weeks is evidence that Iraq did not pose a military threat.

The possibility, acknowledged by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, that the Iraqis might have destroyed their WMD prior to or during the war only reinforces the notion that they were not a threat. More importantly, if the Iraqis had chemical or biological weapons but did not use them to defend their own country against a foreign invader, how and when were they ever going to use such weapons? Indeed, Saddam appears to have been deterred from using WMD to defend himself even as his regime was crumbling around him.

On a related note, it's clear that Iraq was not a hotbed of al Qaeda operations as was Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. Thus, the U.S. preoccupation with Iraq and WMD diverted America's attention from the real threat and what should be the focus of the war on terrorism: the al Qaeda terrorist network operating in 60 countries around the world.

Rand Beers, who recently quit as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism because he was disenchanted with the way the administration was handling the war on terrorism, believes the focus on Iraq has diverted manpower, brainpower, and money; created fissures in the alliance to fight the war on terrorism; and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. That is too high a price to pay in exchange for a wild goose chase for Iraqi WMD, which are much ado about nothing. They are weapons of mass distraction.

cato.org