[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bothe sides are bluffing. The Iraqis read the NYT and they should be
sufficiently scared.
Someone will blink. Really don't know which side.
People get killed playing "chicken". Was it Jackson Pollack?
Some famous artist or early rock singer splatted. Why not us?
Anyway, if you are wearing hi-tech [Oaklay?] goggles, who can see
what you are doing with your eye lids?
\brad mccormick
arthur
-----Original Message-----
*From:* Karen Watters Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
*Sent:* Saturday, January 25, 2003 10:04 AM
*To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Cc:* William Ward; Tom Lowe; Stephen Straker; Keith Hudson; Harry
Pollard; Frank Hample
*Subject:* [Futurework] Bush Watch
Read this, then look at the title again. No need to say anything
else. Let’s try to avoid using the phrase Countdown, although it is
screaming everywhere.
The NYT Magazine feature story this weekend is also by Keller, a
senior writer at NYT, titled “Reagan’s Son”. Take a look at it
online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/magazine/26BUSH.html?8hpist. and
if you are interested in a Word version, contact me. Karen Watters Cole
Why Bush Won't Wait
**By Bill Keller, NYT, 01.25.03 @
**http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/25/opinion/25KELL.html
President Bush says he has not yet decided whether to go to war with
Iraq, but this week the signs were that he had all but given up on
peace. Administration hawks, who had been worrying that American
resolve would dissipate during a prolonged game of inspection
cat-and-mouse, are suddenly being sent forth to proclaim the weapons
hunt a farce. State Department officials, who thought they had
maneuvered us off the short road to war, seem resigned to the fact
that they have probably failed.
Maybe this is just another mood swing, or an effort to ratchet up
the pressure again in hopes Iraqis will disarm themselves. But I
suspect that the new official refrain — "Time is running out" —
means the chief inspector, Hans Blix, should not count on the
several more months he wants to do his job. The internal debate now
is not war versus peace, or this year versus next year, but February
versus March.
So what's the hurry? I can't claim to know what Mr. Bush thinks,
but I have an idea what he is hearing. It goes something like this:
The detour through the United Nations looks more than ever like a
dead end. Saddam's shuck and jive shows he will never come clean.
The antiwar tantrums of France and Germany just encourage his
intransigence.
The only way to force the issue is to set war in motion — but once
you do, it can't be a false start. Saddam's nervous neighbors have
watched America do that before, talk tough and back down, leaving
them in the lurch.
Perhaps if we give Mr. Blix a few more months to chase wild geese
around Iraq, the U.N. will reward us by endorsing war, but we can
already count on a substantial coalition: The gulf Arabs are on
board (if they are sure we will see it through to the end), probably
Turkey (which wants leverage over the future of its neighbor), the
Brits, the Aussies, Italians, Spanish and all those dependable
ex-Communists. The Russians and French might even jump on the train
once it's moving, to protect their investments. Where's the
unilateral in that?
The polls that show support for war steadily dwindling are not
likely to get better. And while Americans may not be eager to go to
war, at least they expect to go to war. Plus, once we are no longer
worried about the Iraqis playing hide-and-seek with the inspectors,
we are freer to lay out our evidence of Iraqi concealment — though,
frankly, Mr. President, that's something of a problem, since we
can't agree among ourselves how conclusive the evidence is.
Delay means more time for other things to go wrong in the world —
more North Koreas. Delay, Mr. President, means the North Koreans
wonder what you're really made of. Delay means that all this
uncertainty continues to be a drag on the global economy. Delay
means more time for Saddam to prepare nasty surprises for an
invading force (or to help terrorists go for our back).
By mid-February, 150,000 American troops and at least four aircraft
carrier battle groups will be deployed in the region around Iraq.
You cannot park the Fourth Infantry Division in the desert for very
long before the waiting erodes battle readiness and angers our
hosts. And in summer the heat saps a fighting force.
The fact that we are ready for a war is not, by itself, reason to
fight one — unless you are convinced that the non-war option has
been closed off, that Iraq will never otherwise be rendered
harmless. Which you are, aren't you, Mr. President?
This makes a tempting rationale, particularly to a president who
worships decisiveness. But you do not have to be a peacenik to fear
the cost of rushing in.
So far in its showdown with Iraq, the Bush administration has mostly
done the right things, though often with a disheartening lack of
finesse. Mr. Bush was right to identify Saddam Hussein as a menace,
right to mobilize our might to prove we mean business, right to seek
the blessing of Congress and the Security Council. A credible
demonstration of will has produced tangible results. The inspectors
are at work. Arab neighbors are looking for ways the Iraqis can
solve their Saddam problem short of an invasion. (The prospect of a
coup or an asylum deal for Saddam may be remote, but give them
credit for creative thinking.) Saudi Arabia was moved, first, to
propose a peace plan for Israel and Palestine, and second, to
suggest a charter for political and economic reform in the Arab world.
There are compelling reasons for war with Iraq. Mr. Bush has been
wise to emphasize the danger Saddam poses because of his unrelenting
campaign to acquire weapons of horrible power. His mere possession
of such weapons would give him daunting power in a vital region.
Many Americans and some of our allies have mistaken inspection for
an answer to this problem. In fact, inspections have always been a
way to buy some time, during which the regime might crumble, or Iraq
might shock us all by really surrendering its weapons, or Iraqi
non-compliance would exhaust the patience of even the French.
Eventually, though, the inspectors go away, and if Saddam is still
in place his quest for the nuclear grail resumes, presumably with
fiercer motivation than before.
This is to my mind the administration's best argument for going to
war, but it is not a terribly persuasive argument for going right
now. On the contrary, at this moment, a mere nine weeks into
inspections, Saddam seems to most people a less immediate threat
than he was when inspections began. The presence of 200 inspectors
and American technical surveillance is not exactly a lockdown, but
it limits what he can get away with. Moreover, we have not yet
given the inspectors time to check out our shared intelligence, or
to push the demand that Iraqi scientists be interviewed in private.
Pulling the plug at this point tells the world that Mr. Bush was
never very serious about the U.N. route in the first place.
The second justification for war is that this is a beastly regime,
chronically brutal and episodically genocidal. This is true and not
irrelevant. Saddam's reign of terror weakens his claim to
sovereignty, and suggests that many Iraqis will welcome us as
liberators. But this was a stronger argument for ousting Saddam 15
years ago, when he was actively engaged in mass murder.
A third argument for war is that replacing Saddam offers the hope of
a (somewhat) more democratic Iraq. This could begin a political and
cultural reformation of a region that has been an incubator of
anti-American pestilence. I'm somewhat less optimistic than the
romantic interventionists about America's ability to do for Iraq
what we did for Japan and Germany after World War II.
Re-engineering that misbegotten region is a noble undertaking, but
will the impatient Mr. Bush and his successors have the attention
span for a decade of nation-building? In any case, this is another
argument without a deadline. On the contrary, delay might allow us
to invest more of our authority in resolving the neglected, bloody
impasse between Israel and Palestine, which is a sinkhole for
American credibility.
The fourth reason for wresting Iraq from the hands of Saddam is
oil. I don't share the cynical view of many war opponents that this
whole adventure is nothing more than a giant oil grab. Big oil
companies (my father ran one until 1989) have always been much more
in sync with the order-loving sheiks than with the boat-rockers
touting upheaval and democratization. But oil is a big prize, and
in the hands of a new Iraqi government it could be either a force
for stability or a lever for rattling OPEC and undermining other
Arab tyrannies, depending on your preference. It will be no less a
prize if we hold off.
All of these are reasons to want Saddam gone. None are reasons not
to wait — especially if haste further alienates the nations whose
partnership we need to rebuild Iraq, to fight the terrorism that
will surely escalate in response to our war and, incidentally, to
sort out other messes that arise on our new imperial watch.
What Mr. Bush has failed to do over these months of agitation is to
explain his urgency to the American public or our allies. In the
year since the "axis of evil" speech, popular support for war has
declined by at least 10 points. It's not that people doubt Saddam
is a danger. They just think Mr. Bush is in too much of a rush.
They want to see the evidence the president claims to have. They
would like to know what costs and dangers we're in for. Most of
all, they want the world, as much as possible, with us.
Presidents should not make decisions of war and peace based on
polls. (Mr. Bush's father launched the last war against Iraq with
less support than the current president has.) Nor should our
national interests be decided by the faintest hearts among our
allies. But the dwindling of support here and resentment abroad
represent a failure to persuade, and persuading is worth taking some
time.
Outgoing mail scanned by NAV 2002
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
