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: cnyndwllr who wrote (173729)	11/1/2005 12:55:25 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 281500

Maybe this one is more to your liking. A silver lining in Iraq By Cathy Young \| October 31, 2005 WE ARE OFTEN preoccupied with milestones and numbers, and the death of the 2,000th American soldier in the war in Iraq has been an occasion for much reflection. This particular milestone comes at a time when President Bush is already reeling from a number of political blows. At present, fewer than 40 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the war -- and 55 percent think we should not have gone to war against Saddam Hussein in the first place. The gloom is not surprising, considering that the main rationale originally given for the war -- Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- has turned out to be a fiasco. Amid the bad news, a piece of good news has been eclipsed. On Oct. 25, the results of the Iraqi constitutional referendum were announced. The provisional constitution was approved by a 78 to 21 percent margin, though three provinces dominated by Sunni Arabs voted against it. (In one, the ''no" votes did not reach the two-thirds majority required to defeat the constitution.) United Nations observers confirmed that the outcome was untainted by fraud. For the first time ever, an Arab country has adopted a democratic constitution by referendum. Despite the threat of terrorism, Iraqi men and women went to the polls in massive numbers: Turnout was about 63 percent. In December, parliamentary elections are to be held. This may not be democracy as we know it: The draft Iraqi constitution enshrines Islam as the state religion (though it also prohibits discrimination based on gender and religion), and the people tend to vote as the clerics tell them. But surely, it is a positive step in a country long tyrannized by a bloody dictatorship. Yet the dominant media narrative is that Iraqi self-government is doomed because the draft constitution favors Shi'ites and Kurds and fails to reflect the interests of the Sunni Arabs. There are dire warnings that the Sunnis' failure to block the constitution will convince them that the political process is stacked against them, driving them to embrace the insurgency. This theme was echoed by Senator John Kerry in a speech at Georgetown University last week: ''The constitution, opposed by more than two thirds of Sunnis, has postponed and even exacerbated the fundamental crisis of Iraq." But there is a different view. In The Weekly Standard, military historian Frederick W. Kagan writes that a democratic solution in Iraq is possible only after the Sunni community has learned that it cannot achieve its goals by violence. Kagan notes that the Sunni Arabs, who constitute about 20 percent of the Iraqi population, have long enjoyed political dominance, and to the Sunni elites less than a position of power and privilege will likely seem a rotten deal. The New Republic, a liberal magazine, takes the same view. Of course, many Sunni Arabs are genuinely interested in a better future for their country. And they do have a stake in the political process. The December elections will have proportional representation for Iraq's provinces, guaranteeing the Sunni Arabs a bloc of seats in the parliament even if turnout in their provinces is low. Andrew Sullivan, the former New Republic editor who has been harshly critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war and its wink-wink attitude toward human rights abuses, nonetheless writes on his website: ''If someone had told me three years ago that by October 2005 . . . Iraq would have a new constitution that emerged from a democratic process and that it will soon have a democratically elected parliament and government, I would have been thrilled." Add to this the emergence of prodemocracy forces in Middle Eastern countries such as Lebanon and Egypt. This is not to downplay the problems. The violence persists, the majority of the population still lack stable electricity and clean water, unemployment is rampant, and the coalition troops are widely resented. In addition to the 2,000 Americans, there are tens of thousands of Iraqis dead. But the Saddam Hussein regime was murderous as well; and at least today, the Iraqis have grounds to hope for a better future. Nearly half a million American soldiers died in World War II. Today, we see these losses as tragic but justified, since our victory ensured the survival of freedom. Could it be that some day, history will pass similar judgment on the war in Iraq? Surely, all men and women of good will should hope that it does.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173729)	11/1/2005 1:14:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ed, the only bankrupt notion being portrayed here is from your fingers hitting the keyboard. :-) After re-reading your previous post, I'm still left wondering what concrete method you ascribe to, which would accomplish your goals? It appears you seem to believe elected officials should be professional and knowledgeable enough to agree with your premises, but leave no room for when they disagree. The notion that the American people were lied to is a species one. And to believe all facts will be known regarding an enemies strenghts or weaknesses going into a conflict is a rally silly one. So in effect, the side which lost the debate and never wanted to engage in the conflict, could always make that claim couldn't they Ed? We were lied to! We were told the enenmy only had 300 tanks not 500! We were lied to, we were told the enemy was going to roll over and play dead! We were lied to, intelligence agencies said they couldn't launch any aircraft against our ships! Puleeze, if the "we were lied to" mantra is all the opposition has left in them, that must mean the war is coming to a close. However, there is one last theme underlying your posts, which I need to address prior to moving on. That's the one which assumes a level of ignorance by the American electorate. During the recently concluded Presidential election campaign, the issue of WMD were discussed and debated at great length, the issue of cost was discussed and debated at great length, the issue of Sunni, Shia and Kurdish commitment was discussed and debated at great length. And NO candidate leading either political party took the position of immediate removal of our forces from Iraq. It's illustrative to remember the few candidates on both sides who took that position lost in the first few rounds of the Presidential primaries and were never serious contenders. So, despite your fuzzy foreign policy notions, the American people are solidly behind the effort to complete our mission in Iraq.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173729)	11/1/2005 1:31:50 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Why this unpopular war has no tipping point ___________________________________________________ By John Mueller* Commentary The Christian Science Monitor from the November 01, 2005 edition - csmonitor.com COLUMBUS, OHIO - Media attention focused on the death of the 2,000th American soldier in Iraq last week. But that grim event alone probably won't prove a tipping point in public opposition to the war. After 30 months of fighting, most Americans have already turned against the war. Polls find that 54 percent believe the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, up from 24 percent in March 2003. It's not the specific number of casualties so much as the steady drumbeat of carnage that causes people to lose their stomach for war. The truth is that even dramatic events do not necessarily greatly affect support for the cause. Compare Iraq to Vietnam. Although the 1968 Tet offensive, in which the US military took heavy losses, did cause people to worry that the war was not going well, support did not plummet. It simply continued to drift downward. In Iraq, support bumped up a bit when Saddam Hussein was captured and when elections were held, and it slumped at the time of the Abu Ghraib disclosures. But in each of these cases, it soon returned to its previous course. What's unprecedented about this war is how fast support is eroding. Casualty tolerance in Iraq is clearly much lower than it was in Vietnam. Using comparable poll questions, support levels for this war when 2,000 American soldiers have been killed are about the same as they were in the Vietnam War when well over 20,000 perished. This strongly suggests that the public places a much lower value on the stakes in Iraq than it did in Vietnam. The erosion of support for the Iraq war has continued throughout 2005, with some fluctuations. Support for the war rose briefly at the time of the London bombings in the summer. But the attacks also tended to undercut the Bush administration's argument that the terrorists were so busy in Iraq that they couldn't operate elsewhere. The Bush administration hopes to reverse the downward trend with upbeat speechmaking that claims progress in Iraq. The same approach was used in the Vietnam War but with little success. The problem is that people who always believed the war wasn't "worth it" won't be converted, and those who have become disenchanted are not easily won back. If you find you have bought a car for twice its value, you are likely to continue to regard the deal as a bad one even if you come to like the car. Opposition to the war in Iraq is not just widespread, it's quite intense. More than 80 percent of war opponents say they "strongly" object, and more than half say they are angry about the war, not merely dissatisfied. In addition, extensive comparative analysis by Gary Jacobson of the University of California, San Diego, has demonstrated that partisan divisions over not just this president but over this war are greater than for any president or any military conflict in the past half-century. This means that approval levels for George W. Bush and his war depend mainly on the steadfast support of Republicans. The Democrats have become almost completely disaffected. Moreover, there are signs over the past month or two that support even from the remarkably loyal Republicans may be beginning to fade. Polls, however, are not referendums. Eroding public support cannot keep the administration from continuing to prosecute the war any more than discontent did in Vietnam, unless it is expressed in congressional action. Moreover, though a decline in American casualty rates is unlikely to boost support, it may, as in Vietnam, cause the public to pay less attention to the conflict. However, in one important respect, withdrawal from Vietnam was much more difficult politically for congressional opponents than it would be in the case of Iraq. North Vietnam held about 500 Americans prisoner, and leaving Vietnam without getting those prisoners back was a political nonstarter. There is no comparable POW problem in Iraq - but that doesn't mean ending the war will be easy. __________________________________________ *John Mueller, professor of political science at Ohio State University, is the author of "War, Presidents and Public Opinion." ©2005 Los Angeles Times Syndicate.