At 11:06 AM 2/6/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>Hi Dan - sorry - if it wasn't clear, I was replying to
>Marvin, not you. I pretty much agree with what you're
>saying, except that from what I've heard, the Bush
>Administration has put a lot more thought into
>post-war Iraq than you're giving them credit for.
Indeed. The NY Times has published several leaked reports about US plans
for a minimum of two-year occupational presence in Iraq, and the formation
of an Iraqi citizens' consultative assembly - that will lead into a
democratic legislature for Iraq.
Unlike, Mr. Friedman, I am not buying that the Bush Administraiton needs to
lay open its post-occupational plans for Iraq right from the outset.
First, these arguments smell awful strongly of simply being a list-ditch
effort of the peaceniks to find *any* reason to avoid what we have to do in
Iraq. Secondly, it seems awfully premature to go completely public with
post-war Iraq plans. For one thing, many object to the formulation on
these plans in that it paints a picture that war is inevitable. As Bush
has publicly stated, war is not inevitable. Saddam could either abide by
resolution 1441, or else step down and go into exile, and war could be
averted. For another thing, we don't know what Iraq will look like after
a war. For example, will Baghdad fall like Kabul? Or will we need to
rebuild Baghdad? And how will the critics, the snipers, and the nittering
nabobs of negativity react to Bush having to change his "highly detailed
plans" following the conclusion of an Iraqi war? Indeed, the go too
public with the post-Iraq plans smacks a little bit of recording your Super
Bowl video before the AFC Championship game. If anything goes wrong in
the war, you can bet that Bush will then be criticized by these same people
for spending too much time discussing post-war-Iraq and not enough time on
"winning the war", particularly with minimal casualties. Indeed, Bush can
barely garner support in the UNSC for disarming Iraq - and now you want
national and international consensus on how to *rebuild* Iraq before Bush
goes to war? Do you have any idea exactly what you are asking for?
Time end of the MIddle Eastern winter - and the optimal time for attack is
quickly approaching (Yes, we would both have to fight in it, but Saddam
Hussein doesn't necessarily need to equip his trooops with biochem suits.)
Moreover, we still haven't been able to trace the source of the anthrax
attacks that killed several Americans, shut down the US Congress, and
changed the life of tens of thousands Washingtonians. I'm not implying
that Iraq launched those anthrax attacks, but it certainly raises the
specter of Iraq having the capability to launch an untraceable biological
attack on the US. And according to the United Nations, Iraq has loads
upon loads of biological and chemical weapons that it has not accounted
for, including anthrax. Quite simply, the Bush Administration needs to
concentrate on winning public and international support of executing the
war, and it is simply the nature of open democratic governance that the
post-war plans need to be discussed later.
In fact, I would expect that we will
>soon be moving bases from Saudi Arabia and Qatar into
>Iraq and establishing an effectively permanent
>presence there.
Indeed, that's why I find the fears of the US abandoning Iraq to be very
misplaced. The Bush Administration is known to be motivated by moral
principles and a long-term strategic vision. It is simply impossible to
imagine the US abandoning what will be in a few months one of the US's most
important strategic allies. Remember that Iraq borders axis-of-evil
chater member Iran, and "kernel of evil" Saudi Arabia.
To speculate that the Bush Administration would abandon Iraq is to
speculate that the Bush Administration is profoundly incompetent - and only
the most blinded of partisans do so. They are fully aware that their
doctrine of pre-emption did not really begin in Afghanistan, it begins here
in Iraq, and its legitmacy will forever be judged by the end results in
Iraq. And then there are the strategic considerations.
The US will get the job done..... simply because we cannot afford to fail.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
