Many thanks for this posting and the article, Karen. The neoconservatives that would have us attack Iraq may think that it will demonstrate US power, and that that is a good enough reason to attack Iraq.
The several points that they IMO miss are: 1)That no one doubts the magnitude of US power, so, if it ever did, it does not need further demonstration. 2) People oppose the US in part because of the magnitude of our power; it is uncomfortable being a mouse and sleeping next to a tossing elephant. Any more demosntration on our part, and we'll have a Brutus-like response to Bush's Caesar. 3) Our preoccupation with Iraq elevates SH's stature, rather than diminsihes him. SH has gained much prestige due to the US's attention. I suspect, but certainly could not prove, that if we ignored SH (but for discreet and unannounced external controls on his access to certain technologies) his stature would diminish and his hold on Iraq would be more susceptible to challenge. Unfortunately, the interference of the US tends to undermine the credibility of those who in Iraq would reject SH. But, as I said, this is speculation on my part. Best regards, Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karen Watters > Cole > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 5:02 PM > To: William B Ward; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Next 11 September > > > FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, the struggle within the Bush administration > is getting > more attention than Karen Hughes ever wanted it to get: see snippet below > from > http://www.stratfor.com/fib/fib_view.php?ID=205737 > > I also heard an insightful comment on National Public Radio (Talk of the > Nation, I think) about most Americans' perception of the Saudis as our > friends/allies vs enemies: for many Americans the only memory of > the Saudis > is as our very cooperative allies during Desert Storm a decade > ago; however, > their motives and interests are different today, obviously, because Kuwait > has not been occupied again and there is not immediate fear that SH can or > is interested in taking control of a neighbor's oil production. > > It's obvious to everyone on this list, at least, that much has > changed in 10 > years and the same conditions and political environment no longer > are there, > but to the average voter the assumption remains that SA is still one of > America's best friends in the ME. Thus, a PR campaign to justify > ambitious > and hastily made plans, and that's why so much of this appears fragmented > and poorly researched, regardless of 9/11 as a pivotal marker > that "changed > everything". You can use that only so much. Pearl Harbor didn't change the > agenda, conditions and action in Japan's warfare in the Pacific all it did > was change our response. > > Likewise, 9/11 didn't change the history, decades of violence and attempts > at peace and their failure, or the sociopolitical culture that > greeted Bush > & Cheney on 9/12. We are in the process of mythmaking, just as the Gulf of > Tonkin "incident" justified Johnson accelerating US activity in SE Asia. > 9/11 is being used as an excuse, not a justification. Identifying WMD and > the threat of their use is justification for regime change, not > speculation > and conjecture or wishful thinking. > > However, historians are kept busy writing books about just such decisions > and calls to war for far sillier reasons. - Karen > The Iraq Obsession: Summary > 14 August 2002 > Opposition to a U.S. attack on Iraq is increasingly being voiced > internationally and within Washington. Despite the divisions it > is causing, > the Bush administration is not abandoning its strategy because it sees a > successful campaign against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as a prime way to > shatter the psychological advantage within the Islamist movement and > demonstrate U.S. power. > > Analysis > > The diplomatic and political walls began to close in on the Bush > administration's Iraq policy last week. First, German Chancellor Gerhard > Schroeder very publicly announced something Berlin had been > saying privately > for years: The German government wants no part in any invasion of > Iraq. Then > Republican House majority leader Dick Armey said he saw little > justification > for an Iraqi operation. > > Schroeder's stance may be mainly a political ploy aimed at Germany's Sept. > 22 elections as he currently is trailing conservative challenger Edmund > Stoiber, who has taken a more pro-U.S. military stance. But > Washington must > still take seriously the opposition to an Iraq campaign within the German > government and populace. Germany is a key staging area for U.S. forces. > There are pre-positioned equipment and forces based in the country that > undoubtedly would be needed for any attack. Depending on the opposition, > U.S. bases in Germany might not be available for use. > > The statement from Armey also means that in addition to expected > opposition > from liberals, Bush could face the same from his own political > base. At this > point it seems there are very few outside the Bush administration who want > an Iraq invasion, with the possible exception of the British > government and > Israel. > > Bill wrote: > Keith, I agree that there is a struggle going on in the Bush > administration. Even though 'W' is not a match for the brain power > surrounding him, you have to remember that his background and wealth is > in and from oil and he probably has a much warmer feeling for Saudi money > than anyone else there. > > Bill > >
