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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (6041)8/27/2003 12:53:42 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793624
 
Friedman want's to build "Peoria."

Starting From Scratch
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

As I was riding back from the U.N. office in Baghdad a few days ago, I came to an intersection where an Iraqi civilian in a brown robe was directing traffic. I don't know whether he was a good samaritan or simply out of his mind, but he had a big smile on his face and was waving cars here and there with the flourish of a symphony conductor. Some cars obeyed his directives, and others didn't (there are still virtually no working stoplights in Baghdad), but he was definitely better than nothing ? and he was definitely having a good time.

This man came to mind as I thought about the debate over whether we have enough troops in Iraq. The truth is, we don't even have enough people to direct traffic. This troops issue, though, is more complicated than it seems ? because it's not just about numbers. No, what we need in Iraq today is something more complex: we need the right mentality, the right Iraqi government and the right troops. Let me explain.

Let's start with mentality. We are not "rebuilding" Iraq. We are "building" a new Iraq ? from scratch. Not only has Saddam Hussein's army, party and bureaucracy collapsed, but so, too, has the internal balance between Iraqi Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, which was held together by Saddam's iron fist. Also, the reporting on Iraq under Saddam rarely conveyed how poor and rundown Saddam had made it. Iraq today is the Arab Liberia. In short, Iraq is not a vase that we broke to remove the rancid water inside, and now we just need to glue it back together. We have to build a whole new vase. We have to dig the clay, mix it, shape it, harden it and paint it. (This is going to cost so much more than President Bush has told us.)

Which leads to the second point. Yes, we need more boots on the ground, but we also need the right mix: military police, experts in civilian affairs and officers who know how to innovate. Sure, there is still a guerrilla war to be won, but the main task today for U.S. soldiers in Iraq is political: helping towns get organized, opening schools and managing the simmering tensions between, and within, different ethnic groups. If Bulgarian or Polish troops can help do that, bring 'em on. If not, stay home.

Just ask Col. Ralph Baker, commander of the Second Brigade, who oversees two Baghdad districts. He and his officers have been conducting informal elections for local councils and getting neighborhoods to nominate their own trusted police.

"First we taught them how to run a meeting," he told me in his Baghdad office. "We had to teach them how to have an agenda. So instead of having this sort of group dialogue with no form, which they were used to, you now see them in council meetings raising their hands to speak. They get five minutes per member. It's basic P.T.A. stuff. We've taught them how to motion ideas and vote on them. . . . I have them prioritizing every school in their districts ? which they want fixed first. I have to build credibility by making sure that every time they establish a priority, it gets done. That helps them establish credibility with their constituents. . . . There is a big education process going on here that is democratically founded. The faster we get Iraqis taking responsibility, the faster we get out of here."

And that leads to the third point: we need to get the 25-person Iraqi Governing Council to do three things ? now. It must name a cabinet, so Iraqis are running every ministry; announce a 300,000-person jobs program, so people see some tangible benefits delivered by their own government; and offer to immediately rehire any Iraqi Army soldier who wants to serve in the new army, as long as he was not involved in Saddam's crimes. It was a huge ? huge ? mistake to disband the Iraqi Army and put all those unemployed soldiers on the streets, without enough U.S. troops to take their place.

Together, all of this would put much more of an Iraqi face on the government and security apparatus, and begin to reclaim the mantle of Iraqi nationalism for the new government, taking it away from Saddam loyalists ? who are trying to make a comeback under the phony banner of liberating Iraq from foreign occupation.

Again, I have to repeat the dictum of Harvard's president, Larry Summers: "In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car." Most Iraqis still feel they are renting their own country ? first from Saddam and now from us. They have to be given ownership. If the Bush team is ready to put in the time, energy and money to make that happen ? great. But if not, it's going to have to make the necessary compromises to bring in the U.N. and the international community to help.



To: Sully- who wrote (6041)8/27/2003 1:30:23 AM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793624
 
What wasn't debatable were SH's ties to terrorist groups & the global war on terrorism. His financial support to known terrorist groups outside of Iraq, plus his harboring & training them inside Iraq are well documented.
Which of them attacked the US? I mean the UNITED STATES. Israel takes care of itself.

FWIW, it wasn't because there were or were not WMD's, but because SH failed to comply with UN resolutions that, among other things, included turning over all WMD's & WMD programs to inspectors immediately for their complete destruction. For 12 long years, SH absolutely failed to comply. 9/11 brought an end to this BS game of hide & seek with the UN.
Yup. Those were UN resolutions. Why is it our responsibility to enforce UN resolutions? Particularly when it appears the UN does no want them enforced? If the UN wanted them enforced, why did it not vote to authorize use of force against Iraq? Instead it kept coming out with weasel-worded resolutions under US pressure.

When did we become the world's cops? Why would we want the job? You'd have to be crazy to take it.

It was also about SH's known ties to known terrorist groups as discussed above, perhaps including Al Qaeda. The global war on terrorism was never about Al Qaeda only. That is absolutely irrefutable.
How's this sound?
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Remember those guys sniping at the British as they marched back from Lexington and Concord? They were terrorists.

Almost all independence movements at least initially involve "illegal combatants" who fit "terrorist" quite nicely in some government's eyes.

How about those guys in Afghanistan? I mean when they were on our side fighting the Soviets. We've supported terrorists too.

BTW, in February, Hans Blix ordered over 100 Al Samoud 2 missiles and machinery to produce missile motors because they exceed the 93-mile limit set by a U.N. resolutions at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. One example of numerous clear, irrefutable violations of 18 UN resolutions still occurring in 2003.
Again, why is it not the UN's responsibility to enforce UN resolutions?

Back later.



To: Sully- who wrote (6041)8/27/2003 2:33:33 AM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793624
 
Does Condi Rice count?
President
Bush's national security adviser
Wednesday said Saddam Hussein
has sheltered al Qaeda terrorists in
Baghdad and helped train some in
chemical weapons development --
information she said has been
gleaned from captives in the
ongoing war on terrorism.

But there's also this:
The accusations followed those made by
President Bush and Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, who earlier in the day
said the United States has evidence
linking Iraq and al Qaeda, but they did not
elaborate.

cnn.com

This?

White House Says it Has Evidence of
Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties

W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 26 — The
United States has long charged Saddam
Hussein with supporting terrorism, but the
Bush administration is now alleging
something new — what one official called a
"current, symbiotic relationship" between
Iraq and al Qaeda.



President Bush appeared in the Rose Garden today
with members of Congress who support him on Iraq
and accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of
essentially the same crime he charged the Taliban
with: harboring al Qaeda terrorists.

"The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to
terrorist organizations. And there are al Qaeda
terrorists inside Iraq," he said.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said "Iraq and al
Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in
Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions."

And, he added, al Qaeda is looking for specific
assistance from Baghdad.

abcnews.go.com

Either one whole lot of news sources are lying or Bush did say Iraq was aiding al Qaeda. And he also claimed Iraq had WMD.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that intelligence reports showed that Saddam had tons of banned weapons.
pbs.org

George Bush:
"Saddam Hussein went to great lengths to hide his weapons from the
world, and in the regime's final days, documents and suspected
weapons sites were looted and burned. "

channel4.com
Why is he trying to explain a statement he didn't make?

Come now, we all know these claims were made. They were key to generating the raging storm of patriotism necessary to get into that war. People aren't simply going to let a President launch a war because he's in a bad mood; they have to be given reasons to believe it is necessary. Those are their sons, daughters, husbnds, and wives out there getting killed.



To: Sully- who wrote (6041)8/27/2003 4:17:33 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793624
 
"Stand and Deliver" is coming back from Bolivia? I am surprised. On his Teachers pension, Escalante is living well down there.


ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
The candidate taps Jaime Escalante, the math teacher who inspired the film 'Stand and Deliver,' for education team.
By Joe Mathews
Times Staff Writer

August 27, 2003

Jaime Escalante, the legendary calculus teacher who turned East Los Angeles teenagers into top math students, said he has agreed to advise Arnold Schwarzenegger on education issues.

In a phone interview this week from his native Bolivia, where he retired after a career teaching math, Escalante, 72, said he had been contacted by Schwarzenegger representatives and would be flying to California next week to discuss education with the gubernatorial candidate.

"I'm going to come up and help him out," Escalante said. "Once I get there, we'll have help from different sources, especially in the Latino community. We're going to do something."

By tapping Escalante, the Schwarzenegger campaign continues a pattern of using high-profile "wise men" to speak for the candidate on various issues. Last week, Schwarzenegger held a summit of a new "economic recovery council" co-headed by former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett.

Schwarzenegger aides said they would announce a team of education advisors in early September to coincide with the back-to-school season.

Escalante is just one of many "big names" who will be part of Schwarzenegger's education team, a campaign spokesman said.

Escalante, whose success in teaching Advanced Placement calculus at Garfield High School inspired the movie "Stand and Deliver," is not new to the political world. He appeared at a Sacramento campaign forum during George W. Bush's presidential campaign and was featured in Spanish-language advertisements for Republican gubernatorial nominee Dan Lungren in 1998. He was on Gov. Pete Wilson's short list for state superintendent of public instruction.

Escalante said he planned to meet with Schwarzenegger on Sept. 8.

"We're going to have to develop the attack plan," Escalante said.

As a teacher, Escalante used unorthodox techniques to inspire students. He presented calculus almost as a team sport, and used daily tests, Saturday sessions, math tricks, warm praise and even harsh insults to inspire his charges. He did not use lesson plans or the carefully scripted curriculums that state education officials have recently favored.

Escalante and Schwarzenegger have been friends since 1991, when the actor appeared on the PBS series "Futures," which consisted of 15-minute episodes that Escalante anchored. Escalante would talk about math, and then have a celebrity, in one episode Schwarzenegger, appear to discuss the real-world applications of the lesson.

That program was produced by the Foundation for Advancements in Science and Education. The foundation, which helped support Escalante's after-school and summer instruction, has no formal ties to the Church of Scientology but was founded by church members. The foundation remains a primary contact for Escalante, and the teacher said the Schwarzenegger campaign had reached out to him through the foundation.

Escalante said he was still grateful for Schwarzenegger's help and saw his campaign work as returning the favor.

"Somehow I had to pay back what he did for me," Escalante said.

[latimes.com]
latimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (6041)8/27/2003 4:21:16 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793624
 
1. Broadband of Gold - Reason Express

The Federal Communication Commission's long-awaited decision on broadband rules is both more and less than it seems. Less because it essentially follows the same Bell-centric path the FCC has traveled for several months now in its rulings, and more because it seems to close the door forever on undoing the feds' top-down, price-setting micromanagement.

The FCC thinks the Bells must be able to recoup to the greatest extent possible any benefit extending from their deployment of fiber optics, the better to compete with cable in the neat little FCC duopoly. So the number of players will shrink. Connection re-sellers like Covad will gradually lose any discount from the Bells over the next few years. Also, while the Bells will still have to share their old copper lines with re-sellers, they won't have to let re-sellers use their new fiber optic lines.

This is not a surprise, though it could have the effect of locking consumers into a broadband future with little or no competition. As long as the FCC buys the line that competition retards innovation and risk-taking, we are doomed to get little of either.

2. Voice of America

Meanwhile, the real frontline of the telecom war has been blazing in Minnesota. There the state Public Utilities Commission voted to require the voice-over-Internet provider Vonage to comply with all the rules and regs that apply to old circuit-switched phone companies. That marks the first such ruling by a state regulatory board.

The immediate requirement is for the New Jersey-based company to obtain Minnesota telecom licenses (after paying the requisite fees) and to begin paying into the state's fund for 911 service. Vonage says it intends to fight the ruling, possibly in a courtroom. Other states and the FCC are watching the matter closely.

Just for kicks, maybe Vonage should ignore the Minnesota ruling and see what happens. Are state troopers going to break into Vonage customers' homes and confiscate their voice-over-Internet equipment? This is really the crux of the matter, as sooner or later the technology will evolve to let people bypass the old phone network completely -- and without the help of a third-party company. What would the world look like with peer-to-peer telephony?

3. Guns and Sputter

The Pentagon and the Bush administration can pretend otherwise, but when tankers from your frontline armored divisions are kicking around dusty Iraqi side streets on foot armed with captured AK-47s because they lack M-16s, something has gone very wrong. Putting enemy weapons to good use is the kind of adaptability you'd expect from American troops. But this seems to be a case of the brass committing to a mission whether or not they can field a force fit for it.

The tankers are essentially acting as dismounted infantry, and are without the firepower of their big M1A1 tanks or Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. Because they usually sit in crowded vehicles beyond real big guns, such troops are not issued M-16s and must rely on 9mm pistols when on foot. Handguns, of course, would be considerably outgunned by an Iraqi packing an AK-47 or a RPG.

So it's no surprise that some of these troops would pick up the odd AK. But there are also insinuations that M-16 ammo is sometimes scarce, something which could not be said of the millions of AK rounds floating around Iraq. Anything like a nagging ammo shortage for U.S. troops would be quite an indictment of American logistics and planning.

story.news.yahoo.com

reason.com