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: Bilow who wrote (118243)11/1/2003 2:54:19 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
This was written by The Washington Bureau Chief of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette...

commondreams.org

Bush's Half-Full Glass Looks Mighty Empty

by Ann McFeatters

Published on Friday, October 31, 2003 by the Block News Alliance

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

President Bush's adamant insistence that Iraq is halfway rebuilt instead of halfway torn apart -- a glass of water half-full -- is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's manure story.

The former president's favorite story was about the little boy who found great joy in the pile of manure on the assumption it must mean there was a pony around somewhere.

Optimism is an essential ingredient of a president's arsenal of public relations tools. Americans demand it and are resentful when it is missing in the White House.

But too much optimism without a reasonable basis for it is a bad thing. And Bush is bumping up against the limit.

As the mighty Red Cross and the United Nations prepared to scale back in Iraq because of shocking attacks by Saddam Hussein loyalists, and as the death toll of Americans and Iraqis climbed ever higher, day by painful day, Bush's remarkable assurance that great progress is being made in Baghdad has made even Republicans nervous.

His demand that Congress give him $87 billion more to spend in Iraq and Afghanistan was reluctantly granted. But with many American schools crumbling and many Americans jobless, his questionable premise that the Iraqi schools and economy are rapidly being improved by American money seems risky for a man who is facing a close re-election battle with only half the voters thinking he's doing a good job.

Since we taxpayers are borrowing money we don't have (because of Bush's tax cuts) to finance the latest $87 billion bill for Iraq, we have a duty to ask what we will have to show for it. Will it be wisely spent to make Iraq stable? Will it make Iraqis grateful for their freedom and prosperity? Will our standing in the world improve?

When Bush was asked whether American troops would be coming home in another year or would still be in Iraq in force, he denounced the question as a "trick" and refused to answer. Bush should put politics aside; Americans deserve a serious response.

Bush's personal assurance that there are sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq seems hollow -- many of those soldiers are exhausted, in danger and eager to go home. They need reinforcements and backup. Defense chief Don Rumsfeld's memo that Iraq will be a mess for a long, long time has punctured the administration's equanimity.

Worse for Bush, there is worry that the administration is not leveling with the American people. It may or may not be true, as the White House insists, that the press is too harsh in assessing Iraq's lack of security. But Bush's acceptance of daily murders as the expected cost of fighting terrorism is baffling.

Six months into its occupation of Iraq, America has not failed in Iraq _ at least, not yet. And certainly there are no tears for Saddam Hussein, wherever the evil scoundrel is hiding. But a victim of the war in Vietnam, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is right when he says that "time is not on our side" in the need to make Iraq a functioning country again.

Bush is convinced he is right that his post-war Iraq policy is working and that his critics are wrong. It was a telling moment when he said he will assure voters next year that "the world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership and America is more secure."

Bush irrevocably has staked his presidency and U.S. credibility on what happens in Iraq. As long as Iraqis are not governing themselves, as long as women are too frightened to go to the market and many children still aren't in school, as long as electricity is still an iffy proposition, as long as looting and sabotage are rampant and corruption charges raised with nearly every U.S. contract awarded in Baghdad, as long as no one is safe in Iraq, Bush cannot claim his policy is a success.

The United States is now regarded with suspicion and resentment all over the Middle East, ill will metastasizing around the region at far too rapid a rate.

The White House should say that because of the $87 billion bill in Iraq, next year's domestic tax cut must be reduced. Bush should stop making light of the chaos in Iraq and admit that progress has been slow and that it will take more soldiers to make Iraq secure. Above all, he should outline in detail plans for Iraqi self-governance _ something the administration has refused to do.

There should be immediate transparency so the whole world knows where Iraqi oil proceeds are going _ and it better not be to fill the coffers of American corporations. There should be more sensitivity to Iraqi culture, not less. Iraqis must be given more immediate responsibility for rebuilding their country.

Bush is optimistic that Iraq will never be the quagmire Vietnam was. But the example of an arrogant, corrupt Roman occupation could be more apt. So far, there's a lot of manure and no pony.
___________________________________

Ann McFeatters is Washington Bureau chief of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Toledo Blade. The Block News Alliance consists of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio.

Copyright 2003 Block News Alliance



To: Bilow who wrote (118243)11/1/2003 3:13:52 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
So? Plenty of blacks did. And there are plenty of examples of Palestinians who never said they'd drive the Israelis "into the sea".

So what? The ANC had a guy in charge who drove the policy. That guy was Nelson Mandela. The PLO also has a guy. That guy is Yasser Arafat. 'Nuff said.

If it was your neck, you wouldn't be sticking it out for Yasser Arafat to chop off either, so don't give me this nonsense.



To: Bilow who wrote (118243)11/1/2003 8:47:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Special Report : Russia's Tectonic Shift

Part I: Putin To Follow Footsteps of Peter the Great?
Oct 31, 2003
stratfor.biz

Summary

Russia is at a crossroads, with President Vladimir Putin moving to strengthen his control and take the country in a new, pro-Western direction. In this two-part special report, Stratfor will examine the shift in Russia's geopolitical course and whether Putin will accomplish his goals. Part I analyzes Putin's battle with the country's oligarchs and how this fits into his larger revival strategy.

Analysis

Several important developments have come out of Moscow in recent days: YukosSibneft executives Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev are both in jail in Moscow pending further investigation for alleged crimes. The Russian General Prosecutor's Office on Oct. 30 seized 44 percent of Yukos shares belonging to Khodorkovsky and Lebedev via their offshore firms. Alexander Voloshin, head of the presidential administration, has lost his post. And Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov has said that Russia and the United States are neither friends nor enemies, criticizing Washington for its stance on Chechen rebels.

These incidents shed light on the major behind-the-scenes preparations Russian President Vladimir Putin and his associates are carrying out in order to once again dramatically change Russia and its position in the world.

Out With the Old Guard

Putin inherited a weak Russia from President Boris Yeltsin in 2000, and the country has continued on a downward spiral. Putin did not want to preside over a slowly disintegrating, dying nation; he wanted to become the strong president of a strong country. He knew that he could not work with the old gang of politicians and oligarchs with whom Yeltsin associated and threw drinking parties, but he could not purge them quickly for fear of being isolated and crushed. On the surface, Putin appeared to be working with Yeltsin's cronies, while in reality he was gradually replacing them with loyalists who he believed shared his dreams of reviving Russia.

Many of Putin's associates, like the president himself, began their careers in the KGB, but his circle also includes a number of St. Petersburg liberals from intellectual and entrepreneurial circles. A majority of Yeltsin's associates, now known as oligarchs, came from the Soviet era and state elite; others were part of the shadow economy. However, it is not their KGB past that makes Putin's people so different from other members of the post-Soviet elite. Several high-ranking KGB generals served Yeltsin, and some of them still serve the oligarchs; former Soviet Georgia KGB head Eduard Shevardnadze is now the president of Georgia, and former USSR KGB head Heidar Aliyev just handed over his presidency in Azerbaijan to his son.

The real difference between Putin's circle and those who remain from Yeltsin's days in office is that the former are nation-minded, or state-minded, whereas the latter for the most part are not. One who is nation-minded puts his or her nation and its well being first and foremost. In the United States, many take for granted that President George W. Bush and other officials care for the country; this has not been the case in Russia, where a majority of officials have shown a regard for their own pocketbooks and the interests of oligarchs they serve -- who also are a source of money -- above all else.

Putin decided to change this, but he wisely opted for a gradual shift, which will help to protect his presidency from his powerful enemies. Until now, he has had to agree to continue with the diarchy system introduced under Yeltsin. The Russian diarchy comprised a joint rule between the formal top power (the president) and the oligarchs, whose real power over Russia rivals and sometimes exceeds that of the president.

Putin has moved in the past to revive Russia, but powerful oligarchs and government officials aligned with them did not care about the country, often plundering its riches. A conflict was inevitable. To win, Putin has chosen to temporarily ally with the Yeltsin Family -- the group of oligarchs and politicians that is collectively the most powerful force in Russia -- in order to attack other oligarchs. The first in Putin's sights are the ones he feels have plundered Russia the most seriously and betrayed its national interests.

This tactic worked fine until only recently. Putin forced Vladimir Gusinsky and several other oligarchs into exile, thus depriving them of much of their political and economic power. He even attacked and exiled Boris Berezovsky, the former kingmaker and head of the Family, the most powerful oligarchic clan. Putin used a power struggle within the Family to his advantage, and the clan's new leaders -- Roman Abramovich and Alexander Voloshin -- helped him push Berezovsky away.

Visions of a New Russia

Putin wanted a strong Russia, but the question was which path it would follow: its own, that of the West or that of the East? Putin chose to follow the West. The Russian leader admires the West; he is impressed by its undisputed leadership in the modern world. Encircled by like-minded people, Putin wants Russia to model the Western patterns of market economy, capitalism and the integration of technology, though with some adjustments to reflect Russian specifics. Changing and reviving Russia first means that the Russian economy must be strengthened.

Ideally, Putin wishes he could rely on national capital from powerful business leaders who care not only for their own enrichment but that of the nation as well. Putin believes, however, that those with enough money to make a difference in Russia are all oligarchs and ultimately do not care for their country.

This belief led to his decision to rely on Western big business to help revive Russia by making major investments and introducing new technology into the country. Western big capital, attracted to Russia as the last potentially lucrative market that is still largely untapped, sees a potential profit. Western business wants two things in Russia: major, dominating access to natural wealth, such as oil and gas; and a dominant say in the Russian economy. Seeing no alternative, Putin has decided to agree to both.

However, to balance Western influence, Putin wants the state to play a major role in the Russian economy. In his mind, many Russians who live in poverty cannot physically survive the demands of a liberal market. For Putin, the Russian revival will be secured by forming joint Russian-Western control over resources and the economy. In the meantime, Putin hopes the number of nation-minded Russian businessmen will grow.

Putin knows that letting Western businesses play a dominant role in the Russian economy, including in its strategic oil and gas fields, will multiply the country's risks of becoming too dependent upon the West. He also knows that economic dependence often involves political and security dependencies as well -- he has watched it happen to scores of other nations, including former communist and Third World states that have become very dependent upon the United States. Still, he is willing to take this risk: Putin believes that, while cooperating with foreign corporations, the Russian state will be able to regulate relations in a way that will preclude foreigners from making Russia too dependent.

Putin the Great?

Putin has a successful example to follow: the 18th century reforms of Peter the Great, whose portrait hangs in his office. Peter gave Westerners command positions in the new Russian regular armed forces and economy. Those with a hand in the economy enjoyed major concessions in several important economic fields, yet Peter managed to tread a careful path and did not subject Russia to foreign power. Also, he crushed the boyars, the oligarchs of his day. As a result, Peter revived and expanded Russia enormously, introducing it into the geopolitical dynamic of the time. Putin hopes to repeat the performance.

In order to do that, however, he must transform Russia not only internally but also in the area of foreign relations. Although he has chosen to follow a Western path, Putin still wants Russia to be a truly independent power. He sees a chance for the country to balance carefully between the United States and its geopolitical rivals, Europe and China. By welcoming U.S. investment and some degree of influence into the state's economy, Putin is trying to form closer relations with Washington, but on more equal footing than the Bush administration seems to favor. Putin wants to make sure Russia is able to act separately from Washington if it does not treat Russia as a respected ally.

Putin's vision for Russia, especially in foreign relations, has evolved somewhat since 2000. The plan outlined above is where he stands now. His agenda is not cut in stone, and some changes are possible, but a strategic course is clear: reaching toward a strong, Westernized Russia with an independent policy.

A Major Shift: Attacking the Oligarchs as a Class

Having placed like-minded people in strategic positions, Putin had decided by July 2003 that the time had come to change the whole model on which Russia operates: He has decided to put an end to sharing power with oligarchs and make himself the supreme leader of the country.

Consistent with his usual tactics of taking out enemies one by one, Putin chose a single oligarch to target: the richest and single most powerful man in Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Stratfor's sources in the presidential administration say that Putin's targeting of Khodorkovsky did not alarm the Family clan at first; some members were even glad to see the Yukos head pursued, likely because of individual business conflicts with him. Such considerations likely prompted initial support from presidential administration head Alexander Voloshin, who also a top member of the Family, for the move -- at least provided that Putin would not go so far as to sanction Khodorkovsky's arrest but rather would seek a compromise.

Roman Abramovich apparently was the only Family member who realized that the attack on Khodorkovsky was a prelude to an attack on oligarchs in general as a ruling class. The tycoon quickly sold all his major assets in Russia and launched an attempt, thus far successful, to insert himself into the Western business elite by paying hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire lucrative Western sports clubs.

Putin initially hoped that Khodorkovsky would surrender and abandon his own presidential ambitions or other attempts to compete for political power. Emboldened by powerful support at home and abroad, however, Khodorkovsky overestimated his abilities and intensified his campaign against Putin, financing opposition candidates for forthcoming Duma elections and promoting anti-Putin publications in major U.S. newspapers -- including The Wall Street Journal and New York Times -- in which Putin was called the "bandit from the Kremlin," as various Stratfor sources in the Russian elite have confirmed.

When it became obvious that Khodorkovsky was not going to back down easily, it became equally obvious that the balance of power in Russia was hanging on the ropes: Putin either would respond strongly or he would have to tacitly admit that power in Russia still belonged to the oligarchs.

Putin opted for attack. He must have known that making a decisive move like sanctioning and detaining Khodorkovsky would anger the Family, whose members initially thought that the president would not dare go so far. They, first and foremost Voloshin, made a mistake: Putin pressed forward with Khodorkovsky's arrest and publicly stated he would not allow Russian big business or foreign friends to interfere with the prosecution of Khodorkovsky's case. In fact, sources close to Putin in the Russian Security Council say that the president knew his move would anger the Family and was pleased to be proven right.

Taking on the Yeltsin Family

Putin now sees the balance of power between himself and the Yeltsin Family as tilted in his favor. The reason for his confidence is that -- thanks to his behind-the-scenes efforts and his public attack against Khodorkovsky -- the oligarchic community is politically split and no longer represents a united front against the president. Another factor that will prevent many oligarchs from standing up to Putin is his policy of dividing oligarchs into "good" and "bad" camps, according to his agenda. The good ones are those who will not mess with Putin's supremacy in politics and will agree to merge with Western corporations as junior partners, in keeping with Putin's plan for the Russian economy.

These oligarchs will be allowed to stay in Russia and to profit from their businesses, but they no longer will be dominant players in the country or its economy. Alfa Group chief Mikhail Friedman, who recently merged his TNK oil company with BP at Putin's advice, is the most prominent among them.

Even more significantly for Putin, the Family clan is also split internally. Abramovich realized Putin's intentions early on and is now enjoying a luxurious life abroad -- not as an exile but as a "good oligarch." The new leader of the clan, Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum kingpin, has agreed to play by Putin's rules and not dispute his political authority, so the clan can no longer count on him to put up a fight against Putin's anti-oligarch campaign.

That leaves the Family with only one champion: Voloshin, who until recently was the head of Putin's administration. Stratfor sources in the administration have confirmed the rumor within the Russian media that, seeking to halt Putin's war against the oligarchs, Voloshin rushed to the president on Oct. 26 - a day after Khodorkovsky's arrest -- threatening to resign if Putin did not back down. Putin said that he would respect the resignation request but pressured Voloshin, making him wait several days before his resignation would be announced, sources say.

Voloshin chose a prime moment to threaten resignation: If he resigned immediately, it would be linked in the public's mind to Khodorkovsky's arrest and thus would increase the chances that Putin's foes in and outside of Russia would accuse him of destabilizing the country.

Putin outmaneuvered Voloshin, however, by delaying the public announcement until Oct. 30. The event is still tied directly to the Khodorkovsky case in the public mind; that is why Putin urgently summoned top foreign investors to the Kremlin and personally assured them that they will only benefit from the current developments, since he is clearing the way for them to work freely in the Russian market without interference from the oligarchs, according to Kremlin sources who attended the meeting.

For Putin, an even bigger success than the defeat of Khodorkovsky was his replacement of Voloshin with Dmitry Medvedev, one of his associates from liberal St. Petersburg circles. The next likely target is Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, another leader of the Family clan.

Taking Voloshin out of politics means not only that Putin has openly taken on the most powerful oligarchic clan, but also that the clan most likely will be defeated. Again, Putin will not deprive clan members of their property, but rather will push them into a subordinate role in Russia both politically and economically.

Copyright 2003 Strategic Forecasting LLC. All rights reserved.



To: Bilow who wrote (118243)11/2/2003 3:16:48 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Casualties mount, and doubts grow

boston.com

Deadly Iraqi aftermath tests families, a nation
By Yvonne Abraham
Boston Globe Staff
11/2/2003

COLORADO SPRINGS -- One man came from a tidy new subdivision by his Army base, the blue Rockies close and clear, as if painted on the sky. He was 29 and big, a cowboy who rode bulls before he became a father of three, though he lied about it to keep his wife from worrying. Military for life, he arrived in Iraq armed with certainties: He was meant for this war. The other man came from a railroad town on the Ohio River, a place where the grit from decades of hauling steel and freight coats the streets and lines the faces of men who fill windowless bars with smoke and worry. He was 21, tall and thin, always pulling things apart: remote controls, engines, his experiences. In Iraq, he counted the days, eager to shuck his uniform.

As different as the towns they came from, Staff Sergeant William Latham, of Colorado Springs and Private First Class Tim R. Brown Jr., of Conway, Pa., saluted the same flag and answered to the same commander in chief. And well after an official end was declared to major hostilities there, Iraq claimed both their lives. Latham died on June 18 after being hit by shrapnel in a weapons raid in Ramadi. Brown died on Aug. 12 when a roadside explosive struck his Humvee in Taji.

The two men left behind funeral flags tightly folded into plump triangles, snapshots of mugging comrades, women who loved them. They also left an unease which public opinion polls say is growing nationally, as the drip-drip of casualties continues six months after many soldiers' families expected them home.

The places that mourn Latham and Brown tell the story of the nation's shifting attitudes, the soldiers' deaths crystallizing misgivings about the war, even in communities where doubt was once scarce. In Colorado Springs and Conway, the war in Iraq found plenty of support and still does. Patriotism, loyalty to the troops, and hatred of Saddam Hussein run deep across political affiliations in those two key electoral states.

But so does discomfort with American troops' continued presence in Iraq. The soldiers lost and the money poured into Iraq since President Bush marked the official end of the war on May 1 have turned some against the occupation, and against the president himself, praised in both places for his conduct of the war, but criticized for his handling of its aftermath.

For the families that have lost loved ones in Iraq, the misgivings are more than questions of politics and public opinion.

`He had so much love' As a child, Tim R. Brown Jr. was "happy and withdrawn," said his stepmother, Pam Brown Lois, who had raised him since he was 7. But he was open, too, the kind of child who collected surrogate parents.

"He was a wonderful person. He had so much love and so much more to give," said Lois, 40, a blonde who wears one of the dog tags Brown gave her before he was deployed. Her modest house in Baden, just south of Conway, is crammed with pictures of her boy: the pudgy preteen, the handsome prom date, the athletic soldier wearing black sunglasses in the desert.

Brown had joined the Army at 18, Lois said, because he needed direction. He wanted to travel and to attend college, and he knew the Army would lead him to both. But he sometimes struggled with his choice. Home on leave in the summer of 2002, he considered not returning to his unit, until Lois helped persuade him to return. The memory pains her now.

He was sent to Iraq in April.

"He loved being there, you know?" said Lois, tears sliding down her cheeks. "He hated what we were doing, the killing, the destroying. But he knew we were over there to give them freedom."

When his term was to be up on Feb. 10, his 22d birthday, Brown wanted to leave the service, but told Lois he would return to Iraq to rebuild what he had helped destroy.

But on Aug. 13, an Army officer in a dress uniform tapped Lois on the shoulder as she was mowing her lawn. She knew immediately, dropping to the ground and wailing, "No, no, no, no, no," begging him not to say what she somehow had felt in her spine hours before.

Her stepson's death and those of the soldiers lost since have ruptured Lois's faith in their cause.

"On the terms that the president told us we were going to war, I backed it," she said. "But we had more of our soldiers killed since this war has been over [than before], and there were no weapons of mass destruction, and all these things we were told we were going to war for. For what? I don't understand why we continue to let our men and women be killed over there."

`I'm just like every other wife' Curled up in an armchair in her Colorado living room, a portrait of her husband above her, Melissa Latham said she sometimes understands how people could feel that way. She knows there are thousands of other women whose husbands are based at Fort Carson -- as was her husband, William -- who see no point in soldiers continuing to risk ambushes and suicide attacks in Iraq. But Latham, 33, a former soldier herself, will not budge on the war.

"The night that my husband left, he sat down with the kids and told them that he had to go get a bad man out of power, so the children would be able to play in the street," she recalled. "And you know, it's the truth. . . . I think we're doing a lot of good; we just don't see it right now."

The shrapnel that pierced Latham's skull in mid-May was no bigger than the tip of Melissa's little finger. By the time his wife arrived at his bedside at a military hospital in Germany, William Latham was semiconscious, but he was still her husband, the man she married on her lunch break at a Clarksville, Tenn., courthouse in 1993, just five weeks after they met. He even flipped off his nurse, appalling and delighting his wife. Only when she saw the fluid in the tube from his head run red did Melissa concede she could lose him.

"Not a day went by that we didn't tell each other we loved each other," she said, crying, shifting between past and present tenses. "He's my best friend. I complain to him about everything. I'm just like every other wife."

Her children are taking it hard, she said, especially Jeremy, her youngest, who is 6. It is for her children and other soldiers' children that she worries when she hears talk of mistakes and quagmires.

"Our kids ask us, `Mom, if it's wrong, why are our daddies still over there?' " she said. "And we don't have an answer for it, and it makes it hard for us."

Fort Carson has sent more than 13,000 soldiers to Iraq and has lost 21 of them to enemy fire and accidents thus far. More than 100 soldiers from the base have returned home with serious injuries.

On Colorado Springs's Tejon Street, a wide, handsome strip of sidewalk bistros, expensive gift shops, and two Starbucks stores a few blocks apart, people understand military life. And though they have seen more casualties there than in most of the country, they say combat deaths are a fact of life, a risk for which soldiers sign up.

"This is part of the military," said Bill Studt, 59, a candy salesman. "Certainly, the losses are unfortunate. The price we're paying is a difficult one to accept, but ultimately, the price could be much more somewhere down the road."

Some of the merchants and shoppers on Tejon said the media have focused too closely on the Iraq casualties and have failed to report enough stories about all of the successes of the United States and its allies in Iraq. In early October, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld stood before thousands of soldiers at Fort Carson to thank them for their sacrifices, and to make that very argument. Iraq has yielded "thousands of incredible projects and humanitarian stories, but no one is telling those stories," he said. At the Wal-Mart Supercenter in nearby Fountain, some of the sales assistants with husbands in Iraq feel that not enough attention has been paid to the casualties lately. Many partners of Fort Carson soldiers are on edge, frustrated by slow mail and delayed leaves. They want their husbands and wives home. But few of the soldiers' wives, who roll their eyes when asked their opinion on the war, will say how they feel about the conflict now.

"Being a military wife, there are certain things I have to keep personal," said Mary McCambridge, whose husband Robert left for Iraq on April 6. "I 100 percent support my husband in what he's doing, but I don't understand the reasoning behind it. There's been a lot of uncalled-for deaths."

Even in a heavily Republican, military town like Colorado Springs, cracks have opened between some voters and their president.

"The campaign was brilliant, but the aftermath is a mess," said Robert Menslage, 69, a retired electrician and Air Force veteran who voted for Bush in 2000. Asked if he would vote for him next year, Menslage said, "Hell, no!"

Support tempered by grief Six states away, in Conway, Pa., Bush was never as popular as he has been in Colorado Springs. But workers in this dense, Democratic town, where just about everybody knew Tim R. Brown Jr., enthusiastically backed the war. Many of the men and women in western Pennsylvania, as in central Colorado, believe that Hussein was directly connected to the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Brown helped out sometimes at D.E. Monaci and Sons, the stone supplier where a billboard reads: "Dreams Come True: Granite Countertops." There, they still support the military effort in Iraq and Bush, even though they lost the man who manager Tempest Monaci said was "like the light of the day."

"What Bush is doing, I'm all for it," said Tempest's mother, Elizabeth Monaci, 67. "Of course, we're going to lose kids. I lost my brother -- he was 19 -- in the German war. That's all part of saving us. We all miss Tim and love him. He gave up his life for us, so we can be free."

But for others in Conway, Brown's death made the distant datelines and dust-filled television images suddenly too real. At Haglan's Cafe, a smoky bar where the Thursday spaghetti special costs $1.95 (each meatball is 50 cents extra), Jessica Haglan, 31, blamed the president not just for the protracted aftermath in Iraq, but for the so-called war on terror itself.

"[After Tim's death], I started thinking about it," said Haglan, who was tending the bar recently. "I don't think they should even be there. If Bush hadn't been president, none of [the terrorist attacks] would have happened. They don't like him."

Patriotism runs through this population of 2,200 as dependably as the trains that hurtle over the tracks in its rail yard. Many here are descended from Czechoslovakian and other Eastern European immigrants, and plenty of them are veterans.

But some of the veterans in Conway believe that the troops are being let down by politicians who are running the occupation too gingerly. If soldiers were given the freedom to fight the enemy more aggressively in Iraq, there would be fewer casualties, they say.

"It's just like Vietnam," said J. C. Ross, 62, a retired freight conductor and Vietnam veteran who is adamant that the president is ultimately responsible for the war's protracted aftermath. "He is the main man. If you remember correctly, Bush says it's all over. Now, who knows? And it's getting uglier by the day."

Economic anxiety is as common in Conway as the flags that sprout from its brick porches and front gardens: Many of its residents have seen steel mills close and jobs lost. The Conway yard was recently taken over by Norfolk Southern, and the men who park themselves daily on bar stools at Haglan's and the Conway Croatian Club fear layoffs and worse times are coming. From where they sit, American taxpayers can ill afford to pay the $87 billion tab for reconstructing an oil-rich country like Iraq.

"I don't know why we can't take care of our own problems here, instead of blowing that place up and rebuilding it," said Roger McKee, whose family was close to Brown.

At first, the 48-year-old, who services locomotives, was all for the war. "Bush made it sound good, put it that way," McKee said. "Saddam Hussein was going to bring a lot of terror to the US -- bin Laden, and the works. Now it seems like there's a lot of senseless American deaths. It seems like it's never going to end."

Lives changed forever Melissa Latham would give anything to be worrying about when hostilities in Iraq will end. She would swap places in a minute with her girlfriends who have husbands still there, to be tensing up when the telephone rings, holding her breath until the gray car used for official Army business passes by her place.

Instead, she is trying to hold herself and her family together without William. She does not have it in her to cook much any more, so the family often slides into a booth at Popeyes for chicken and biscuits, as they did on a recent Tuesday afternoon.

There, Melissa listened intently as her children Patricia, 10, and Travis, 9, excitedly discussed George Washington's wooden teeth, trying to outdo each other for her. She threatened to take points away when they misbehaved.

She called Jeremy "little man," and he scolded her: "Only daddy calls me little man!" And a few times, Melissa Latham seemed to disappear, absently stirring the gravy around and around in her mashed potatoes, staring out the window with sad eyes, her shoulders drooping.

The family marked what would have been William Latham's 30th birthday in July, with cake and balloons at his Denver graveside. A family trip to Walt Disney World and its merciful distractions will replace Christmas.

Aug. 20 marked 10 years since the Lathams' courthouse wedding. Standing alone in her front yard, Melissa sent two "Happy Anniversary" balloons into the sky.

Yvonne Abraham can be reached at abraham@globe.com.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.