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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abuelita who wrote (39749)	3/17/2004 9:28:32 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Yup. Heartbreaking. Fuzzy

To: abuelita who wrote (39749)	3/17/2004 9:51:59 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Message 19928360

To: abuelita who wrote (39749)	3/17/2004 10:21:44 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

From "your" Globe and Mail. Spain: an example for us all By SALIM LONE Supporters of the U.S. war on Iraq are portraying Spain's expected withdrawal of troops as a major victory for terrorists. Indeed, even those who don't support the Iraq war worry that Spain's action will embolden terrorists to try intimidating other nations. The reality is the opposite: It is the Iraq war itself that has for a year provided terrorists with a great boost. Spain's exit has nothing to do with lack of commitment to fight terror: rather, it was at the heart of the Socialists' electoral platform, and was in tune with the 90 per cent of Spaniards who opposed the war. The incoming prime minister's policy — making fighting terrorism his first priority without being embroiled in Iraq, and pushing for UN leadership for the Iraqi transition — is exactly what's needed to make the world safer. A similar commitment from other countries that are part of the occupation (and most of all from the United States) to hand over Iraq to an international mission would provide a boon to the international struggle against terrorism. That struggle's legitimacy has for some time been severely compromised by the Iraq war, and has provoked strong anti-American passions among the world's Muslims, without whose active support the anti-terror campaign cannot succeed. Even Muslims hostile to the United States recoiled with horror at the 9/11 attacks. But sympathy dried up rapidly as the United States reacted unilaterally and militarily without making any effort to address the causes that underlie terrorism. The attack on Iraq in the name of fighting terrorism cemented the view that the international anti-terrorist campaign was a cover for the United States' desire to crush Islam and weaken Muslim countries. It gave a huge recruitment boost to terrorist organizations and brought an unprecedented level of insecurity to virtually every region in the world. U.S. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, bluntly accused the Bush administration two weeks ago of "creating terrorists where there were none." The occupation is a year old this week, and despite the deployment of overwhelming force, it has failed to achieve any major U.S. goals beyond those won by force of arms. Just about every other breakthrough has turned out to be pyrrhic, whether it be the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killing of his sons, entrusting security to new Iraqi forces — or the hailing by President George W. Bush and Paul Bremer, the U.S. proconsul, of the March 1 agreement on the interim constitution as some sort of enduring political success in building Iraqi democracy. Right after the signing ceremony, 12 of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council's 13 Shia members disowned key parts of the interim constitution they'd just signed, and pledged to revise them. What President Bush termed a "historic milestone in the Iraqi people's long journey from tyranny and violence to liberty and peace," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi al-Modaresi condemned as "a time bomb," which if implemented, would "spark a civil war." Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the de facto Iraqi leader who has turned out to be Mr. Bremer's great nemesis, was the first to reveal the anti-democratic ploy in the interim constitution: a central clause ensured that key elements of the interim constitution written by the council (whose support within Iraq is still minimal) would be hard to undo, because one of its clauses prevents the permanent constitution (to be written by elected Iraqis) from becoming law even if just three of the country's 18 governorates vote against it by a two-thirds margin. No wonder the United States fought so fiercely against Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani's demand for a democratically elected government when "sovereignty" returns to Iraq on June 30: There's a lot of work that the appointed Iraqis still need to do. The exquisite irony of an Iraqi Grand Ayatollah showing a sustained commitment to elections and democratic constitution-making, while the American who rules Iraq (in the name of freedom) manoeuvres to keep U.S.-appointed officials in power for almost another year, captures the occupation's deep contradictions. The latest crisis broke out on March 2, with the heinous killing of more than 200 Shiites during their Ashura celebrations. Despite fears of civil war, Iraqis showed remarkable political maturity in the face of this provocation. But the killings highlighted the Americans' central failure — their inability to deal effectively with the one issue that matters most to Iraqis: rampant insecurity. Lakhdar Brahimi, the renowned diplomatic troubleshooter the United States would like to be the next UN representative in Iraq, emphasized this failure after visiting Baghdad last month. "Insecurity continues to threaten all Iraqis," he said — as do massive unemployment, rising disillusionment and anger, and a political process limited to very few actors of "varying credibility." He also warned that "sectarianism is becoming entrenched and intercommunal politics more polarized." The Ashura bombings were committed by unredeemable terrorists. And yet U.S. policies have exacerbated the country's sectarian tendencies. The Americans chose, for example, to organize Iraq's political life around explicit religious, ethnic and tribal representation in the Governing Council. The war and occupation of Iraq — based on what Spain's incoming prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero called "lies" — continue to damage global security and U.S. interests worldwide. Many Muslim countries allied to the U.S. have suffered devastating terror attacks. And even under optimistic scenarios, Iraq is likely to end up with a semi-clerical regime closely allied to Iran — not exactly what Washington had planned. With the Socialist victory in Spain, the case for the United States changing course has become even more overwhelming. Iraq is on the edge of knife. With the country now moving to an intensely political phase that will determine the future shape of power in Iraq, and the United States even less equipped to manage politics than it has managed security, a calamitous future could still be this war's legacy. There were hopes that Americans would reverse their sidelining of the UN when they turned to Secretary-General Kofi Annan to resolve Mr. Bremer's dispute with Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani on elections. Those hopes were dashed. Could developments in Spain prompt the Bush administration to rethink how it needs to win more international support? There's not much time left for the United States to modify its overly ambitious goals in Iraq — and to seek help from those much better equipped to manage such crises. globeandmail.com lurqer