[CTRL] Sharon Doctrine for Iraq?
-Caveat Lector- From http://www.iht.com/articles/73960.html Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com American policymakers awash in fantasy William Pfaff IHT Thursday, October 17, 2002 Re-educate the Iraqis? PARIS Even before the newspaper reports of a plan for lasting military occupation of Iraq, on the model of the post-World War II occupation of Japan, the debate over war with Iraq was awash with unchecked fantasies about the future. The debate has mostly consisted of unproved assertions about Iraq's weapons or lack of them; about the threat that it does, or does not, pose to its neighborhood or Israel or the United States; and about its connection, or lack of connection, with international terrorism. It is a highly emotional argument untroubled by much fact. The outcome will apparently be decided by whoever last has the president's ear. The Senate, constitutional custodian of the power to go to war, has abdicated to George W. Bush, conceding to him greater discretion than to any president in history. This is not the conduct of a serious government or a serious nation. War is a grave matter even for a country that fancies itself invincible. One does not attack another society, inflict destruction upon it, kill its soldiers and people and send one's own soldiers to death on the basis of speculation, hypothesis and partisan theories about the future. The United States has never before gone to war without a clear and factually uncontroversial casus belli. In the Gulf War it was Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. In Vietnam it was Communist insurrection against a recognized government. The merits of America's intervention in these wars were certainly controversial, but the facts of aggression, and the facts of insurrection, were there. Today there is as yet no incontrovertible fact that justifies war against Iraq. That is why there is such a controversy. Sending the United Nations inspectors back might produce some facts to replace speculation. Bush supporters now have offered a new theory about American-led peaceful revolution in the region, its democratization and peaceful economic transformation, with reform of Islamic religious thought so as to reconcile Islam with modern Western culture. The newly disclosed plan for military occupation of a defeated Iraq makes up part of this theory. The occupation will reform and re-educate Iraq, supposedly in the way imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were remade after 1945. Only people who know little about Japan and Germany in the 1940s could make such an assumption. Historical ignorance, however deplorable, is not considered an impediment to policy-making in today's Washington. But the people putting these ideas forward cannot pretend to be ignorant of political Washington, the nature and preoccupations of the U.S. Congress today and the temper of American public opinion. The numbers offered in Washington concerning such a military occupation are between 75,000 and 100,000 troops. This is roughly one-fifth of the total personnel of the existing regular army of the United States. And The cost of an occupation is estimated at some $16 billion per year. That is more than 4 percent of the total U.S. military budget for fiscal 2003, including the post-Sept. 11 Bush administration's military budget increase. There is no possibility whatever that the American government and public would make such a commitment of men and money to Iraq. Would other countries pay? Not if there had been no United Nations mandate for the war. Europe after 1945 simply needed to have its economy rebuilt. That is what Marshall Plan money accomplished. The Marshall Plan did not reform or transform European society, nor was it expected to do so. Japan, like Europe, had an advanced industry in 1941. It would not otherwise have been able to put up a ferocious three-and-a-half-year defense against American offensives in the Central and Southwestern Pacific and against the British/Indian advance in South Asia. Japan in 1945 was also an intensely corporate, authoritarian and hierarchical society. By leaving the emperor in place, and acting with his consent and authority, the MacArthur occupation was able to conduct a peaceful reform of the Japanese government, economy and educational system. The Japanese authorities policed the country, not the American occupation. There was no resistance. Would there be resistance to American occupation of Iraq? It is another agreeable fantasy to think that American soldiers would be cheered as they arrived, and be encouraged by the Iraqis to take over their country. What would George W. Bush do, though, if the Iraqi army put up a serious fight, and if the Iraqi public resisted an American occupation? What Ariel Sharon is doing? International Herald Tribune Los Angeles Times Syndicate International Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune ~~~ AER + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Re: [CTRL] Sharon Doctrine for Iraq?
-Caveat Lector- I'm no lover of Sharon - but he is really a red herring in this article. on 10/18/02 3:20 AM, Euphorian at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Caveat Lector- From http://www.iht.com/articles/73960.html Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com American policymakers awash in fantasy William Pfaff IHT Thursday, October 17, 2002 Re-educate the Iraqis? PARIS Even before the newspaper reports of a plan for lasting military occupation of Iraq, on the model of the post-World War II occupation of Japan, the debate over war with Iraq was awash with unchecked fantasies about the future. The debate has mostly consisted of unproved assertions about Iraq's weapons or lack of them; about the threat that it does, or does not, pose to its neighborhood or Israel or the United States; and about its connection, or lack of connection, with international terrorism. It is a highly emotional argument untroubled by much fact. The outcome will apparently be decided by whoever last has the president's ear. The Senate, constitutional custodian of the power to go to war, has abdicated to George W. Bush, conceding to him greater discretion than to any president in history. This is not the conduct of a serious government or a serious nation. War is a grave matter even for a country that fancies itself invincible. One does not attack another society, inflict destruction upon it, kill its soldiers and people and send one's own soldiers to death on the basis of speculation, hypothesis and partisan theories about the future. The United States has never before gone to war without a clear and factually uncontroversial casus belli. In the Gulf War it was Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. In Vietnam it was Communist insurrection against a recognized government. The merits of America's intervention in these wars were certainly controversial, but the facts of aggression, and the facts of insurrection, were there. Today there is as yet no incontrovertible fact that justifies war against Iraq. That is why there is such a controversy. Sending the United Nations inspectors back might produce some facts to replace speculation. Bush supporters now have offered a new theory about American-led peaceful revolution in the region, its democratization and peaceful economic transformation, with reform of Islamic religious thought so as to reconcile Islam with modern Western culture. The newly disclosed plan for military occupation of a defeated Iraq makes up part of this theory. The occupation will reform and re-educate Iraq, supposedly in the way imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were remade after 1945. Only people who know little about Japan and Germany in the 1940s could make such an assumption. Historical ignorance, however deplorable, is not considered an impediment to policy-making in today's Washington. But the people putting these ideas forward cannot pretend to be ignorant of political Washington, the nature and preoccupations of the U.S. Congress today and the temper of American public opinion. The numbers offered in Washington concerning such a military occupation are between 75,000 and 100,000 troops. This is roughly one-fifth of the total personnel of the existing regular army of the United States. And The cost of an occupation is estimated at some $16 billion per year. That is more than 4 percent of the total U.S. military budget for fiscal 2003, including the post-Sept. 11 Bush administration's military budget increase. There is no possibility whatever that the American government and public would make such a commitment of men and money to Iraq. Would other countries pay? Not if there had been no United Nations mandate for the war. Europe after 1945 simply needed to have its economy rebuilt. That is what Marshall Plan money accomplished. The Marshall Plan did not reform or transform European society, nor was it expected to do so. Japan, like Europe, had an advanced industry in 1941. It would not otherwise have been able to put up a ferocious three-and-a-half-year defense against American offensives in the Central and Southwestern Pacific and against the British/Indian advance in South Asia. Japan in 1945 was also an intensely corporate, authoritarian and hierarchical society. By leaving the emperor in place, and acting with his consent and authority, the MacArthur occupation was able to conduct a peaceful reform of the Japanese government, economy and educational system. The Japanese authorities policed the country, not the American occupation. There was no resistance. Would there be resistance to American occupation of Iraq? It is another agreeable fantasy to think that American soldiers would be cheered as they arrived, and be encouraged by the Iraqis to take over their country. What would George W. Bush do, though, if the Iraqi army put up a serious fight, and if the
Re: [CTRL] Sharon Doctrine for Iraq?
-Caveat Lector- 10/18/02 8:58:33 AM, thew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Caveat Lector- I'm no lover of Sharon - but he is really a red herring in this article. Yeah ... that's what became an interesting surpriae about the article ... how the conclusion was not really supported by the rest of the text. I originally found it interesting because of the Iraq - Japan disconnect. AER A HREF=http://www.ctrl.org/;www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF=http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html;Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http://archive.jab.org/ctrl;listserv.aol.com/ A HREF=http://archive.jab.org/ctrl;listserv.aol.com/ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
