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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (337313)5/11/2007 6:29:13 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 1574854
 
How many years are a generation? 25 maybe?

You really think that in less than 50 years, fossil fuels will be looked back at as some primitive thing from the past? We will still be using them, and not just as in the way we're still using horse drawn carriages as some quaint artifact that we might see from time to time, but that has no real impact on our lives.



To: Alighieri who wrote (337313)5/15/2007 1:26:53 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1574854
 
Son of professor opposed to war is killed in Iraq

By Brian MacQuarrie, Globe Staff | May 15, 2007

Boston University professor Andrew J. Bacevich has been a persistent, vocal critic of the Iraq war, calling the conflict a catastrophic failure. This week, the retired Army lieutenant colonel received the grim news that his son had been killed on patrol there.

First Lieutenant Andrew J. Bacevich , 27, of Walpole, died Sunday in Balad of wounds he suffered after a bomb explosion, the military said yesterday. The soldier, who graduated from BU in 2003 with a degree in communications, is the 56th service member from Massachusetts to be killed in Iraq.

His father, a veteran of the Vietnam and Gulf wars, has criticized the war in his writings and described President Bush's endorsement of such "preventive wars" as "immoral, illicit, and imprudent."

A West Point graduate and former faculty member at both West Point and Johns Hopkins University, Bacevich joined the BU faculty in 1998 and teaches in the history and international relations departments. He has written books on US diplomacy and military power and has contributed op-ed pieces on the Iraq war to newspapers and periodicals.

In an op-ed column published March 1 in the Globe, Bacevich wrote that "our reckless flirtation with preventive war qualifies as not only wrong, but also stupid. Indeed, the Bush Doctrine poses a greater danger to the United States than do the perils it supposedly guards against.

"We urgently need to abrogate that doctrine in favor of principles that reflect our true interests and our professed moral values," Bacevich wrote.

Katy Bacevich, 22, one of the soldier's three sisters, recalled her brother as a born leader who answered a calling to serve his country. Andrew Bacevich joined the Army in July 2004 and had been stationed in Iraq since October with the Third Brigade Combat Team, First Cavalry Division.

"He felt it was an important thing to do, regardless of the war that was going on," she said. Despite her father's strong feelings about the conflict, Katy Bacevich said, "he never would discourage my brother from doing what he wanted to do."

The family moved to Walpole in 1998 from the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C., she said.

A former military comrade of the elder Bacevich was shaken by the news yesterday.

Retired Major General William Nash served with Bacevich, also known as Skip, in Kuwait. "Service to country was obviously a family trait," Nash said. "Skip was a great role model for young officers."

BU professor William Keylor, who also teaches history and international relations, supervised final exams for one of Bacevich's classes yesterday. He said faculty members were "devastated."

"They knew how close the two Andys had been and, particularly those of us who have children, just identified so strongly with him," Keylor said.Continued...

The students taking that final exam, Keylor said, were not told of their professor's loss so as not to distract them from other finals. The course, called The American Military Experience, included discussion of the relationship between citizenship and the obligation of military service, according to BU's website.

Professor Bacevich maintained contact with his son by e-mail, Keylor said. "Every time, the word was things are going well, no problems. Then I got a call from him last night with this terrible news," Keylor added.

"He resembled his father so closely that, when you saw him, you immediately thought of Andy Sr.," Keylor said. "His father and mother absolutely adored him."

Keylor described the younger Bacevich, whom he had taught in a two-semester class on international relations, as a good student who wanted to follow in his father's footsteps. "I had the impression of a very popular, likable, exuberant young man," he said. The younger Bacevich had been enrolled in the Army ROTC at BU.

When interviewed by the Globe recently, Professor Bacevich had requested that his son's service in Iraq not be mentioned -- both to limit unwanted attention on his son and to separate the father's professional opinion from the heavy personal stakes.

Behind that request, however, "I always had the impression that he was terribly proud of his son and the service he was providing," Keylor said.

The elder Bacevich was sounding his warnings about the war at the time of the US-led invasion in March 2003. Bacevich wrote in the Los Angeles Times that month that "if, as seems probable, the effort encounters greater resistance than its architects imagine, our way of life may find itself tested in ways that will make the Vietnam War look like a mere blip in American history."

Keylor said Bacevich appeared to come to his opinions about the Iraq war after much thought.

"He's a very learned man, and I think that he studied the background to the war very carefully, and only came out with his strong opinions after he had really, really looked it over," Keylor said. "He's not the kind of guy who shoots from the hip."

Bryan Bender of the Globe staff contributed to this report from Washington.

1 2 Next

boston.com



To: Alighieri who wrote (337313)5/15/2007 1:28:04 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1574854
 
Rescinding the Bush Doctrine

by Andrew J. Bacevich

RATHER THAN vainly sniping at President Bush over his management of the Iraq war, the Democratic-controlled Congress ought to focus on averting any recurrence of this misadventure. Decrying the so-called "surge" or curbing the president's authority to conduct ongoing operations will contribute little to that end. Legislative action to foreswear preventive war might contribute quite a lot.

Long viewed as immoral, illicit, and imprudent, preventive war -- attacking to keep an adversary from someday posing a danger -- became the centerpiece of US national security strategy in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush unveiled this new strategy in a speech at West Point in June 2002. "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said, "we will have waited too long." The new imperative was to strike before threats could form. Bush declared it the policy of the United States to "impose preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses."

Although the Constitution endows the legislative branch with the sole authority to declare war, the president did not consult Congress before announcing his new policy. He promulgated the Bush Doctrine by fiat. Then he acted on it.

In 2003, Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States; arguing that he might one day do so, the administration depicted the invasion of Iraq as an act of anticipatory self-defense. To their everlasting shame, a majority of members in both the House and the Senate went along, passing a resolution that "authorized" the president to do what he was clearly intent on doing anyway. Implicitly, the Bush Doctrine received congressional endorsement.

Events since have affirmed the wisdom of seeing preventive war as immoral, illicit, and imprudent. The Bush administration expected a quick, economical, and decisive victory in Iraq. Advertising the war as an effort to topple a brutal dictator and liberate an oppressed people, it no doubt counted on battlefield success to endow the enterprise with a certain ex post facto legitimacy. Elated Iraqis showering American soldiers with flowers and candies would silence critics who condemned the war as morally unjustified and patently illegal.

None of these expectations has come to pass. In its trial run, the Bush Doctrine has been found wanting.

Today, Iraq teeters on the brink of disintegration. The war's costs, already staggering, continue to mount. Violence triggered by the US invasion has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. We cannot fully absolve ourselves of responsibility for those deaths.

Our folly has alienated friends and emboldened enemies. Rather than nipping in the bud an ostensibly emerging threat, the Iraq war has diverted attention from existing dangers (such as Al Qaeda) while encouraging potential adversaries (like Iran) to see us as weak.

The remedy to this catastrophic failure lies not in having another go -- a preventive attack against Iran, for example -- but in acknowledging that the Bush Doctrine is inherently pernicious. Our reckless flirtation with preventive war qualifies as not only wrong, but also stupid. Indeed, the Bush Doctrine poses a greater danger to the United States than do the perils it supposedly guards against.

We urgently need to abrogate that doctrine in favor of principles that reflect our true interests and our professed moral values. Here lies an opportunity for Congress to make a difference.

The fifth anniversary of President Bush's West Point speech approaches. Prior to that date, Democratic leaders should offer a binding resolution that makes the following three points: First, the United States categorically renounces preventive war. Second, the United States will henceforth consider armed force to be an instrument of last resort. Third, except in response to a direct attack on the United States, any future use of force will require prior Congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution.

The legislation should state plainly our determination to defend ourselves and our allies. But it should indicate no less plainly that the United States no longer claims the prerogative of using "preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses."

Declaring the Bush Doctrine defunct will not solve the problems posed by Iraq, but it will reduce the likelihood that we will see more Iraqs in our future. By taking such action, Congress will restore its relevance, its badly tarnished honor, and its standing in the eyes of the American people.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University.




To: Alighieri who wrote (337313)5/15/2007 1:30:26 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1574854
 
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War

by Andrew J. Bacevich

amazon.com;

Peace in 2007!