On the face of it Harry, you are trying too hard to apologize for a man made project done very badly. In the corporate world, heads would roll, careers would be derailed. It is up to the people here to decide that now for themselves, spin or no spin. We can only hope that independent thinking will prevail over production values broadcast as intelligence, and that there will be a real election not a khaki one, regardless of the outcome, so that confidence can be restored in the system. It is that vulnerable right now. Many people believe that the US as a republic is on terminal life support.
The way this project was sold demands evidence, and without it there will also be a sense of failed mission, at best. Now as we wrestle with being accountable to the disaster we have helped to create, it seems superficial to describe the next stage as creating a new "jewel of the middle east" when all that is required is for good civil societies to be strengthened from the yolk of oppressive government, suppressive religion and exploited natural resources. Palestine and Israel are the keys to a peaceful, productive and vibrant Middle East. Who or what is the gatekeeper? KWC 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
