Greetings, Harry:
Here are the items in which, I believe, you err:
1. WMD is THE essential argument. How else can you legitimize the invasion
of a country by another? Only the plea of self-defense will meet the test of
law. Without WMD, couple with the assertion that they were a threat to the
US (also dubious), you are left with an illegal act of war by the US. This
is true no matter how much you, personally, or others in this country, do
not like Saddam Hussein.
2. Iraq is a basket case only because of two things:
A. Iraq's ill-advised war on Iran, and its toll. Remember that the US
encouraged that war, out of its anti-Irani policies.
B. Post 1991 sanctions, most vociferously demanded by the US
Without these two, Iraq would be no basket case, with or without Saddam
Hussein.
3. Cache's of weapons? In schools and hospitals? Any country facing invasion
is going to take whatever weapons it has and deploy them to wherever it is
handy. This does not provide us or anyone else with a casus belli. 1,500
chemical suits? So what? Remember that it is the US that has the largest
stockpile of chemical weapons in the world in its armoury: faced with an
attack by the US, stockpiling protective suits seems like a wise move, not
that 1,500 would go far. You call these 'evidence' -- evidence of what?
4. I am glad that you 'reported' on decrepit pipelines, etc., and will
simply note that many others actually were reporting from the field on just
that in the years since 1991, and reporting on the effects of the sanctions,
which included a blockade on oil equipment and spare parts. So your point is
what? That those who blockaded Iraq were able to ruin its oil
infrastructure?
5. Building Iraq into a jewel? Well, that is a fine sentiment: the best way
to accomplish that is for occupation troops to get out and take Bremer and
his crew of political poseurs with them, pay war damage compensation to
Iraq, and let the Iraqis get on with the job of rebuilding their country.
6. The Arab leaders are making 'good noises' you say, prompted by the Iraq
invasion. You are evidently ignorant of the Beirut Declaration, which long
predates your tanks. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the recent
history, if only that, of the Middle East before making such condescending
and ignorant remarks.
7. Bush's 'power' on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: yes, the US has
power, but power needs more for it to have a positive effect:
A. It needs to be exercised -- and the US has proved itself notoriously
unable to use its power when it comes to this conflict. No reason to think
that Bush will find it easier than other Presidents.
B. It needs to be exercised wisely -- and Bush and his advisors have proven
themselves singularly inept in this regard.
C. Its use must be guided by a well-formulated outcome and strategy -- and
Bush and his advisors have proven inept at this as well.
8. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not dependent on the US: the parties
are quite able to make a hash of it without US help. To think that the
conflict can now be solved because can focus on it displays a splendid
ignorance of the essential issues of that struggle.
9. You may be better at crossing your fingers than others, but I wish you
would use that skill at 'walking' through the many sources of information
that are available on all of this, then doing some thoughtful and genuine
analysis, and then at sharing the fruits of that analysis with us. We need
more light and less noise in the discussion, Harry. I admire, on the one
hand, your willingness to write at length and tenacity, but deplore your
ignorance on Middle Eastern affairs. You are still in the 'beginner' stages
regarding the Middle East, and it would behoove you to learn, rather than to
prattle.
No doubt this will seem harsh, but we have been getting to this point over
several months. I don't think you have followed up on any of my requests to
you to consult various documents (like the Beirut Declaration, and so your
learning curve is pretty flat. I doubt that you have read the Roadmap, or
analysed the changes it went through between last September and May, 2003.
And yet this is the kind of elementary research that one HAS to do before
one can hope to know about the Middle East.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a sad leader of a sad country; but how much sadder
is it when someone who has the opportunity to learn a bit refuses to do so?
With personal respect,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard
> Sent: Mon, June 09, 2003 3:29 AM
> To: Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Because We Can
>
>
> Karen,
>
> Good article and good commentary.
>
> A long while ago, I said I thought the WMD were pretty dubious, but I
> thought that probably the war was a correct thing to do. Didn't
> support it
> when it looked as if the buildup would be al that was necessary -
> but once
> it started I looked to the good things that possibly could come from it.
>
> I didn't think it would go as it did. But, then I didn't realize that
> Saddam had reduced his country to a basket case - as I've
> described it many
> times.
>
> The evidence included all those caches of unused weapons found around the
> place, mostly in schools and hospitals. We have forgotten, I suppose that
> bunch of chemical protection suits that was discovered - was it
> 1,500 of them?
>
> The dams were not blown, attempts to fire the oil wells didn't occur
> although I recall a number of them were equipped with charges that were
> never fired.
>
> I've already reported on the decrepit pipeline infrastructure - broken
> pumping stations, leaky pipes, and the rest.
>
> There was none of the ferocity of Saddam's Gulf war as he set fire to the
> Kuwaiti wells.
>
> No Stalingrads - it just took 900 British Commandoes let the final charge
> into Basrah - and suffered 3 dead.
>
> I think that Saddam was a sad leader of a sad country.
>
> If it can be done, Iraq must be turned into the jewel of the Middle East.
> While this is happening, Bush must use his power to get the Israeli -
> Palestine dispute settled. Perhaps, some dominoes will begin to fall -
> pushed by McDonald's no doubt.
>
> The Arab leaders are making good noises - it's surprising what a few
> divisions of tanks will accomplish. They just have to be there, and there
> must be a belief that the guy who controls them is not afraid to use them.
>
> When the tanks began to roll into Iraq, the attention of Muslim
> leaders was
> jolted. When they got to Baghdad in a few days, attention was
> fully on what
> Bush would do next.
>
> Keith dismisses out of hand any chance of success. Perhaps I can cross my
> fingers better than he.
>
> Harry
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Karen wrote:
>
> >Friedman is quite honest here, both in trying to separate the wheat from
> >the chafeand in his attempts to cover his previous commentary
> where he was
> >more approving of the Bush2 stated reasons for going to war. Its been
> >said that before a war there are some believed good reasons.
> Afterwards,
> >there are never any good reasons. You always wonder if another
> way would
> >not have been more productive and less costly.
> >
> >However, this is not just about one local neighborhood, Iraq, it
> is about
> >Israel and Palestine, the best case study for human ineptitude and
> >institutionalized politics, historical animosity and historical
> >opportunity as we have in prima geopolitics today.
> >
> >
> >
> >Since Ive posted many times here about the need for some heroic
> >self-sacrifice on the part of the political leadership in Israel and
> >Palestine, let me share that I am cautiously optimistic and holding my
> >breath regarding recent developments. I am waiting to see if Sharon has
> >had a midnight legacy conversion experienceor just realized that all the
> >pressure applied to the Palestinians to change their stripes and demote
> >Arafat will have the end result of exposing Israels feet in concrete
> >attitude since the Palestinians are moving ahead. Lots of corny photo
> >cops abound, but I am waiting to see not the Kodak moments, but the
> >WYSIWYG, or What you see is what you get moments. - KWC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Because We Could
> >
> >
> >
> >By Thomas L. Friedman, NYT, June 4, 2003
> >
> >
> >
> >The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction
> >(W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the
> real story
> >we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war,
> >and it's the wrong issue now.
> >
> >
> >
> >Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real
> >reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
> >
> >
> >
> >The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after
> >9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan
> >wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there
> a bubble
> >that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to
> >be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the
> >World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was
> >O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things
> >"martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such
> >"martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was
> a feeling
> >among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of
> >power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and
> >their activists were ready to die.
> >
> >
> >
> >The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and
> >women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to
> house, and
> >make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open
> >society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi
> >Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple
> >reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was
> >right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense
> that this
> >had no effect. Every neighboring government and 98 percent of
> terrorism is
> >about what governments let happen got the message. If you talk to U.S.
> >soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
> >
> >
> >
> >The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis,
> >post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the
> real weapons
> >of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The
> >real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry,
> humiliated
> >young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing
> Arab states
> >young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping
> to build a
> >decent Iraq as a model for others and solving the Israeli-Palestinian
> >conflict are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass
> >destruction, which are what really threaten us.
> >
> >
> >
> >The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of
> >mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his
> own people,
> >and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.
> >
> >
> >
> >But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real
> reason for the
> >war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support
> >for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated
> >reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction
> that posed
> >an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that
> Saddam posed
> >no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we
> >couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I
> argued that Mr.
> >Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons.
> >But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.
> >
> >
> >
> >Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of
> >Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find
> >any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way.
> But I have
> >to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr.
> Bush took
> >the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the
> >evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly
> >damage America and be a very serious matter.
> >
> >
> >
> >But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to
> >preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony
> Blair and the
> >C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one
> >whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he
> >would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we
> fail to put
> >Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the
> >terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's
> >credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the
> >future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq.
> We must not
> >forget that.
>
>
> ****************************************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles
> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
> Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242
> http://home.attbi.com/~haledward
> ****************************************************
>
>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
