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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (568982)	4/26/2004 9:14:41 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

What Went Wrong? PAUL KRUGMAN On April 11 of last year, just after U.S. forces took Baghdad, I warned that the Bush administration had a "pattern of conquest followed by malign neglect," and that the same was likely to happen in Iraq. I'm sorry to say those worries proved justified. It's now widely accepted that the administration "failed dismally to prepare for the security and nation-building missions in Iraq," to quote Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies — not heretofore known as a Bush basher. Just as experts on peacekeeping predicted before the war, the invading force was grossly inadequate to maintain postwar security. And this problem was compounded by a chain of blunders: doing nothing to stop the postwar looting, disbanding the Iraqi Army, canceling local elections, appointing an interim council dominated by exiles with no political base and excluding important domestic groups. The lesson of the last few weeks is that the occupation has never recovered from those early errors. The insurgency, which began during those early months of chaos, has spread. Iraqi security forces have walked off their jobs, or turned against us. Attacks on convoys have multiplied, major roads have been closed, and reconstruction has slowed where it hasn't stopped. Deteriorating security prevents progress, lack of progress feeds popular disillusionment, and disillusionment feeds the insurgency. Why was it predictable that Iraq would go wrong? The squandered victory in Afghanistan was an obvious precedent. But the character flaws in the Bush administration that led to the present crisis were fully visible in the months that followed 9/11. It quickly became apparent that President Bush, while willing to spend vast sums on the military, wasn't willing to spend enough on security. And 9/11 didn't shake the administration's fanatical commitment to privatization and outsourcing, in which free-market ideology is inextricably mixed with eagerness to protect and reward corporate friends. Sure enough, the administration was unprepared for predictable security problems in Iraq, but moved quickly — in violation of international law — to impose its economic vision. Last month Jay Garner, the first U.S. administrator of Iraq, told the BBC that he was sacked in part because he wanted to hold quick elections. His superiors wanted to privatize Iraqi industries first — as part of a plan that, according to Mr. Garner, was drawn up in late 2001. Meanwhile, the administration handed out contracts without competitive bidding or even minimal oversight. It also systematically blocked proposals to have Congressional auditors oversee spending, or to impose severe penalties for fraud. Cronyism and corruption are major factors in Iraq's downward spiral. This week the public radio program "Marketplace" is running a series titled "The Spoils of War," which documents a level of corruption in Iraq worse than even harsh critics had suspected. The waste of money, though it may run into the billions, is arguably the least of it — though military expenses are now $4.7 billion a month. The administration, true to form, is trying to hide the need for more money until after the election; Mr. Cordesman predicts that Iraq will need "in excess of $50-70 billion a year for probably two fiscal years." More important, the "Marketplace" report confirms what is being widely reported: that the common view in Iraq is that members of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council are using their positions to enrich themselves, and that U.S. companies are doing the same. President Bush's idealistic language may be persuasive to Americans, but many Iraqis see U.S. forces as there to back a corrupt regime, not democracy. Now what? There's a growing sense of foreboding, even panic, about Iraq among national security experts. "This is an extremely uncertain struggle," says Mr. Cordesman, who, to his credit, also says the unsayable: we may not be able to "stay the course." But yesterday Condoleezza Rice gave Republican lawmakers what Senator Rick Santorum called "a very upbeat report." That's very bad news. The mess in Iraq was created by officials who believed what they wanted to believe, and ignored awkward facts. It seems they have learned nothing. nytimes.com

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (568982)	4/26/2004 9:17:32 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Kidnapped Italians 'will be killed in five days' 27 April 2004 An Arab television channel yesterday broadcast a video of three Italian hostages captured in Iraq this month and said an accompanying letter contained a threat to kill them unless Italians protested against their government's policies in Iraq. The men are seen in the video shown on Al-Arabiya eating from a large pot with their fingers. They are bearded and their faces look drawn. It was not clear when the video was made. The men, who were working as private security guards, were kidnapped on 12 April as they took a taxi from Baghdad. A fourth Italian who was abducted with them was later executed. Al-Arabiya said that with the tape it received a letter from an Iraqi armed group calling itself the "Green Brigade" in which it threatened to execute the hostages unless Italians staged "a huge demonstration". It urged them to "call on your government to withdraw its troops from our country and we give you five days ... [or] we will kill them without any hesitation". The government of Silvio Berlusconi has been a strong ally of the US and some 3,000 of its troops have been deployed in Iraq. Before the war the Italian public turned out for huge marches opposing the invasion. Initial comments from the centre-left opposition, which opposed the war, said Italy should hold firm against the kidnappers. Giovanna Melandri, a former left-wing minister, said: "What's important to stress in these hours is that no giving in to the kidnappers is possible." news.independent.co.uk

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (568982)	4/26/2004 9:22:29 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Dismay over Blair stance on Mid-East By George Jones, Political Editor (Filed: 27/04/2004) Tony Blair's approach to Iraq and the Middle East was savaged last night by 52 senior diplomats, who questioned his support for America's "doomed" policy in the region. Their unprecedented onslaught came as the Government confirmed it was discussing sending more troops to Iraq to fill the gap left by Spain's withdrawal. The former ambassadors, high commissioners and governors called on Mr Blair to stop supporting President George W Bush's policies unless he could persuade the US to rethink its approach. The diplomats, among them former ambassadors to Iraq, Israel and the UN, told Mr Blair they had "watched with deepening concern the policies you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close co-operation with the United States. "We feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in Parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment," they said in the open letter sent to Mr Blair. Although all the signatories are no longer serving diplomats, their views are almost certainly shared at the highest reaches of the Foreign Office and will be deeply embarrassing for Mr Blair. It is a blow to his authority while he faces unprecedented fire over the about-turn on a European referendum and growing voter discontent over escalating violence in Iraq. The letter is believed to have been prompted by Mr Blair's recent emergency talks with Mr Bush in Washington. He followed the president's lead in backing Israel's plan for withdrawal from the Gaza Strip while maintaining some settlements on the West Bank. Critics said this effectively killed the internationally-agreed "road map" to peace. The diplomats said the new policies approved by Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, and Mr Bush were "one sided and illegal" and would cost yet more lives. "Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land," the diplomats told Mr Blair. They were highly critical of the conduct of the war in Iraq, saying it had shown there was no effective plan for "the post-Saddam settlement". Those with experience of the area had predicted the occupation of Iraq would meet "serious and stubborn resistance" - as had been proved. In a rebuff to Mr Blair, the letter said describing resistance as led by "terrorists, fanatics and foreigners" was neither convincing nor helpful. It condemned the loss of life caused by America's heavy handed tactics. While acknowledging that Britain should work as closely as possible with the UN, the diplomats questioned whether it was in Britain's interest for Mr Blair to continue to give such strong backing to Mr Bush. Mr Blair must start exercising "real influence" as a matter of the highest urgency. "If that is unacceptable or unwelcome, there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure." The signatories read like a roll call of the higher echelons of former diplomats, including Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain's permanent representative at the UN from 1987 to 1990. Oliver Miles, a former ambassador to Greece, is one of the letter's co-ordinators. He said their objective was not to damage Mr Blair politically but to strengthen the hand of those pushing for a change of policy. "It is an indication of our serious concern that what is probably the biggest ever such collective group has gone straight to government in this way," he said. Mr Blair's spokesman promised a response in due course. "Our objectives in Iraq and the Palestinian conflict remain stability, peace and freedom in the Middle East." The Ministry of Defence confirmed that Britain was discussing "a range of options" with coalition partners to send more troops to Iraq. With Spain planning to withdraw its 1,400 soldiers and violence escalating, ministers are considering sending up to 2,000 more troops to join 7,500 already there. Nicholas Soames, the Tory defence spokesman, said that if more troops were sent it would mark a "step change" in Britain's military commitment. His call for an emergency Commons statement today was rejected. telegraph.co.uk