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 (129079)	4/13/2004 10:51:46 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nasty, Brutish and Short By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN nytimes.com Published: April 11, 2004 The U.S. operation in Iraq is hanging by a thread. If it has any hope of surviving this Hobbesian moment, we need three conversations to happen fast: George Bush needs to talk to his father, the Arab leaders need to talk to their sons — and daughters — and we need to talk to the Iraqi Governing Council. President Bush, please call home. You need some of your father's wisdom right now. The old man, Bush 41, may not have had the vision thing, but he did have the prudence thing. He understood that he could not expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait without a real coalition that included Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other key Arab states, not to mention all the NATO allies and the U.N. America would not have had the legitimacy to operate in that theater for the length of time required without Arab and European cover. What was true for expelling Saddam from Kuwait was triply true for expelling Saddam from Iraq and is quadruply true for expelling the die-hard Baathists from Falluja and the Shiite radicals from Najaf. The deeper we try to penetrate Iraqi society, especially with tanks and troops, the more legitimacy we need. When things were going all right in Baghdad with the political process, America could have its way by buying legitimacy with cash or imposing it with muscle. But when you are talking about killing rebellious Iraqi young men and clerics, you can't buy the legitimacy for that and you can't compel it. Iraqi moderates are just too frightened to stand up and defend that on their own. Indeed, they will run away from the U.S. Only a real coalition of the U.N., Arab and Muslim states and Europe — the Bush 41 coalition — might bolster them. It may be too late for that now, but the Bush folks had better try. We have a staggering legitimacy deficit for the task ahead. I am glad El Salvador is with us, but when Iraqis get satellite dishes, they don't tune in TV El Salvador. They tune in TV Al Jazeera. If it is America alone against the Iraqi street, we lose. If it is the world against the Iraqi street, we have a chance. And we need two other conversations. I have nothing but respect for the Kurds of Iraq. They have a democratic soul. But in the debate in the Governing Council over Iraq's interim constitution they overreached, and the Bush team made a big mistake in letting them overreach, by giving the Kurds effective veto power over Iraq's final constitution. I believe the Kurds need and are entitled to some form of protection. I would support any U.S. guarantees for them. But too many moderate Shiites, led by Ayatollah Sistani, are feeling that the Iraqi interim constitution tilts so far in favor of minority rights that it unfairly limits majority (read Shiite) rights. If the interim constitution has any hope of surviving this fighting, and being accepted by the moderate Shiite majority, it needs to be recalibrated — through a dialogue among Iraq's factional leaders and with us. Otherwise, a stable transfer of power is impossible (if it isn't already). Arab leaders also have a vital interest in working with the U.S. to quell the turmoil in Iraq and to re-empower the potentially moderate center. As unpleasant as it may be for them to help the Bush team — and as worrisome as free elections in Iraq might be to unelected leaders of the Arab world — having oil-rich Iraq taken over partly by Baathist radicals happy to work with Al Qaeda and partly by Shiite radicals happy to work with Iran will be even worse. It will empower radicals across the Arab region, and freeze the infant reform process there. And that's why the Arab leaders need to talk to their sons and daughters. If the Arabs miss yet another decade of reform, because Iraq spins out of control while the world speeds ahead, they will find themselves outside the world system and dealing with plenty of their own Fallujas. Talk to Arab youth today and you will find so many of them utterly despondent at the complete drift in their societies. They are stuck in a sandstorm, where opportunities for young people to realize their potential are fading. What is going on in Iraq today is not only a war between radical Islam and America, it is, more importantly, a war within Islam — between those who want an Islam with a human and progressive face that can meld with the world and those who want an Islam that is exclusivist and hostile to the world. So, yes, we need all the Arab and Muslim support we can get to see Iraq through to some decent outcome. But the Arab-Muslim world needs a decent outcome in Iraq just as much — if not more.

To: Sam who wrote (129079)	4/13/2004 12:14:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

that you won't like what Oliphant writes below on Kerry's Iraq plan, and, frankly, neither do I, but given the current set of circumstances, I see little alternative but to try it. Maybe I'm just missing something here, but I think there is some kind of mistaken impression that Bush doesn't want the UN involved in Iraq. And that's just not what I'm perceiving. The Bush administration, as I recall, HAS been pushing a VERY RELUCTANT UN "leadership" into taking a greater role in helping to form Iraq's government. And they have sought, and received, the UN's approval for CPA activities in Iraq. They have a UN special representative currently in Baghdad trying to create some semblance of consensus amongst the various parties as to what form the interim government will take on June 30th. Just take a look at these UN resolutions related to Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam: casi.org.uk And the UN WAS in Iraq, but all it took was one bombing of their headquarters and they turned tail and ran. Their security supervisor was later fired for his negligence in refusing US offers to provide security, because the UN didn't want to create the appearance of collusion with the Bush administration. Furthermore, I believe the Bush administration has been requesting NATO involvement in Iraq, in order to place US forces under THEIR control, and not that of the highly politicized and incompetent UN leadership. Putting US forces under the direct military command of the UNSC, the very council in which two permanent members REFUSED to enforce 17 binding resolutions against Saddam's regime, would have been unthinkable. However, I believe the Bush administration was very amenable to UN participation in the creation of an interim government, given that France and Russia did not attempt to inject their own vested interests (full payment of all previous debts against Saddam's Iraq) were not permitted to be a a factor. And don't forget that the UN wanted the $18 Billion in US foreign aid to Iraq to be parceled out by the UN, and not the US. Given the corruption we've seen in the oil for food program, Bush was absolutely correct in retaining control over how these funds were spent. Furthermore, as I recall, Kofi Annan refused to set up a UN peace-keeping operation in Iraq, but wanted to have the existing US force placed directly under his control. news.ninemsn.com.au I personally welcome the "umbrella" of UN participation.. But tell me where they are? Tell me why ONE SINGLE BOMBING of their headquarters, and the following exodus of every one of their staff members, should give the US any reason to believe they are capable of fulfilling a nation-building operation? The UN leadership is going to have to come to grips with doing its job, and not trying to be a proxy for injecting itself into American politics and trying to de-seat Bush. Hawk

To: Sam who wrote (129079)	4/13/2004 12:42:22 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I suspect that Bush will adopt some variant of Kerry's let-the UN-handle-Iraq plan. Probably seal his re-election. Will the UN cooperate, however, by giving Bush what he needs before the election is a critical question.