SI
SI
discoversearch

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: tekboy who wrote (132645)5/11/2004 4:51:31 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
I accept your explanations of Halliburton, Feith & Zell, and so forth, but the rest of the world generally does not.

And that brings to surface one of the worst problems I've seen in this war.. The equivalent of a "why we fight" campaign in order to explain the war to the American people in a manner that is NOT being explained by the negatively biased commercial media.

There are plenty of positive things occurring out there in Iraq, as well as the mid-east (Libya's caving in to renouncing terrorism), but they are just not being actively discussed in a manner that the American people will listen to...

And I personally believe we're not be straight with the American people in pointing out that we have a major stake in preventing Islamic militants from controlling the region and using it as an economic and political base to carry out the rest of their Jihad.

Hawk



To: tekboy who wrote (132645)5/16/2004 12:26:38 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Would a Pullout from Iraq be more Chaotic Than This?
_____________________

The Case Against US-British Withdrawal doesn't Stand up to Scrutiny

by Jonathan Steele

Published on Friday, May 14, 2004 by the Guardian/UK

Can the American occupation of Iraq be sustained any longer? In the wake of the prison horrors revealed at Abu Ghraib, has the time not come for a serious debate on the immediate withdrawal, not just of British forces, but of the 150,000 US forces as well?

The worldwide shockwaves from the torture pictures are political as well as moral. Outrage is prompting calls for radical change, which Donald Rumsfeld's sudden trip to Baghdad no doubt is intended to block. In the US, Richard Holbrooke, a strong contender to run the state department in a Kerry presidency, calls the scandal "the most serious setback for the American military since Vietnam". Wesley Clark, the former Nato commander who ran in the Democratic party primaries, puts the prospect of pressure leading to an early end to the US mission as "better than 50-50".

In Iraq, according to Ahmed Fawzi, spokesman for the UN envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, who is currently helping to select an Iraqi government: "Everyone we have spoken to has raised the issue. They feel humiliated."

For many Iraqis the pictures show something even worse than torture. They reveal pornographic sadism. "I knew prison abuse was happening," says Fateena Hamdi, a Baghdad university professor I rang the other day. "But I couldn't imagine it was being done for amusement."

It was clear from the earliest days of the occupation, as the late UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello argued, that sovereignty is the key to security in Iraq, and the occupation itself is the major source of instability. Even among Iraqis who welcomed the invasion, the presence of foreign forces quickly created resentment and suspicion. As long as there was no date for the troops to leave, Iraqis feared the US only wanted long-term military bases, and their oil. Many saw no choice but to resist the US, if necessary by force.

US troops also became a magnet for every kind of radical Islamist group, Iraqi and foreign. "We thank the Americans for two things," a Wahhabi sheikh told me with a smile in Baghdad last month. "They liberated us from Saddam so we can operate freely. They also created the conditions for us to resist them in our own country instead of having to go abroad."

Late last year Washington got part of the point, and the current timetable was set for appointing an Iraqi government and transferring sovereignty on June 30. But the plan was flawed since the US insisted on keeping its forces in Iraq even after June. As the date approached, more and more Iraqis grew angry over the limits to the sovereignty being transferred, since the US intends to keep control of security and even have the right to command the re-emerging Iraqi forces.

Then came the appalling use of excessive force in Falluja, which highlighted a developing mountain of evidence that the way US troops behave in Iraq creates more enemies than it eliminates. Their skills as peacekeepers are minimal. In more benign postwar environments such as Bosnia and Kosovo they have functioned reasonably, but at the slightest hint of hostilities they over-react and over-kill.

One solution canvassed by several commentators has been for the UN and the new Iraqi government to have oversight over US forces, or else to reduce their numbers significantly by bringing in Arab League or European troops. Holbrooke now shares that line, according to the New York Times, which says he believes the Bush administration must concede the US presence in Iraq is illegitimate and illegal in the eyes of the Arab world, and turn affairs over to the UN.

Iraqi and Arab reaction to the prison abuse horrors suggests that even this position may have become untenable. The time has come for Americans and their allies to ask the most searching question: what would happen if they left? The standard answer, even among countries like France which opposed the invasion, is that there would be "chaos".

That can no longer be taken for granted. We need to define that term and ask whether it would necessarily be worse than the chaos caused on a daily basis by the occupation forces' behavior. Vague talk of instability is no substitute for a proper assessment of the threats Iraq faces.

Externally, there are none. Its neighbors have no claims on Iraqi territory; nor is there a sign that any might intervene by force, except perhaps Turkey in the case of an irredentist future Kurdistan.

Iraq's threats are internal. But are they demonstrably more acute than those facing other Arab states, none of which - with the exception of Lebanon - harbors foreign forces with a mandate to maintain internal security. Why should Iraq be unique in needing outside forces?

The existence of political militias in Iraq is a serious problem, and the occupation forces' failure to disband them in the first weeks after reaching Baghdad is another mark against Washington. They are not yet as powerful as the regional warlords' armies which the US and its allies have equally failed to disarm in Afghanistan, but they could start clashing with each other. Since last year new militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army have been allowed to emerge.

The best way to deal with them is not by military force, as the US is trying in Najaf and Sadr City, but by incorporating the best of their cadres into the new Iraqi security structures and finding political avenues for their bosses' rivalries. That means the promised early elections. Restoring the leadership of the former Iraqi army (minus proven torturers and war criminals) would be another step which could restore national pride, reduce Iraqi resentment, and deny legitimacy to the militias, if it is done before June 30.

Sectarian clashes between Sunnis and Shias are often mentioned as a lurking menace, but Iraq's modern history has no such record - the leaders of both communities have been scrupulous in mobilizing community support against them. Ethnic tensions between Arabs and Kurds are a greater danger, since attitudes in the disputed cities of Kirkuk and Mosul can easily be roused at both the popular and the elite levels.

There might be a case for a temporary deployment of foreign forces in these areas, though not from Turkey or any Arab state, since they would not be seen as impartial. The Iraqi national army might be one-sided, unless (another urgent priority) Kurdish officers are soon given high-command posts.

These scenarios need to be fleshed out. But as the miseries of Iraqis under occupation multiply, the burden of proof is increasingly on those who claim that pulling foreign troops out of Iraq would be worse than keeping them there. Playing on the bogeymen of "chaos" and "a security vacuum" can no longer go unchallenged.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

commondreams.org



To: tekboy who wrote (132645)5/19/2004 9:57:58 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Message 20144124



To: tekboy who wrote (132645)5/25/2004 11:34:13 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
A Call to Conscience
________________________

The Diplomat who quit over Nixon's Invasion of Cambodia asks Americans on the front lines of Foreign Service to resign from the "Worst Regime by far in the History of the Republic."

by Roger Morris

Published on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

Dear Trustees:

I am respectfully addressing you by your proper if little-used title. The women and men of our diplomatic corps and intelligence community are genuine trustees. With intellect and sensibility, character and courage, you represent America to the world. Equally important, you show the world to America. You hold in trust our role and reputation among nations, and ultimately our fate. Yours is the gravest, noblest responsibility. Never has the conscience you personify been more important.

A friend asked Secretary of State Dean Acheson how he felt when as a young official in the Treasury Department in the 1930s, he resigned rather than continue to work for a controversial fiscal policy he thought disastrous -- an act that seemed at the time to end the public service he cherished. "Oh, I had no choice," he answered. "It was a matter of national interest as well as personal honor. I might have gotten away with shirking one, but never both." As the tragedy of American foreign policy unfolded so graphically over the past months, I thought often of Acheson's words and of your challenge as public servants. No generation of foreign affairs professionals, including my own in the torment of the Vietnam War, has faced such anguishing realities or such a momentous choice.

I need not dwell on the obvious about foreign policy under President Bush -- and on what you on the inside, whatever your politics, know to be even worse than imagined by outsiders. The senior among you have seen the disgrace firsthand. In the corridor murmur by which a bureaucracy tells its secrets to itself, all of you have heard the stories.

You know how recklessly a cabal of political appointees and ideological zealots, led by the exceptionally powerful and furtively doctrinaire Vice President Cheney, corrupted intelligence and usurped policy on Iraq and other issues. You know the bitter departmental disputes in which a deeply politicized, parochial Pentagon overpowered or simply ignored any opposition in the State Department or the CIA, rushing us to unilateral aggressive war in Iraq and chaotic, fateful occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

You know well what a willfully uninformed and heedless president you serve in Bush, how chilling are the tales of his ignorance and sectarian fervor, lethal opposites of the erudition and open-mindedness you embody in the arts of diplomacy and intelligence. Some of you know how woefully his national security advisor fails her vital duty to manage some order among Washington's thrashing interests, and so to protect her president, and the country, from calamity. You know specifics. Many of you are aware, for instance, that the torture at Abu Ghraib was an issue up and down not only the Pentagon but also State, the CIA and the National Security Council staff for nearly a year before the scandalous photos finally leaked.

As you have seen in years of service, every presidency has its arrogance, infighting and blunders in foreign relations. As most of you recognize, too, the Bush administration is like no other. You serve the worst foreign policy regime by far in the history of the republic. The havoc you feel inside government has inflicted unprecedented damage on national interests and security. As never before since the United States stepped onto the world stage, we have flouted treaties and alliances, alienated friends, multiplied enemies, lost respect and credibility on every continent. You see this every day. And again, whatever your politics, those of you who have served other presidents know this is an unparalleled bipartisan disaster. In its militant hubris and folly, the Bush administration has undone the statesmanship of every government before it, and broken faith with every presidency, Democratic and Republican (even that of Bush I), over the past half century.

In Afghanistan, where we once held the promise of a new ideal, we have resumed our old alliance with warlords and drug dealers, waging punitive expeditions and propping up puppets in yet another seamy chapter of the "Great Game," presuming to conquer the unconquerable. In Iraq -- as every cable surely screams at you -- we are living a foreign policy nightmare, locked in a cycle of violence and seething, spreading hatred continued at incalculable cost, escaped only with hazardous humiliation abroad and bitter divisions at home. Debacle is complete.

Beyond your discreetly predigested press summaries at the office, words once unthinkable in describing your domain, words once applied only to the most alien and deplored phenomena, have become routine, not just at the radical fringe but across the spectrum of public dialogue: "American empire," "American gulag." What must you think? Having read so many of your cables and memorandums as a Foreign Service officer and then on the NSC staff, and so many more later as a historian, I cannot help wondering how you would be reporting on Washington now if you were posted in the U.S. capital as a diplomat or intelligence agent for another nation. What would the many astute observers and analysts among you say of the Bush regime, of its toll or of the courage and independence of the career officialdom that does its bidding?

"Let me begin by stating the obvious," Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said at the Abu Ghraib hearing the other day. "For the next 50 years in the Islamic world and many other parts of the world, the image of the United States will be that of an American dragging a prostrate naked Iraqi across the floor on a leash." The senator was talking about you and your future. Amid the Bush wreckage worldwide, much of the ruin is deeply yours.

It is your dedicated work that has been violated -- the flouted treaties you devotedly drew and negotiated, the estranged allies you patiently cultivated, the now thronging enemies you worked so hard to win over. You know what will happen. Sooner or later, the neoconservative cabal will go back to its incestuous think tanks and sinecures, the vice president to his lavish Halliburton retirement, Bush to his Crawford, Texas, ranch -- and you will be left in the contemptuous chancelleries and back alleys, the stiflingly guarded compounds and fear-clammy, pulse-racing convoys, to clean up the mess for generations to come.

You know that showcase resignations at the top -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or flag officers fingered for Abu Ghraib -- change nothing, are only part of the charade. It is the same with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who may have been your lone relative champion in this perverse company, but who remains the political general he always was, never honoring your loss by giving up his office when he might have stemmed the descent.

No, it is you whose voices are so important now. You alone stand above ambition and partisanship. This administration no longer deserves your allegiance or participation. America deserves the leadership and example, the decisive revelation, of your resignations.

Your resignations alone would speak to America the truth that beyond any politics, this Bush regime is intolerable -- and to an increasingly cynical world the truth that there are still Americans who uphold with their lives and honor the highest principles of our foreign policy.

Thirty-four years ago this spring, I faced your choice in resigning from the National Security Council over the invasion of Cambodia. I had been involved in fruitful secret talks between Henry Kissinger and the North Vietnamese in 1969-1970, and knew at least something of how much the invasion would shatter the chance for peace and prolong the war -- though I could never have guessed that thousands of American names would be added to that long black wall in Washington or that holocaust would follow in Cambodia. Leaving was an agony. I was only beginning a career dreamed of since boyhood. But I have never regretted my decision. Nor do I think it any distinction. My friends and I used to remark that the Nixon administration was so unprincipled it took nothing special to resign. It is a mark of the current tragedy that by comparison with the Bush regime, Nixon and Kissinger seem to many model statesmen.

As you consider your choice now, beware the old rationalizations for staying -- the arguments for preserving influence or that your resignation will not matter. Your effectiveness will be no more, your subservience no less, under the iron grip of the cabal, especially as the policy disaster and public siege mount. And your act now, no matter your ranks or numbers, will embolden others, hearten those who remain and proclaim your truths to the country and world.

I know from my own experience, of course, that I am not asking all of you to hurl your dissent from the safe seats of pensioners. I know well this is one of the most personal of sacrifices, for you and your families. You are not alone. Three ranking Foreign Service officers -- Mary Wright, John Brady Kiesling and John Brown -- resigned in protest of the Iraq war last spring. Like them, you should join the great debate that America must now have.

Unless and until you do, however, please be under no illusion: Every cable you write to or from the field, every letter you compose for Congress or the public, every memo you draft or clear, every budget you number, every meeting you attend, every testimony you give extends your share of the common disaster.

The America that you sought to represent in choosing your career, the America that once led the community of nations not by brazen power but by the strength of its universal principles, has never needed you more. Those of us who know you best, who have shared your work and world, know you will not let us down. You are, after all, the trustees.

Respectfully,

Roger Morris

__________________________

Roger Morris served on the senior staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Johnson and Nixon until resigning over the invasion of Cambodia. An award-winning investigative journalist and historian, he is the author of several books, including "Richard Milhous Nixon: The Rise of an American Politician." He is currently completing a history of U.S. policy and covert intervention in Southwest Asia.

commondreams.org



To: tekboy who wrote (132645)5/26/2004 11:29:46 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
We Should Exit Iraq Now, and Here's How We Do It

_____________________________________

by Resat Kasaba

Published on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 by the Seattle Times

The United States has lost its ability to achieve its goals in Iraq. The American administration no longer has any moral standing among the people there. The longer U.S. military and civilian personnel stay involved in Iraq, the more enemies they make.

Their presence taints an ever-growing circle of people who come into contact and work with the United States. These people lose the prospect of playing any role in the post-occupation Iraq, and worse, they become targets for assassination.

The only clear way out of this situation is for the United States to leave Iraq as soon as possible. This departure should involve not just an end to Paul Bremer's administration and its replacement with a large embassy that will continue to wield immense power through 138,000 troops that will remain in Iraq. This should be a complete evacuation, and should usher in a period where the damage of not only Saddam Hussein's dictatorship but also of the last year can be repaired.

Only then can Iraq move toward a free and democratic future, which it most certainly deserves.

There is a way in which this transition can be carried out so that it does not lead to chaos and anarchy. As the very first step, President Bush should convene a summit that includes the secretary general of the United Nations and the leaders of major European powers, neighbors of Iraq (including Iran), Egypt, China and Japan.

Such an extraordinary gathering would serve two purposes. One, the United States would be announcing to the world that it is changing course and reaching out to the world community in dealing with the situation in Iraq. Second, such a gathering would draw attention to the fact that if Iraq fell into anarchy and civil war, this would have serious consequences for not only the security and stability of the region but also for the world at large.

In other words, those who would be most directly and immediately affected by Iraq's further slide into chaos would be invited to help prevent it.

A key goal of such a summit would be to create a truly international military force to help Iraq with its security. This force should be under the command of a U.N. officer. As soon as this force is constituted, all the U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq. A small number could be reintroduced subsequently but only as part of the multinational force, and under the command of the U.N. officers.

The sole task of the yet-to-be-determined political structure that is scheduled to take over Iraq on June 30 should be to carry the country to national elections within the shortest time possible.

Contrary to the pontifications of pundits and other "experts," the Middle East has a long tradition of electoral politics going back to the 1840s.

Given the opportunity, Iraqis would certainly be capable of organizing themselves and determining their future in free elections.

Such an approach would give a set of clear goals around which a very large part of the Iraqi population could unite. This would be the most effective way of isolating and marginalizing the heavily armed militias and terrorist groups that are now the biggest threat to the future of Iraq.

The five points Bush listed in his speech Monday amount to little more than a restatement of general goals few people would disagree with. We still don't know how these goals are supposed to be achieved and what June 30 will bring to the country or the region. This is the perfect environment for the continuing growth of the militias, which will certainly lead to an all-out civil war.

Leaving Iraq as I've suggested should not be seen as a defeat. By reassuming moral leadership and regaining its international legitimacy, the United States would find itself in a much better position to affect the international system.

This is a much better route than the one we are embarked on now, where countless lives and reputations are being wasted and the country's treasure is being spent for a cause no one is able to articulate anymore.
___________________________________

Resat Kasaba is a professor in the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. His books include "Rules and Rights in the Middle East" and "Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey."

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company


commondreams.org



To: tekboy who wrote (132645)10/21/2004 10:37:37 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<<...John Mearsheimer, one of the pre-eminent representatives of the realist school of international relations, voted for George W. Bush in 2000. But not this time. Come November, he's not only voting for John Kerry but "will do so with enthusiasm."

As a realist, the University of Chicago political scientist liked Bush's anti-nation-building rhetoric during the 2000 debates, and was displeased by Al Gore's support for the humanitarian interventions of the 1990s. But Bush's handling of foreign policy -- particularly the Iraq War -- has turned Mearsheimer and other realists into some of the administration's sharpest critics. "[T]he more time goes by," he says, "the more Bush makes [Bill] Clinton look like a genius in both domestic and foreign policy."

Indeed, not only is the American right a house divided on Iraq but over the intensifying imperialist drift of U.S. foreign policy more broadly. A convergence of realists, libertarians, and traditionalists (or "paleocons") has taken shape in opposition to the neoconservative foreign-policy agenda. In October, they came together to form the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, which holds that "the move toward empire must be halted immediately."

Spearheaded by Christopher Preble, director of foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute, the coalition's signatories include Mearsheimer and fellow realist Stephen Walt of Harvard; Andrew Bacevich, author of American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy; Ted Galen Carpenter and Charles Peña of Cato; Christopher Layne and Scott McConnell of Pat Buchanan's magazine, The American Conservative; and Jon Utley of the organization Americans Against World Empire. A handful of left-of-center types are also onboard, among them Blowback and Sorrows of Empire author Chalmers Johnson, Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and former Colorado Senator Gary Hart.

"Empire is problematic," reads the group's founding statement (titled "The Perils of Empire"), "because it subverts the freedoms and liberties of citizens at home while simultaneously thwarting the will of people abroad." "The defenders of empire," it goes on, "assert that the horrific acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001, demand that we assume new financial burdens to fund an expansive national security strategy, relax our commitment to individual liberty at home, and discard our respect for state sovereignty abroad. Nothing could be further from the truth." The group calls for the United States to jettison its imperial designs and adopt in their place a "restrained and focused foreign policy" for the 21st century.

Members have gone public with their concerns. Writing in the October 6, 2003, issue of The American Conservative, Layne argued that the Bush administration's "go-it-alone hubris" and "sledgehammer diplomacy" have led to a "fiasco" in Iraq -- "[a]nd a foreseeable one at that." McConnell, that magazine's executive editor, wrote that with their "incessant warmongering," the "belligerent" neocons have "led the United States into an extremely perilous situation, perhaps the most dangerous in its history." And Walt, in a talk before the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the case for the invasion of Iraq is "empty," a "combination of bad history, inconsistent logic, wishful thinking, and old news." The realists' case against the war gained perhaps its widest visibility with the publication of Mearsheimer and Walt's "An Unnecessary War" in the January-February 2003 issue of Foreign Policy, an article that radiated across the Internet and stirred far-reaching discussion.

Though this alliance against the expanding imperium is a work in progress, the phenomenon's raw ideological ingredients are nothing new. Self-styled traditionalists or paleocons like Buchanan have been arguing since the end of the Cold War that America should be "a republic, not an empire." Libertarians, deeply suspicious of "activist" government, were consistently against all of the interventions of the 1990s -- Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor -- and are positively choleric in their opposition to the global designs of Team Wolfowitz. And the realists have long maintained that the United States should go to war only when its vital national-security interests are at stake, with most realists believing that Iraq did not meet that standard. Realists figure prominently in the foreign-policy establishment, staffing institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations. The council, itself divided over the war, held a debate in February 2003, with the anti-war Mearsheimer and Walt squaring off against the neocon Weekly Standard's William Kristol and Max Boot, who advocated invasion.

The first Bush administration, says Mearsheimer, was a "paradigmatic realist administration." The current Bush administration "looked a lot like Bush I" in its first few months. The events of September 11, however, "flipped" Dick Cheney from the realist camp to the neocon credo. Up until 9-11, the neocons "could get to first base with their agenda but no further," Mearsheimer says. After the terrorist attacks, "they were able to make it all the way."...>>

prospect.org



To: tekboy who wrote (132645)11/21/2004 5:06:50 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
The Pollack Always Rings Twice
______________________________

Posted by James Wolcott

11.18.04 10:58AM

jameswolcott.com

Steve Gilliard has some gentle words of advice (check the entry titles on the right) for Ken Pollack, who dares show his face after getting it so cock-eyed wrong about Iraq.

It was Pollack's The Threatening Storm that convinced some intelligent waverers that something must be done about Saddam Hussein's WWD program and festering aggression before it was too late. Now, two years later, no WWDs, a threat that was all smoke-screen, anarchy, car bombs, beheadings.

Now Pollack is back with The Persian Puzzle, telling us that something must be done about Iran's nuclear capabilities before--well, you can sketch in the rest. And as with Iraq, we're now hearing ominous reports from Iraqi exiles, talk of secret facilities, words of firm resolve about the need for action, should diplomacy fail (as it inevitably will, should the Bushies get their way).

The only puzzle in the Persian Puzzle is how Pollack manages to be treated on talk shows as if he were a mind worth attending to.

Perhaps it's his softspoken, diligent manner. Unlike conservative warhawks, who are all systems go (no doubts, pure calculating determination), Pollack acts as if he came to his grave conclusions sadly, reluctantly, dragged by the inexorable force of the evidence to the decision that the West must take action. It's a shtick perfect for The News Hour Jim Lehrer and NPR, where he sounds so reasonable compared to the usual pirahna fished out of the nearest think tank.

But the result is the same--human beings dying at the receiving end of American firepower. Ken Pollack hasn't earned the right to be wrong twice, and help draw us into another fine debacle.