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: Sam who wrote (112360)	8/22/2003 6:20:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Wanted: Presidential Plan for Iraq ___________________________ by Jay Bookman Published on Thursday, August 21, 2003 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution With a few exceptions, Americans of every political stripe, whether they supported or opposed the invasion of Iraq, now accept the grim reality of our presence there. Most of us understand that by invading Iraq, we also took responsibility for its future. There is no groundswell demanding that we bring our troops home. None of the realistic contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination has made that argument, nor is there any discernible sentiment in Congress to that effect. But there's a danger that could change -- without much warning and with disastrous consequences -- if the Bush administration does not acknowledge the true difficulty of what lies ahead and the true sacrifices it will require. So far, it has not. In the wake of Tuesday's bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem, President Bush did release a brief statement reasserting our determination to see the job through to the end. "We will persevere through every hardship," the president promised. "We will continue this war on terror until the killers are brought to justice. And we will prevail." Persevere, continue, prevail. . . . Good words, all. That statement was necessary, appropriate and no doubt heartfelt. But it was also insufficient. Determination to persevere is critical, but it's not nearly enough. What is the plan for reversing the apparent slide toward chaos in Iraq? How do we create security in a war zone against unseen opponents just as determined as we are, especially with an occupying force that by historical standards is grossly inadequate? What will be the source of the $100 billion or more in outside capital needed to reconstruct Iraq's infrastructure and economy? In other words, what's the plan? The Bush administration has no response, only bland assurances that with perseverance, all will be well. It still seems transfixed, unable to shake its puzzlement that the story line in Iraq is playing out so differently than those optimistic prewar scenarios spun inside the conference rooms at the Pentagon, the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard. Yes, it is true that Saddam Hussein so brutalized and dominated the Iraqi people that they are almost incapable now of taking responsibility for themselves. Yes, the primary blame for the absence of security and lack of basic services in Iraq should be laid on terrorists and saboteurs trying to undo every U.S. accomplishment. Yes, al-Qaida and other outside terrorist groups are probably pouring into Iraq, drawn by the chance to hit vulnerable Western targets. All that and more is true. We're all agreed: We've got ourselves some trouble. So what's the plan? Where are the additional troops going to come from? Where's the money going to come from? How are we going to fix this? So far, the Bush administration has ruled out the United Nations as a source of additional manpower and money. They warn that by asking the United Nations to take a larger role in Iraq, we would also invite more complications and problems, and they're probably right. But if those risks disqualify the United Nations as our partner, what is our alternative strategy? Perseverance? Leadership requires hard choices. It requires vision, an ability not only to set lofty goals but also to lay out a feasible path for achieving them. Such a plan offers hope, a way of envisioning progress from the world as it exists to the world we are trying to create. Without such a plan, the current public consensus is likely to crumble, and the effectiveness of the United States as a force for peace and sanity in the world will be greatly diminished. This may not be the war we were promised, but it's the war we've got. So, Mr. President . . . how are we going to win it? ________________________ Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. © 2003 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution commondreams.org

To: Sam who wrote (112360)	8/24/2003 1:26:13 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Dueling Timelines in Iraq ____________________________________ Lead Editorial The Washington Post Sunday, August 24, 2003 IF A TERRIBLE WEEK in the Middle East shook any of the complacency out of the Bush administration, there was little public evidence. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell traveled to United Nations headquarters to express condolences for the U.N. staffers killed in Tuesday's bombing in Baghdad and to seek more foreign contributions of troops to aid U.S. forces in Iraq. But he came without any stated willingness to do what would be needed to attract such contributions, that is, to share political authority over Iraq with the United Nations. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld continued to maintain that U.S. troop strength in Iraq is adequate. There was no talk of an accelerated effort of any kind to improve daily life for Iraqis. The administration seems convinced that time is on its side in Iraq. It acknowledges grave problems but counsels patience. As "regime remnants" are captured or killed, officials say, Iraq will become safer and Iraqis will feel freer to work with U.S. authorities. Maybe that is right. Last week U.S. forces captured two of the highest-ranking and most odious figures from Saddam Hussein's regime, which suggests an encouraging level of intelligence cooperation with Iraqis. Even anti-U.S. newspapers in Iraq publish, if grudgingly, results of opinion surveys showing that most Iraqis are glad Saddam Hussein is gone and do not yet want U.S. forces to depart. In many parts of the country, local Iraqi councils are beginning to govern and Iraqi police are assuming authority. But it seems at least equally plausible that time is working against the coalition. Many Iraqis already are surprised and disappointed by the meager results of the first months of U.S. rule. Meanwhile, Gen. John P. Abizaid said last week that terrorism "is emerging as the number one security threat." While U.S. soldiers continue to come under daily attack, targets also include Iraqis who cooperate with the United States, private contractors and, as the U.N. bombing showed, anyone else who is trying to improve conditions in Iraq. That attack set back reconstruction efforts in many ways, and the continuing threat of violence will slow progress toward rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. That in turn means many Iraqis will remain without electricity or water or, too often, employment -- which may encourage opposition to the occupation and thus further set back efforts to make Iraq more secure. There's no magic solution for the challenges the United States faces in Iraq, but a key first step would be to face them honestly. Even before the war, we and many others urged the administration to level with Congress and the American people about the likely costs of postwar occupation. It failed to do so, perhaps, it now seems, because the administration itself harbored an unrealistic view. Has that changed? Last week, asked about the challenges of attracting more troops from countries that resent sole U.S. authority, Mr. Powell said, "I don't think there is a problem." But there is a problem. There aren't enough troops, there aren't enough police and there aren't enough contributions from countries with competent militaries. In Karbala, a city in southern Iraq where occupation has been fairly successful, 1,000 Marines are about to withdraw in favor of 455 Bulgarian troops. But the Bulgarians have no intention of assuming the civil administration functions the Marines have been carrying out, as the Wall Street Journal reported Friday, and a civilian team that was supposed to deploy there hasn't even been named. Given the stakes, and the potential for new problems, this kind of ragged, improvised, resource-poor effort is inexcusable and incomprehensible. "Opposition to the foreign occupation is becoming stronger and more violent," the International Crisis Group says in a report to be released tomorrow. The ICG, a private organization that conducts useful research in trouble spots around the world, recommends a new division of labor that would put the United Nations in charge of political transition while leaving the U.S.-led coalition in charge of security and the Iraqi Governing Council doing as much day-to-day administration as it can. Whether that precise formula is the right one can be debated. There shouldn't be any debate about the need for more intense effort and more openness to allied cooperation. The longer the administration delays, the greater the chances of failure. © 2003 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com