|
William, I'm just responding to the "policy
makers must be those who decide what is in the national interest and to not
be distracted by minor issues such as lack of congressional, public, and
international support" bit.
I think in a way that is true and how it should be.
In a democracy that shouldn't be a problem, because the laws should be
respected, and that means nothing can be done without the consent of parliament
and the public. If that law giving organ fails, society fails.
So these policy making people may very well think
they can serve public interest without principles, at the end they will have to
defend their policy in a body where, if democracy still means anything,
principles do count indeed. If that is not the case, we do not live in a
democracy, and then, may god, buddha or allah beware us all. Quite a few people
on this list seem to think that is the case; I'm still hoping it
isn't.
Jan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 3:28
AM
Subject: Re: Gulf War II/Israeli War
IV
Bob Novak took me by surprise when he indicated that the idea to move on
Iraq is that of Richard Perle, a foreign affairs advisor to Bush who also was
an advisor to his dad.
It was not that I was unaware of the role that Perle was playing in the
administration but that Novak would be so outspoken about it. Colin Powell has
been outflanked by Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of
Defense, and Perle. It appears that this same group may have undermined
Powell's position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Perle has never found a target he didn't want to go after and is probably
sensitive to his buddies when they admonish him that the job on Saddaam was
not finished the first time.
Wolfowitz has been a busy guy, building the Central Command in Tampa,
working very closely with Dick Cheney, and serving as Ambassador to Indonesia
in addition to his academic roles at SAIS and elsewhere. He may be pushed a
little by the fact that a war with Saddaam is a good way to take some of the
heat off of his old boss. Wolfowitz has written "Both the policy and the
intelligence sides suffer, as does the national interest, whenever principles
or practices are allowed to interfere with close professional
cooperation." http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/96unclass/davis.htm
Translated, this seems to mean to me that policy makers must be
those who decide what is in the national interest and to not be
distracted by minor issues such as lack of congressional, public, and
international support.
Bill Ward
| 