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: Jim Willie CB who wrote (45794)	5/10/2004 1:44:19 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 89467

A Record of Misjudgment Rumsfeld's arrogance and errors will haunt him, but a forced departure now by the Defense secretary might leave a leadership vacuum at a critical point in the Iraq conflict. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld seems unable, even now, to grasp what is going wrong in Iraq. It is not just the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, though those images of humiliation will poison attitudes toward the United States for years. It is not just the shocking delays in telling even President Bush about the extent of prisoners' mistreatment. What will haunt Rumsfeld is his much longer record of misjudgment. The civilian leadership of the Pentagon, particularly Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, ignored the best advice of military and civilian experts on Iraq and the Arab world concerning the likely aftermath of invasion. Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army's top uniformed commander, warned a month before the invasion of Iraq that peacekeeping and humanitarian operations would require "several hundred thousand" troops. Wolfowitz dismissed that advice, which proved correct even as Shinseki was forced out of his command. In the last week, the Bush administration has announced that it will send 20,000 additional troops to Iraq earlier than expected, will keep 135,000 troops there through the end of 2005 and will seek an additional $25 billion for the war's aftermath. The increase in troop strength is the latest example of too little and too late. With too few U.S. troops on the ground, insurgents were able to coalesce. By now it is not just Saddam Hussein acolytes firing rocket-propelled grenades and planting explosives; they are joined by members of the Shiite Muslim community that was persecuted and brutalized by Hussein. The Army is sending more armored vehicles for the troops — far later than it should have. U.S. officials are readmitting some members of Hussein's Baath Party to government jobs — far later than they should have. The miscues appear worse against the flawed justifications for the invasion of Iraq. The administration sold the war as necessary to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. None have been found. The administration later switched to claiming the country would become a democratic beacon for the Middle East. That was always doubtful, and quarrels among religious factions and ethnic groups have put that target very far away. The mishandling of postwar Iraq has become a recruiting tool for terrorists. Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, but the invasion and subsequent failure to provide security became fodder for Osama bin Laden and his denunciations of a "crusade" against a Muslim nation. Rumsfeld began his testimony Friday before the Senate and House Armed Services committees accurately: "These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of Defense I am accountable for them, was responsible for them and I take full responsibility." However, he bristled at later questions, his usual style. That can work when U.S. forces rout the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's army in Iraq. A more complicated situation responds poorly to immovable certainty (though by the end of the rambling House hearings later, anyone could be forgiven frustration). Committee members read a litany of improvements in Iraq and heroic efforts by soldiers. That's worth remembering, but misses the point of what Iraq is doing to the United States: lives lost, billions spent, a military spread thin, relations with allies damaged. Recitations of good deeds also show a continued lack of understanding of the effect of the pictures from Abu Ghraib in the Middle East. In the end, however, what is wrong is not Rumsfeld's fault alone. The president said Wednesday that American troops "will have all the resources they need to get the job done." What is that job? It can't be finding weapons of mass destruction or changing the Arab world. Then what is it? And how will the goal be achieved? Answers to the big questions are what Americans need to hear from Bush. Lack of a clear goal has exacerbated Rumsfeld's failings. Let's hear a strategic plan from Sen. John Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, as well. President Johnson pushed Robert S. McNamara out of the Defense Department and into the leadership of the World Bank in 1968 in the midst of the Vietnam War. But the departure of Rumsfeld now could leave a vacuum of leadership at the height of the current scandal and at a critical point in the Iraq conflict. This editorial page does not — yet — join growing calls for the Defense secretary's resignation. The war in Iraq will be lost without a strategic vision. Bush and Rumsfeld remain obligated to provide it. If they cannot, the failure will go much further than Rumsfeld. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (45794)	5/10/2004 2:41:41 PM
From: FrozenZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

The last thing the U.S. would ever tolerate is any kind of democracy in Iraq. If that happened the Shi'ites would quickly set up and Islamic republic and align with Iran. That's why the complicated system of caucuses and appointed puppets. Similar to what is said about Greenspan, watch what they actually do, not what they say.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (45794)	5/10/2004 5:38:21 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

It certainly would not be a cake walk. I grant you two things: 1)The average Iraqi/M.E. Muslim does not have the cultural upbringing to comfortably engage in democratic thinking. 2) The typical Westerner (like you) believes it goes contary to Islam. I consider it an educational issue as well as a cultural one. Please consider that democracy goes against all of our animal natures (big fish eats little fish). However, the Bush Admin apparently believes it is do-able as do I. I also believe the Islamic religious authorities have corrupted the basic foundations of what is actually a very common sense and good religion. Read the following for an easy to understand explanation as to why I think all Muslims should not only consider but endores democracy as an obligation of their faith and practice. Keep in mind that the term is ‘Democracy’ is not going to appear in ancient literature since its development as a political term is relatively recent. So we need to look for structures and forms that accommodate the term Democracy and ask whether or not they are applicable. What has happened over the past few hundred years to destroy opportunities for democracy in the Middle East? The historical premise was to keep the Islamic community from further territorial fragmentation after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (which did encourage democracy). As a result a lot of political literatures were written not only to justify the kingship from an Islamic perspective but to islamize/strengthen the kingship. A huge error in my opinion. Why: Because the basis of Islamic teaching is that we are all equal creatures in the eyes of God. Muslims know that when they pray it is shoulder to shoulder and that no one has a prestigious spot in the Mosque. All are equal; a King has no more entitlement in the prayer line than a pauper. A saying from the Prophet Muhammad, as opposed to a Quranic verse, is also considered Islamic authority. The following is a saying from the Prophet Mohammad. “Every one of you is a ruler and all of you are answerable for your ‘subjects.’ and no one vicegerent is inferior to another in any respect.” In the above we see the foundations of guaranteed equality as a citizen. This is what provides real basis of democracy in Islam. If you have a position as a “ruler” (Political leader) you are answerable for your subjects (those you represent and serve). What is clearly mentioned in the Qur’an (Al-Nur: 55) is the promise that every Muslim has been made God’s vicegerent; not that He will exalt some one of them as viceroy. A society in which every one is vicegerent and equal partner in vicegerency, cannot give way to class distinction, or privilege by birth or place in the society – every one shall enjoy the same status and the same rank. Preference (if any) shall be according to personal ability and conduct. Prophet Muhammad specifically mentioned this in clear terms. A true democracy entails meaningful consultation and participation in policy-decisions and accountability from top to bottom. If that is ensured, then the type of government – parliamentary, presidential, central or federative – makes no difference. In the pure Islamic governance during the days of the Prophet Mohammed and the four Caliphs, we find all shades. Yet the basic elements of consultation and accountability were always there. This was established to be a model for all future Islamic governments but no current so-called Islamic regime comes any where near this. In such a society, every sane and mature person, man or woman should enjoy the right of vote, because he or she is the bearer of vicegerency. What Westerners fear most about an Islamic state that has democracy is that there would be some sort of Bishops ruling the people. However, in Islam there is no such structure of human authority to speak for God. As a human, each is Gods vicegerant (practitioner of human decency) with absolutely equal status and no one goes between you and that relationship with God as a spokesperson for God…making all equal in the eyes of God and government. What we commonly refer to as ‘Islamic Clerics’ are simply called scholars by Muslims. The people most learned in Islamic teachings. There authority is limited to giving advice (Fatawa) on issues that we struggle with whether governmental or personal. Unfortunately that is commonly corrupted (usually by Kings) to be some sort of Pope’s order. Over time even the common citizens have come to believe that once a fatawa has been delivered they are obligated to follow it to the letter. Bottom line here: Bringing a new democracy to a region that did not have it historically is never easy and always involves breaking some new ground… look at our own history.