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: Bilow who wrote (128442)	4/4/2004 11:42:26 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Mired in a Mirage ___________________ By MAUREEN DOWD OP-ED COLUMNIST THE NEW YORK TIMES April 4, 2004 nytimes.com WASHINGTON - All White Houses spin and lots of presidents stray into fiction. Johnson on Vietnam. Nixon on Watergate. Bill Clinton trying to squeeze through silly semantic loopholes on his sex life. And when Ronald Reagan made statements that turned black into white — trees caused pollution or welfare queens drove Caddys — his aides said that authenticity was irrelevant because the Gipper was sharing "parables" or "notions," reflecting larger truths as he saw them. By holding back documents, officials, information, images and the sight of returning military coffins, by twisting and exaggerating facts to fit story lines, by demonizing anyone who disagrees with its version of reality, this administration strives to create an optical delusion. There was always something of the boy in the bubble about George W. Bush, cosseted from the vicissitudes of life, from Vietnam to business failure, by his famous name. In the front yard of the Kennebunkport estate, he blithely announced his run for president knowing virtually nothing about foreign affairs, confident that Poppy would surround him with the protective flank of his own Desert Storm war council. But now Mr. Bush is trying to pull America and Iraq into his bubble. In briefings delivered in the bubble of their own security bunkers, Paul Bremer and military officials continue to insist that democracy and stability are taking root in Iraq. The occupation administrator travels Iraq surrounded by armed guards while attacks get scarier, culminating in last week's bestial block party in Falluja. American commanders in Iraq have claimed the violence is primarily the work of outsiders, Islamic terrorists with at least loose links to Al Qaeda. They said, as The Times's John Burns wrote, that "the worst of the `Saddamist' insurgency was over, its power blunted by a wide American offensive that followed the former dictator's capture." The administration does not want to admit the extent of anti-American hatred among Iraqis. And even if some of the perpetrators are outsiders, they could never succeed without the active help of Iraqis. Just as they once conjured a mirage of a Saddam sharing lethal weapons with Osama, now the president and vice president make the disingenuous claim that Al Qaeda is on the run and that many of its capos are behind bars. Meanwhile, counterterrorism experts say terrorism has become hydra-headed, and one told Newsweek that the spawned heads have perpetrated more major terror attacks in the 30 months since 9/11 than in the 30 months before. Experts agree that the nature of the threat has shifted, with more than a dozen regional militant Islamic groups reflecting growing strength. Senator Bob Graham compared the new, decentralized Al Qaeda to a blob of mercury that "you slam your fist into and it suddenly bursts into a hundred small pieces." Mr. Bush also likes to brag that the Taliban is no longer in power. But the Taliban roots are deep. At least a third of Afghanistan is still so dicey that voters there cannot be registered, and the Kabul government has postponed June elections. The president did not want to mar the gay mood of his fund-raiser here Wednesday night, so he did not mention the ghoulish slam dance in Falluja. As The Times's David Sanger wrote, "In the Bush campaign, casualties are something to be alluded to obliquely, if at all." In the Bush alternative universe of eternal sunshine, where the environment is not toxic and Medicare is not a budget buster, body bags and funerals just muddy the picture. Bush strategists say that good or bad Iraq news is still good for Mr. Bush; they think scenes of desecration will simply remind voters of his steely presidential resolve. The Bushies are busy putting a retroactive glow on their terrorism efforts, asserting that their plan was more muscular and "comprehensive" than Mr. Clinton's. To support that Panglossian view, they held back a load of Clinton documents on terrorism from the 9/11 commission. If we can't take a cold, hard look at reality, how can we protect ourselves from terrorists? And how can we rescue Iraq from chaos? Now we're told the military is preparing an "overwhelming" retaliation to the carnage in Falluja. You can hear the clammy blast from the past: We're going to destroy that village to save it. E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com

To: Bilow who wrote (128442)	4/5/2004 12:20:35 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My approach really isn't "nothing". My approach is to pull back, and let our business interests take care of business. Please amplify on this... When tempers calm, the Iraqis will see us as a useful tool to balance against other foreign interests and the situation will improve. Which Iraqis? The Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds? All have their own agenda and are only willing to compromise under the umbrella of outside arbitration and negotiation. Are you proposing a lazzez-faire approach? Is that going to resolve the factional distrust and suspicions? The problem with your approach is that it isn't working. It isn't? I think the jury is definitely still out on that one... Especially since we're barely 12 months into the effort. But it can definitely be said that your approach of leaving it up to "business" has miserably failed over the past decade or two, with regard to the entire region. The situation has gone from some measure of stability to outright hostility, fed by Islamic Militancy and economic and political stagnation. What makes you think the approach would be any more successful in Iraq without the existence of some physical pressure to force the parties to compromise? So far, Al-Sistani has refused to even meet with coalition authorities. But his proxies do meet and participate. He apparently considers himself a religious leader, not a political one. And that's probably for the best. That's one of the major problems in the mid-east, the mixing of politics and religion. But he's obviously going to have his own agenda that he will want advanced. That's right, try to shoot the messenger. Fat chance. This war was your idea, not mine. Just like 9/11 is your fault, not mine. Ignore the problem, hope "business interests" will sort it all out, and never question how or why individuals like Bin Laden suddenly get the urge to destroy the US... But what do you do when other nations, and their business interests, decide to ratchet up the competion an extra step? After all, we all know that it was France and Russia's business interests that were the primary reason the UN sanctions were not working.. Was that your idea? You're like the officer who orders his men to make an impossible attack, and then, when it fails, he blames the survivors who told him that it couldn't be done. And you're like an officer who fights every one of his battles out in his mind dozens of times, each time contemplating nothing but defeat, so he hopes for a miracle from god (business interests?) to fight his battle for him.. But you forget that business (economics) is war too... In fact, war is often nothing more than economics by other means. We're not the only ones who have "business interests" in the region. And those competing business interests (such as the French and Russian ones) have vested interests in seeing our goals defeated, and their own advanced, even if via totalitarian regimes. And they are often far fewer scruples, especially when they are pretty certain they can rely upon the Americans to bail them out when their proxies get out of hand (as Saddam did in Kuwait back in 1990). So I await with bated breath, you explanation as to how "business" is going to solve this problem without another 9/11 event (or worse) occuring in this country. Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (128442)	4/5/2004 8:41:46 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

A Vietnam-era lesson in telling the truth __________________ Editorial By Pete McCloskey Monday, April 5, 2004 The San Francisco Chronicle URL: sfgate.com The recent comments of Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski reflect great courage on her part and give faith to the rest of us that there are still those in public service dedicated to learning and disclosing the truth. In 2002, after more than 19 years of service, Kwiatkowski was looking forward to retirement and a well-earned pension. She was also an idealist who believed the government should tell the American people the truth. There have always been idealists in government service who rebel when their superiors ask them to participate in the deception of the public. Paul O'Neill, Joe Wilson and Anthony Zinni are cases in point; there will likely be many more in the days ahead. Kwiatkowski rebelled when she realized that her office in the Pentagon, assigned to the analysis of intelligence on the Mideast and North Africa, was being turned into an assembly line of public-relations papers to support the forthcoming invasion of Iraq. Her work was being merged into that of the Pentagon's new "Office of Special Plans," a group of specialists charged with offering up talking papers to support the invasion of Iraq, not so much for the eradication of any threat to the United States, but to remove Saddam Hussein and to establish military bases in Iraq that would be free of the restrictions imposed on bases in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf countries. The young lieutenant colonel was appalled when she heard dedicated staff members refer to Secretary of State Colin Powell and Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni as "traitors" for putting roadblocks in the way of their planned invasion of Iraq. She finally resigned her commission in order to speak out. Her courage brought to mind a long-forgotten experience 33 years ago with a similar young Air Force lieutenant colonel. In the spring of 1971, like Kwiatkowski, he had served more than 19 years in the Air Force. He had just returned from leading a fighter-bomber squadron in Vietnam to serve out the remainder of his time at a Nebraska base. I, too, had just returned that March from a 12-day visit to Vietnam and Laos. The Nixon administration was then denying reports of the bombing of Laos and Cambodia. On Dec. 31, 1970, Congress had just repealed the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which had authorized President Johnson to "meet aggression with aggression in Southeast Asia," essentially against the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in Vietnam. We had started to remove our troops from Vietnam. There was no longer even a semblance of legal justification to bomb in Laos or Cambodia. While in Vietnam and Laos during March 1971, I had taken sworn affidavits from a number of pilots who stated they had been bombing targets in Laos and Cambodia, many with the coordinates of specific rural villages, some being in Laos' famous Plain of Jars, a considerable distance from the Ho Chi Minh Trail, which had once been a legitimate bombing target. Upon returning home, I testified before two Senate committees. I was interviewed on various television shows, including that of William Buckley. I related the stories of the bombings of which I had been told, both by Air Force pilots and by Laotian refugees from the Plain of Jars. My statements were immediately denied by various high-ranking administration spokesmen, who stated unequivocally that the United States was not bombing in Laos. The controversy received national coverage. One afternoon, an Air Force lieutenant colonel called from Nebraska. Our conversation was brief and went something like this: "Sir, I am Lieutenant Colonel 'X' and I have just returned from commanding a fighter-bomber wing in Vietnam. You are right, sir. We are bombing in Laos and the Pentagon is lying when they say we are not. I will be glad to give you an affidavit of my own bombing sorties." I took his name and number and thanked him. A few minutes later, a woman called: "Congressman, I am Mrs. 'X.' My husband has served 19 1/2 years in the Air Force and is about to retire. Please don't use his affidavit. It will cost us his pension." I thanked her and told her I had plenty of similar affidavits from lieutenants and captains and wouldn't use or identify her husband. Minutes later, Lt. Col. "X" was on the phone again. "Sir, I appreciate what you told my wife, but please disregard her request. I took an oath to tell the truth when I enlisted nearly 20 years ago and I feel I owe the country a duty to tell the truth." I thanked him again. That same afternoon, I was visited by a former Marine officer and close friend from Stanford, Dick Borda, then serving as assistant secretary of the Air Force. Borda was a solid Nixon supporter. We had served together on a number of Marine Corps training exercises in the 1950s and he knew me to be honest if misguided. He asked me how I could be making these false accusations about U.S. bombing in Laos when he was receiving daily briefings at the Pentagon that we were not. I brought out the affidavits from the Air Force pilots in Vietnam and Laos. Borda was visibly shocked. He returned to the Pentagon, but later called and asked if I would meet him that night at a residential address in Alexandria, Va., and would I please bring my affidavits. I arrived at the appointed hour and was introduced to a tall and distinguished gentleman identified as Secretary of the Air Force Robert C. Seamans Jr. When I showed the secretary the affidavits, he also reflected shock. A few days later, it was announced that we were indeed bombing in Laos, but that for security reasons, this knowledge had been withheld from the civilian secretaries of the Air Force, Navy and Army. At the direct order from the White House to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, false coordinates were reported to the secretaries for the daily and nightly bombing runs over Laos and Cambodia. The justification, then as now, was that national security required that the bombing raids not be disclosed to the American people. One has to thank God for the idealism of young people. They may yet educate the American people, as Kwiatowski and the members of the Sept. 11 commission are now doing in their probe for the truth of our intelligence failures prior to the terrorist attacks. Lincoln was right. All of the people can be fooled some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Ultimately, the truth will out. ________________________________ Pete McCloskey was a Republican congressman representing the Peninsula from 1967 to 1982. He lost to Pete Wilson in the U.S. Senate primary in 1982 and is now a country lawyer and farmer in Rumsey (Yolo County).

To: Bilow who wrote (128442)	4/6/2004 12:18:04 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Long Ignominious Slide to Defeat in Iraq _____________ By Ivan Eland The worst nightmare for the American occupation has occurred. Portions of the Iraqi Shiite majority have risen in revolt. Full-scale civil war may be just around the corner. The armed uprising by Shiite militias in four Iraqi cities, including the Baghdad metropolitan area, was well coordinated and deadly. The rebellion cost the lives of eight American soldiers and countless Iraqis. The revolt consisted of followers of militant cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who has militias numbering in the tens of thousands across Iraq, Although the American occupation had forbidden the bearing of arms, the militants brandished many weapons, including rocket propelled grenade launchers. They took over the streets, occupied police stations and attacked American forces. Ironically, one of the motivating forces behind the bloodshed was censorship by the United States, a country that prides itself on the freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Last week, U.S. occupation authorities closed down Al Hawza, Sadr’s newspaper, charging that it had incited violence in Iraq. Yet the paper did not advocate attacks on Americans. As the U.S. authorities put it, the paper was guilty of “false reporting.” That type of justification is eerily reminiscent of rhetoric from the Communist Soviet Union. The closing of Al Hawza, symbolic for many Shittes, ignited street protests that mushroomed and became more volatile by the day, culminating in the uprising. Sadr, always hostile to the U.S. occupation, apparently now believes that peaceful Shiite demonstrations should be replaced by armed insurrection. He urged his followers on, stating that, “there is no use for demonstrations, as your enemy loves to terrify and suppress opinions, and despises people. Terrorize your enemy, as we cannot remain silent over his violations.” If the rebellion spreads within the Shiite population, which such events seem to portend, even senior U.S. military commanders admit privately that the chances dwindle drastically of keeping Iraq this side of the abyss. The U.S. civilian authorities in Iraq tried to put a brave face on the mayhem by opining that the rebellion made up only a small portion of the Iraqi population. But that proportion could grow over time in both Shiite and Sunni areas as the U.S. retaliates muscularly for the attacks by Shiite militiamen and the burning, dragging and hanging of corpses of already dead U.S. armed mercenaries by the Sunnis in Faluja. Such precipitous U.S. actions may very well incite a escalating cycle of violence—attack and counterattack—that could turn the bulk of the Iraqi population, both Shiite and Sunni, against the U.S. occupation. Yet even if the “silent majority” of Iraqis remain supportive of U.S. forces, as the civilian occupation authorities claim, it may not be enough to save the American war effort in Iraq. The guerrillas know that the key to winning any guerrilla warfare is to undermine support for the war in the stronger party’s homeland. In the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, with significant support among the peoples of South Vietnam, were able to prolong the war long enough to exhaust the American public at home and prompt an eventual U.S. withdrawal. Similarly, in the American Revolution, the revolutionaries were able to eventually exhaust the British with the support of only one-third of the colonists. Thus, if even a minority of the occupied country’s population is actively hostile to the outside power, a foreign occupation can fail. If the majority supporting the outside power believes that the armed minority will be around a lot longer than the occupiers—not an illogical belief given the short attention span of past U.S. nation-building—its support, out of self-preservation, may be very lukewarm or tepid. So the silent majority may be silent indeed. Another major problem confronting the U.S. occupation, which was illuminated by the Shiite uprising, is the unreliability of the U.S.-trained Iraqi police and civil defense forces. Those forces fled at the sight of the heavily armed Shiite militias, allowing them to take over checkpoints and police stations. The idea that security in Iraq can be turned over to such forces is no more than a bad joke. Adding to the reluctance of Iraqis to help occupation forces, foreign allies are unwilling to send added troops to help the United States try to control the chaos (in fact, one ally is already bailing out of the effort and another is grumbling being deceived) because of the Bush administration’s pre-war arrogance and the prospect of retaliatory terrorism on their homelands. The Bush administration’s balloon, filled with triumphalist hot air a year ago as U.S. forces entered Baghdad, has finally burst. independent.org