PDA

View Full Version : Kissinger speaks - Phase II and Iraq


HayesStreet
01-16-2002, 07:51 PM
By Henry A. Kissinger, Washington Post
Sunday, January 13, 2002; Page B07


As military operations in Afghanistan wind down, it is well to keep in mind President Bush's injunction that they are only the first battles of a long war.

An important step has been taken toward the goals of breaking the nexus between governments and the terrorist groups they support or tolerate, discrediting Islamic fundamentalism so that moderates in the Islamic world can reclaim their religion from the fanatics, and placing the fight against terrorism in the context of the geopolitical threat of Saddam Hussein's Iraq to regional stability and to American friends and interests in the region. But much more needs to be done.

Were we to flinch, the success in Afghanistan would be interpreted in time as taking on the weakest and most remote of the terrorist centers while we recoiled from unraveling terrorism in countries more central to the problem.

Three interrelated courses of action are available:

(a) To rely primarily on diplomacy and coalition-building on the theory that the fate of the Taliban will teach the appropriate lessons.

(b) To insist on a number of specific corrective steps in countries with known training camps or terrorist headquarters, such as Somalia or Yemen, or those engaged in dangerous programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, such as Iraq, and to take military action if these steps are rejected.

(c) To focus on the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in order to change the regional dynamics by showing America's determination to defend regional stability, its interests and its friends. (This would also send a strong message to other rogue states.)

Sole reliance on diplomacy is the preferred course of some members of the coalition, which claim that the remaining tasks can be accomplished by consultation and the cooperation of intelligence and security services around the world. But to rely solely on diplomacy would be to repeat the mistake with which the United States hamstrung itself in every war of the past half-century. Because it treated military operations and diplomacy as separate and sequential, the United States stopped military operations in Korea as soon as our adversaries moved to the conference table; it ended the bombing of North Vietnam as an entrance price to the Paris talks; it stopped military operations in the Gulf after the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

In each case, the ending of military pressure produced diplomatic stalemate. The Korean armistice negotiations consumed two years, during which America suffered as many casualties as in the entire combat phase; an even more intractable stalemate developed in the Vietnam negotiations; and in the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein used the Republican Guard divisions preserved by the armistice to restore control over his territory and to dismantle systematically the inspection provisions of the armistice agreement.

Anti-terrorism policy is empty if it is not backed by the threat of force. Intellectual opponents of military action as well as its likely targets will procrastinate or agree to token or symbolic remedies only. Ironically, governments on whose territory terrorists are tolerated will find it especially difficult to cooperate unless the consequences of failing to do so are made more risky than their tacit bargain with the terrorists.

Phase II of the anti-terrorism campaign must therefore involve a specific set of demands geared to a precise timetable supported by credible coercive power. These should be put forward as soon as possible as a framework. And time is of the essence. Phase II must begin while the memory of the attack on the United States is still vivid and American-deployed forces are available to back up the diplomacy.

Nor should Phase II be confused with the pacification of Afghanistan. The American strategic objective was to destroy the terrorist network; that has been largely accomplished. Pacification of the entire country of Afghanistan has never been achieved by foreigners and cannot be the objective of the American military effort. The United States should be generous with economic and development assistance. But the strategic goal of Phase II should be the destruction of the global terrorist network, to prevent its reappearance in Afghanistan, but not to be drawn into Afghan civil strife.

Somalia and Yemen are often mentioned as possible targets for a Phase II campaign. That decision should depend on the ability to identify targets against which local governments are able to act and on the suitability of American forces to accomplish this task if the local governments can't or won't. And given these limitations, the United States will have to decide whether action against them is strategically productive.

All this raises the unavoidable challenge Iraq poses. The issue is not whether Iraq was involved in the terrorist attack on the United States. The challenge of Iraq is essentially geopolitical. Iraq's policy is implacably hostile to the United States and to certain neighboring countries. It possesses growing stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, which Saddam Hussein has used in the war against Iran and on his own population. It is working to develop a nuclear capability. Hussein breached his commitment to the United Nations by evicting the international inspectors he had accepted on his territory as part of the armistice agreement ending the Gulf War. There is no possibility of a negotiation between Washington and Baghdad and no basis for trusting Iraq's promises to the international community.

If these capabilities remain intact, they could in time be used for terrorist goals or by Saddam Hussein in the midst of some new regional or international upheaval. And if his regime survives both the Gulf War and the anti-terrorism campaign, this fact alone will elevate him to a potentially overwhelming menace.

From a long-range point of view, the greatest opportunity of Phase II is to return Iraq to a responsible role in the region. Were Iraq governed by a group representing no threat to its neighbors and willing to abandon its weapons of mass destruction, the stability of the region would be immeasurably enhanced. The remaining regimes flirting with terrorist fundamentalism or acquiescing in its exactions would be driven to shut down their support of terrorism.

At a minimum, we should insist on a U.N. inspection system to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, with an unlimited right of inspection and freedom of movement for the inspectors. But no such system exists on paper, and the effort to install it might be identical with that required to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Above all, given the ease of producing biological and chemical weapons, inspection must be extremely intrusive, and experience shows that no inspection can withstand indefinitely the opposition of a determined host government.

But if the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is to be seriously considered, three prerequisites must be met: (a) development of a military plan that is quick and decisive, (b) some prior agreement on what kind of structure is to replace Hussein and (c) the support or acquiescence of key countries needed for implementation of the military plan.

A military operation against Saddam Hussein cannot be long and drawn out. If it is, the battle may turn into a struggle of Islam against the West. It would also enable Hussein to try to involve Israel by launching attacks on it -- perhaps using chemical and biological weapons -- in the process sowing confusion within the Muslim world. A long war extending to six months and beyond would also make it more difficult to keep allies and countries such as Russia and China from dissociating formally from what they are unlikely to join but even more unlikely to oppose.

Before proceeding to confrontation with Iraq, the Bush administration will therefore wish to examine with great care the military strategy implied. Forces of the magnitude of the Gulf War of a decade ago are unlikely to be needed. At the same time, it would be dangerous to rely on a combination of U.S. air power and indigenous opposition forces alone. To be sure, the contemporary precision weaponry was not available in the existing quantities during the Gulf War. And the no-fly zones will make Iraqi reinforcements difficult. They could be strengthened by being turned into no-movement zones proscribing the movement of particular categories of weapons.

Still, we cannot stake American national security entirely, or even largely, on local opposition forces that do not yet exist and whose combat capabilities are untested. Perhaps Iraqi forces would collapse at the first confrontation, as some argue. But the likelihood of this happening is greatly increased if it is clear American military power stands in overwhelming force immediately behind the local forces.

A second prerequisite for a military campaign against Iraq is to define the political outcome. Local opposition would in all likelihood be sustained by the Kurdish minority in the north and the Shiite minority in the south. But if we are to enlist the Sunni majority, which now dominates Iraq, in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, we need to make clear that Iraq's disintegration is not the goal of American policy. This is all the more important because a military operation in Iraq would require the support of Turkey and the acquiescence of Saudi Arabia. Neither is likely to cooperate if they foresee an independent Kurdish state in the north and a Shiite republic in the south as the probable outcome. A Kurdish state would inflame the Kurdish minority in Turkey and a Shiite state in the south would threaten the Dhahran region in Saudi Arabia, and might give Iran a new base to seek to dominate the gulf region. A federal structure for a unified Iraq would be a way to deal with this issue.

Creating an appropriate coalition for such an effort and finding bases for the necessary American deployment will be difficult. Phase II is likely to separate those members of the coalition that joined so as to have veto over American actions from those that are willing to pursue an implacable strategy. Nevertheless, the skillful diplomacy that shaped the first phase of the anti-terrorism campaign would have much to build on. Saddam Hussein has no friends in the gulf region. Britain will not easily abandon the pivotal role, based on its special relationship with the United States, that it has earned for itself in the evolution of the crisis. Nor will Germany move into active opposition to the United States -- especially in an election year. The same is true of Russia, China and Japan. A determined American policy thus has more latitude than is generally assumed.

But it will be far more difficult than Phase I. Local resistance -- especially in Iraq -- will be more determined and ruthless. Domestic opposition will mount in many countries. American public opinion will be crucial in sustaining such a course. It will need to be shaped by the same kind of decisive and subtle leadership by which President Bush unified the country for the first phase of the crisis.

haven
01-16-2002, 08:06 PM
Look, it's Henry Kissinger trying to pretend he's still relevant! Too bad that hardcore Realpolitik has been abandoned even by most staunch conservatives... and that it's fundamentally unable to address problems of assymetric warfare...

Henry Kissinger was very good at shaking hands with Zhou Enlai. But, alas for Kissinger, the Cold War is long over.

Sometime, read Steven Tyler's Great Wall. Kissinger had a couple of really good ideas, but most of the time he was acting like a paranoid egomaniac with an appetite for humiliating anybody who considered themselves his equal. He even tried to embarass Nixon in claiming credit for certain diplomatic ventures. Now, Kissinger's engrossed with giving expensive parties and lobbying the Senate to avoid signing to any commitments to the World Court (poor Henry could be tried for war crimes if we ever did).

treeman
01-16-2002, 08:22 PM
Needless to say, I agree with Henry.

haven, are you still trying to tell us that the Iraq issue shouldn't be addressed?

Or are you just still trying to tell us that military force won't be necessary to deal with Saddam?

BTW, Old Henry is still a heavy-hitter behind the scenes, as I'm sure you know. Nobody listens to me, but everyone listens to him. ;)

Also BTW, Iraq doesn't present us with an assymetric warfare situation. The Republican Guard is not just a bunch of guys wearing turbans and strapping bombs onto themselves... We've got identifiable targets in this one.

HayesStreet
01-16-2002, 08:31 PM
I have to agree with Treeman on this one, Haven. You spew out a bunch of random attacks on Kissinger, but dispute not one point of his article. For every person you can find that rips Kissinger I can find one that gives him due. And Realpolitik ain't dead, it just must not be on your reading list. Personally, I think this particular article is well written and well thought out. As are several of Kissinger's books that I've read. Ever take the time to actually READ something he's written?

JayZ750
01-16-2002, 11:04 PM
You're all right. Kissinger was an amazing eglomaniac who may have singlehandedly extended the Vietnam War jsut to get into Nixon's White House...but when it comes to brokering power, he knows how to play (cause it really is all about screwing people over)

treeman
01-16-2002, 11:10 PM
Kissinger was an amazing egomaniac. I don't know what an eglomaniac is... ;) And people do still listen to him. He's right on on this one.

You're right. It's all about screwing people over. I just can't wait to screw some Iraqis over... :rolleyes:

haven
01-17-2002, 03:56 AM
Needless to say, I agree with Henry.

haven, are you still trying to tell us that the Iraq issue shouldn't be addressed?

Or are you just still trying to tell us that military force won't be necessary to deal with Saddam?

BTW, Old Henry is still a heavy-hitter behind the scenes, as I'm sure you know. Nobody listens to me, but everyone listens to him.

Also BTW, Iraq doesn't present us with an assymetric warfare situation. The Republican Guard is not just a bunch of guys wearing turbans and strapping bombs onto themselves... We've got identifiable targets in this one.

When did I say he was wrong about this particular issue? The problem is, Kissinger masquerades as a political genius... when in reality, his time has passed.

A great deal of what Kissinger has said in the past, and likely now, he got from aides that he basically ripped off. Now, politicians are supposed to do this. However, Kissinger's supposedly an academic. He should think for himself.

During repprochement with China, he was actually defeated round after round by China's Zhou Enlai, despite having greater leverage. Even worse, Kissinger so revered Zhou that he embarrassed himself while doing it.

A conservative friend of mine actually went to a private party with Kissinger. Evidently, the conversation consisted of Kissinger making self-evident statements, while everyone else acted as if he was spouting revelations from the Mount.

I do like certain things that Kissinger has done, and thought. But his reputation is swollen like an overripe melon, at this point. Just trying to deflate it a little bit ;).

And yes... I made a typo... jeez!

treeman
01-17-2002, 04:14 AM
haven:

Man, Kill that source! Kill it!!! Kill!!! ;)

Are you in this thread to argue against going against Saddam's regime, or are you just here to bash Kissinger?

I'll ride you on one, but leave you alone on the other (because that XX has made some monumental mistakes in the past)?

If this is really a thread about Henry Kissinger - and not Saddam Hussein's Iraq - let me know, 'cause I'm posting under the assumption that this is a Saddam thread - not just a "haven's personal vent against Nixon's former SecState" thread...

Maybe we should ask Hayes Street what he intended this thread to focus on? I'm guessing it's not the writer of the article...

Hydra
01-17-2002, 04:19 AM
[off topic] speaking of typos, my random signals professor claimed he had made a typo on our quiz today; our hand-written quiz. :D [/off topic]

I agree that we need to go after Saddam next. A dangerous lunatic like him should not be allowed to have access to WMD. I think it is critical that we learn the locations of any WMD that are ready for deployment before we strike though. I have a feeling that Saddam would use them all on whomever was in range if he was attacked by the United States. Our first priority must be the WMD, our second can be Saddam and his Republican guard. Opening up the country to free elections should provide a reasonable government for Iraq.

treeman
01-17-2002, 04:31 AM
A professor wrote that? Sounds like a 5th-grader... They'll give PhDs to anybody nowadays. ;)

HayesStreet
01-17-2002, 05:05 AM
Well, the thread was supposed to be about the article, but I dig Kissinger so I don't mind talking about him either. Just a couple of quick observations...

Most people who have walked in positions such as Kissinger in the corridors of power are egomaniacs. (Bush may be an exception 'cause he's such a knothead). If they didn't have huge ego's they wouldn't be there in the first place. None of those power players make NO mistakes, and Kissinger is certainly guilty of a few, but overall he's still a pretty smart dude with some valuable insight (because of where he's been) into the way governments interact with each other, and the way foreign policy is formulated and executed.

If you read almost anything K-man writes these days, its all fairly well thought out and usually recommends an outline of what steps we should take next, which is informative since most writers speak so generally about what we should do. This article is a good example, and the lack of response to his outline goes to the point.

glynch
01-17-2002, 10:48 AM
Haven said: Look, it's Henry Kissinger trying to pretend he's still relevant!

Hehehe! Henry cracks me up every time he tries to do that.

Maybe they can try Henry and Sharon at the same time at the Hague.

HayesStreet
01-17-2002, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by glynch
Haven said: Look, it's Henry Kissinger trying to pretend he's still relevant!

Hehehe! Henry cracks me up every time he tries to do that.

Maybe they can try Henry and Sharon at the same time at the Hague.

Hey look, its another relevant post. :rolleyes:

treeman
01-17-2002, 01:22 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to actually argue the letter. Odd that all haven and glynchie can seem to do is bash the source...

haven
01-17-2002, 04:19 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to actually argue the letter. Odd that all haven and glynchie can seem to do is bash the source...

To be perfectly honest, the situation with Iraq isn't particularly interesting to me. I'll tell you what I think, and you're welcome to respond if you wish.

1. Sanctions were initially a good idea. Normal state governments might be coerced by sanctions. Unfortunately, Hussein doesn't care about his people. Now, we're in the difficult position of inflicting human misery without any hope of having an effect. Lifting sanctions might damage our credibility... keeping them hurts innocent people.

Tough decision, I'm willing to admit. That's why I don't argue on it much... because there *isn't* a good response.

2. We really need to remove Saddam from power. However, I don't know if he'd release his WMD if he thought he were about to be toppled. If he might, then the campaign wouldn't be worth it. Even in his weakened state, he could probably pack quite a punch. As long as we don't attack, he's unlikely to release WMD because he knows that doing so would mean his own obliteration.

Saddam's secular, so he doesn't want to die for Allah.

Now about Kissinger... I'm not attempting to bash Kissinger's statement by attacking him. I'm not using an ad hominem argument. I'm attacking Kissinger because I think he possesses more credibility than he deserves in the public at large and want to diminish that.

RocketMan Tex
01-17-2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by glynch

Maybe they can try Henry and Sharon at the same time at the Hague.

Sure they can. Right after the trial and summary execution of Yasser Arafat.

treeman
01-17-2002, 04:44 PM
haven:

1. Sanctions were initially a good idea. Normal state governments might be coerced by sanctions. Unfortunately, Hussein doesn't care about his people. Now, we're in the difficult position of inflicting human misery without any hope of having an effect. Lifting sanctions might damage our credibility... keeping them hurts innocent people.

I largely agree, and I'd like to see the sanctions lifted as well. Just not while Saddam's in power.

Keeping the sanctions in place is not a credibility issue for us; it truly does limit his ability to A) reconstitute his army, and B) develop WMD. Yes, he still gets his money and lives like a king, and yes, it hurts his people (although if he'd actually distribute the aid he's sent to his people instead of his army like he's supposed to, there wouldn't be any suffering), but he cannot buy any significant amounts of military equipment (and threaten everyone again), and he doesn't have access to many technologies that would help him to accellerate his WMD programs.

That said, I'd like to see the sanctions lifted as soon as possible as well, because he does not distribute the aid given him as he is supposed to under the oil for food deal. As soon as he's gone - and the successor regime lives up to its UN Resolution 687 agreements - the sanctions can and should be lifted immediately. He'll just never do it (let inspectors back in and give up his WMD programs), as he's said repeatedly.

2. We really need to remove Saddam from power. However, I don't know if he'd release his WMD if he thought he were about to be toppled. If he might, then the campaign wouldn't be worth it. Even in his weakened state, he could probably pack quite a punch. As long as we don't attack, he's unlikely to release WMD because he knows that doing so would mean his own obliteration.

It's good to hear that you understand that he should be toppled. Some people won't even admit that (glynch)...

He might well try to fire some CBW-tipped SCUDs at Tel Aviv or Riyahd as a last-ditch attempt at revenge. He might just do that anyway - regardless of whether or not we attack. He's not the most balanced person in the world, you know (some analysts believe that he's a paranoid schizophrenic)...

Personally, I think any attempt by him to use WMD against us would spark an uprising within his own military and party ranks. They understand that to do so would be signing all of their death warrants, and many of them would likely rather live and be a part of the successor regime. He might or might not get away with it, but I suspect that as soon as he gave the orders to do it he'd be signing his own death warrant...

IMO, we really don't have a choice. He will eventually get his hands on some nukes (if he hasn't already), and when that happens we will all be in trouble. He will be able to take over the ME - and most of the world's oil supply with it - if he was to fully realize his dream of becoming a nuclear power. His track record indicates that he wouldn't just use them as insurance either, he'd use them to gain power.

And Saddam's links to the global terror network are undeniable, as is his grudge against us. There's a growing consensus that he is the real power driving the global anti-US terror network, and not just Al Qaeda. Iraqi Intelligence agents keep popping up in connection with major terror operations ('93 WTC, '01 WTC, plot to assassinate Bush, Karine-A arms shipment, etc)...

treeman
01-17-2002, 04:49 PM
Sure they can. Right after the trial and summary execution of Yasser Arafat.

Good luck getting glynch to admit that Yassir is anything but a peace-loving freedom fighter...

RocketMan Tex
01-17-2002, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by treeman


Good luck getting glynch to admit that Yassir is anything but a peace-loving freedom fighter...

Maybe we can get him to learn that the Arabic phrase "peace loving freedom fighter" translates to "stone cold killer of innocent civilians" in English.

haven
01-17-2002, 04:57 PM
Keeping the sanctions in place is not a credibility issue for us; it truly does limit his ability to A) reconstitute his army, and B) develop WMD. Yes, he still gets his money and lives like a king, and yes, it hurts his people (although if he'd actually distribute the aid he's sent to his people instead of his army like he's supposed to, there wouldn't be any suffering), but he cannot buy any significant amounts of military equipment (and threaten everyone again), and he doesn't have access to many technologies that would help him to accellerate his WMD programs.

Well, yes. But even if the UN estimate is wrong of 1.5 million deaths... (I think that's right)... an enormous amount of human misery has been inflicted.

Now, the easy response is simply "well, the moral responsibility is Saddam's." But I think that's a little trite, especially when the situation is in our control as well. Certainly, I'd agree that Saddam is more culpable than we are. But I don't think we can entirely sidestep the burden of guilt.

Not alleviating human suffering when it's in your power... no matter what the consequences, it's a hard choice... and one that I think too many people are flippant about.

Ultimately, I don't know what I'd do. But it disturbs me the way some people casually dismiss the issue.

treeman
01-17-2002, 05:11 PM
haven:

It's that "no matter the consequences" part that gets me.

I see a revitalized Iraqi army in possession of nuclear weapons - and with Saddam at the helm - as too much of a threat. The consequences could be more dead than with the sanctions... If he tried to take over the ME (and that has always been his goal), how many deaths do you think would result? He's already gotten over a million people killed with his wars against Iran and Kuwait. Now, consider if he had had nukes back then...

The course that presents the smallest loss of life should be taken, IMO, and that course is clearly (clearly to me, at least) removing Saddam. Take him out, and the sanctions are gone, the WMD are gone, and Iraq can rejoin the community of nations. Leave him there and you either have A) sanctions killing innocent Iraqis, or B) an emboldened Saddam threatening the entire ME (not to mention us) with potentially catastrophic loss of life. The choice is easy.

HayesStreet
01-17-2002, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by haven

Now about Kissinger... I'm not attempting to bash Kissinger's statement by attacking him. I'm not using an ad hominem argument. I'm attacking Kissinger because I think he possesses more credibility than he deserves in the public at large and want to diminish that.

Let's see....he's paranoid, he's an egomaniac, he steals other people's ideas, he's irrelevant...

How are those not ad hominem attacks?

The fact that his article is well thought out and that it makes sense would refute your contention that his theoretical perspective is out of place in today's conflict. In fact, I'm not sure how you come to that determination in the first place. The debate between guiding our foreign policy by national interest or by moral imperatives is just as important and relevant in the post-Cold War world as it was during it.

F.D. Khan
01-17-2002, 05:38 PM
I Have never felt sanctions will force any sort of positive change on a dictatorial-type regime ala Saddam. Pre-1990's Hussein was a better ruler in the Middle East and was very anti-extremist and if not for the war would have probably been a strong ally of the US today in the fight against religious extremism at all levels.

Alas, with the destruction of Iraq, he is just hell-bent on revenge and must be taken out. Hussein still lives in comfort, and looks though he hasn't missed a meal lately. The sanctions will not hurt him, only his people. He needs to be taken out more as a favor to the Iraqi people for our knocking their country back to the stone age. Also, Saddam with his hatred, defiance and goal of revenge is a dangerous prospect with any sort of powerful weapon. I think his comments about the WTC were more about that type of destruction of the WTC happened to his whole country, then sanctions were placed which debilitated the nation. I feel the better thing to have done would have been to have taken out Saddam in 1991 and replaced him with a Pro-US ruler, this would have limited the innocent deaths since then.
For now though, I feel treeman is right in that an efficient operation to take him out of power and install another government that can help that country get on the right track is necessary.


As for Glynch's Sharon at Hague, and then Rocketman Tex's Arafat response.

I think they both deserve time there!! Arafat has committed terrorist acts, and Sharon's are very well documented. Of course with the IDF behind him, Sharon blows Arafat away in terms of sheer numbers.

haven
01-17-2002, 05:38 PM
How are those not ad hominem attacks?

The fact that his article is well thought out and that it makes sense would refute your contention that his theoretical perspective is out of place in today's conflict. In fact, I'm not sure how you come to that determination in the first place. The debate between guiding our foreign policy by national interest or by moral imperatives is just as important and relevant in the post-Cold War world as it was during it.

1. Ad hominems are an argumentative tactic. I had no interest in disparaging the argument. Therefore, it is not an ad hominem. Get it?

2. I've come to this conclusion by studying for 4 years as an honors student in one of the better political science departments in the country. In fact, the department I'm in is even conservative, and nobody takes Kissinger's brand of straight realpolitik seriously anymore. Not even the staunchest Neo-Realists.

3. The question isn't of the significance of the conflicting values of morality versus the national interest, but rather how one concieves of the international system itself. Trust me, one can believe moral questions are completely irrelevant and still think Kissinger's hardcore Realism is irrelevant.

4. Some of what Kissinger says makes sense, but his detailed arguments are either: A. frighteningly obvious or B. based on a philosophy that isn't really used anymore.

Kissinger represented an important evolution in international political thought. Now, though, the field has evolved beyond what he brought to the table. He's sort of the elderly uncle that embarrasses you by slurping his soup, but whom everyone wants to treat with respect because they remember when he used to carve them neat little toys.

RocketMan Tex
01-17-2002, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by F.D. Khan
I think they both deserve time there!! Arafat has committed terrorist acts, and Sharon's are very well documented. Of course with the IDF behind him, Sharon blows Arafat away in terms of sheer numbers.

And Arafat blows Sharon away in terms of sheer terror.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think the Israeli army would be killing Palestinian civilians if Palestinian terrorists hadn't killed Israeli civilians first? Sharon is no angel, I grant you that. But every Israeli raid against the Palestinians has been a response to Palestinian terror. Are you unable to grasp this fact?

haven
01-17-2002, 05:56 PM
Let me ask you a question: Do you think the Israeli army would be killing Palestinian civilians if Palestinian terrorists hadn't killed Israeli civilians first? Sharon is no angel, I grant you that. But every Israeli raid against the Palestinians has been a response to Palestinian terror. Are you unable to grasp this fact?

But that ignores the fact that Israel treats Palestinians worse than the US treated blacks before the Civil Rights movement.

I, too, believe that their terrorism is unjustified. But it's not unprovoked. (unprovoked is *not* a synonym for deserved)

treeman
01-17-2002, 06:04 PM
Arafat the Angel:

Arafat’s Martyrs, Bush’s Terrorists: PART 2
Next Terror Wave Just Beginning

15 January: Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, Romanian intelligence chief under the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, wrote an article entitled “The Arafat I Know” in the Wall Street Journal of January 10. The occasion he marked was Israel’s capture of the Karin-A arms ship.

Pacepa describes his involvement with Arafat in the late 1960s “in the days when he was being financed and manipulated by the KGB,” and comments: “I am not surprised to see that Yasser Arafat remains the same bloody terrorist I knew so well.”

The former Romanian spy chief’s revelations once again raise the question: What do the Americans expect of Arafat? Don’t they know what he is?

To show how Arafat feels about Americans, Pacepa points to his personal order to kill the US Ambassador in Khartoum, Cleo A. Noel, in 1973, after taking him hostage, commenting. “His broken record was that American ‘imperial-Zionism’ is the ‘rabid dog of the world,’ and there is only one way to deal with a rabid dog, ‘Kill it!’.”

”Arafat has made a political career by pretending he has not been involved in his own terrorist actions,” Pacepa writes. At a private dinner with Ceausescu, when Arafat bragged about his Khartoum operation, former Romanian prime minister Gheorghe Maurer advised him to be careful. “Who me?” said Arafat. “I never had anything to do with that operation,” winking mischievously.

After the murder of the PLO representative in London in January 1973 for which Abu Nidal was blamed, Arafat’s liaison officer Ali Hassan Salameh admitted: “That wasn’t a Nidal operation. It was ours.”

Why kill your own people? Arafat was asked. The answer, according to the former Romanian intelligence director: “To mount spectacular operations against the PLO, making it look as if they had been organized by Palestinian extremists groups that accuse the chairman of becoming too conciliatory and moderate.”

Pacepa concludes that the Arafat he knew in the last quarter of the last century has not changed.

Three days after the Pacepa article appeared, The Washington Post analyzed the dangers posed by al Qaeda today. Its writers pointed out that, while there is no conclusive evidence of the shoe bomber Richard Reid’s connection with Osama Bin Laden’s networks, what is certain is that “One of the explosive chemicals found in Reid’s shoes is commonly used by the Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.”

On December 31, 2001, DEBKAfile revealed that Reid was handed those explosives for blowing up an American Airlines passenger plane before Christmas in the Gaza Strip refugee camp of Jabaliya by Nabil Akal, a man close to Arafat’s most trusted lieutenants.

Arafat, whose purpose in life was to kill Americans and Israelis in the 1970s remains dedicated to the same goals up to now.

One day only after The Washington Post disclosure, three Israelis were dead at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. On January 9, four Israeli soldiers were killed by Palestinian policemen on the Israeli side of the south Gaza Strip border.

Since the capture of the Palestinian smuggling vessel on January 3, Palestinian terrorists have killed a total of seven Israelis.

Avi Boaz, 71, an American citizen living in the West Bank town of Maale Adumim, was lynched Tuesday afternoon at Beit Sahur near Bethlehem by four members of Arafat’s own Fatah. They snatched him under the noses of Palestinian policemen, who stood by. Tuesday night, two gunmen sprayed Yoela Chen and her car with bullets while chatting to her as she filled her car at the Givat Zeev gas station. Her elderly aunt was badly injured. The two gunmen ran off to the nearby Palestinian village of el-Jib.

Israeli chief of staff Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz warned of worse to come in his briefing Tuesday to the Knesset foreign affairs and defense committee in Jerusalem.

His disclosure that an unnamed external body had given the Palestinian Authority its directives to revert to major terror operations confirmed DEBKAfile’s report on Monday, January 14, that Israel was braced for a Baghdad-instigated wave of terror. Mofaz added that the Palestinians were close to operating Qasem-2 surface rockets from the West Bank. With a range of up to 8 kilometers, these weapons would bring most of Israel’s main population centers and international airfields within Palestinian range.

Tuesday night, as the word went round of an impending Israeli retaliation for the latest murders, Arafat instructed his men to detain Ahmed Saaadat, secretary general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestinian in Ramallah. Saadat ordered the two men whose extradition Israel has demanded to assassinate cabinet minister Zeevi last October. Also on the United States list of wanted terrorists, he most probably ordered the murder of Yoela Chen at Givat Zeev.

Arafat’s actions are par for the course, exactly the same as the old days described by the former Romanian spy chief. His move against his fellow-terrorist is designed to look conciliatory to the West, while at the same time signaling his following that he is placing the targeted man in protective custody so that the Israelis cannot get him.

This week, a group of pro-Oslo peaceniks got together to set up a new Israel-Palestinian Coalition for Peace. Its members hoped to lift the popular standing of the pro-Oslo faction, including elements of the Labor party and Meretz, out of the pit in which it has been cast by the outrage and grief engendered by the unrelenting succession of Palestinian terror atrocities.

The voices coming from this group tried to relate the latest upsurge in Palestinian killings to Monday’s death of Fatah-Tanzim military chief of the West Bank town of Tulkarm in a roadside explosion, as well as to Israeli actions in razing houses in the Gaza Strip town of Rafah, under which ran 30 arms smuggling tunnels, and in knocking down illegal structures in the Arab village of Issawiya in north Jerusalem, the hidden location of a vast arms dump rivaling the Karine-A’s cargo.

Former leader of dovish Meretz, Shulamit Aloni, whipped up her old stridence to brand Israeli ministers and generals war criminals. Transport Minister Efraim Sneh (Labor) urged clinging to even the tiniest remnant of Arafat’s willingness to halt the violence.

The Iranian arms cargo loaded aboard the Karine-A has show these sentiments up as vain. In any case such voices are fated to be silenced again as so many times before by the savagery of Arafat’s next round of violence. Karmi, had he lived, would have been a front-runner in Arafat’s coming campaign of terror.

The Palestinian leader’s hell-raising plans were plainly laid well in advance of the Tulkarm killer’s death. His goal is simple. To raise the flames of the Palestinian-Israel conflict high, in order to upset the Bush administration’s plans. He knows that Washington needs quiet on his front in order to focus on its global war against terrorism and deal effectively with Iraq, Somalia and the Lebanese Hizballah. Arafat is determined to deny them this luxury.

DEBKAfile has repeatedly pointed out that the Palestinian leader is capable of outdoing all his European and Israeli fans in peace talk, while in action, he rivals the most radical Muslim extremists, including Osama bin Laden.

Arafat is undoubtedly striving to show the Muslim world that he can beat bin Laden at his own game of killing Americans and Zionists.

Retired General Pacepa knew what he was talking about.

http://www.debka.com/

There’s lots of other interesting info at this site, as well as Part I of this story…

treeman
01-17-2002, 06:08 PM
But that ignores the fact that Israel treats Palestinians worse than the US treated blacks before the Civil Rights movement.

Perhaps if the Palestinians stopped blowing up Israeli school buses they wouldn't be treated like second-class citizens? But I guess they're just blowing up Israeli schoolbuses because they're being treated like second-class citizens...

Chicken, meet Egg.

HayesStreet
01-17-2002, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by haven

1. Ad hominems are an argumentative tactic. I had no interest in disparaging the argument. Therefore, it is not an ad hominem. Get it?

Hmmm, the premise of my posting his article is that he's qualified to speak on the issue of how we handle international issues. You've disputed that premise by attacking the source. That is an argument. An ad hominem is an attack on the person not on the intellectual idea, and calling him paranoid, a thief, an egomaniac etc is an attack on Kissinger himself, not his intellectual writings. Therefore, you've made an ad hominem retort to my posting of his article, get it?

Originally posted by haven

2. I've come to this conclusion by studying for 4 years as an honors student in one of the better political science departments in the country. In fact, the department I'm in is even conservative, and nobody takes Kissinger's brand of straight realpolitik seriously anymore. Not even the staunchest Neo-Realists.

Ooooooooh, look at the big brain on Haven. I guess four whole years of undergraduate study makes you an authority...:rolleyes:...in the 'honors' program no less...ooooooooh. Most impressive.

Originally posted by haven

3. The question isn't of the significance of the conflicting values of morality versus the national interest, but rather how one concieves of the international system itself. Trust me, one can believe moral questions are completely irrelevant and still think Kissinger's hardcore Realism is irrelevant.

This assumes that Kissinger's understanding of the international system is stagnant, and unchanged since his administration days, which is not the case. And far be it for me to suggest that academics are insulated and outrageously territorial with whatever their pet theory of the day happens to be.

Originally posted by haven

4. Some of what Kissinger says makes sense, but his detailed arguments are either: A. frighteningly obvious or B. based on a philosophy that isn't really used anymore.

Hmmmm, so it must be (a) frightfully obvious that we're going to have to invade Iraq and take out Saddam? If that's true then I wonder why there is so much debate about what to do next? It cannot be (B). Its fact that ideas consistent with his writings are being debated TODAY in CONGRESS, and championed by minor figures like Senators such as Lieberman and McCain who just ran for Vice President and President from the two ruling parties in this country, and the current President, and the current Sec State, and the CIA, and the former heads of the CIA and on and on.

Originally posted by haven

Kissinger represented an important evolution in international political thought. Now, though, the field has evolved beyond what he brought to the table. He's sort of the elderly uncle that embarrasses you by slurping his soup, but whom everyone wants to treat with respect because they remember when he used to carve them neat little toys.

Another interesting intellectual argument (or is it is a thinly disguised ad hominem). It sounds vaguely similar to Ross Perot talking about the crazy aunt that you have to lock up in the basement.

haven
01-17-2002, 07:50 PM
hayesstreet:

Screw it, you're taking this too personally.

Although, it's absolutely impossible for me to be using an ad hominem, since I essentially agree with the claims. But take it as you will...

Azadre
01-17-2002, 08:05 PM
Iraq is a threat to our economy because he ould try and take out the Saud's and then we go bust and THAT'S why our national security is at stake

HayesStreet
01-17-2002, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by haven
hayesstreet:

Screw it, you're taking this too personally.

Although, it's absolutely impossible for me to be using an ad hominem, since I essentially agree with the claims. But take it as you will...

Haven,

I'm just messin' around. I get into a lot of these just for the sport of it, whether it be an intellectual exchange (hopefully I contribute as much as I pick up) or just plain ol' smack talkin'...

The way you've gone about this is interesting however, in relation to what an ad hominem is: you attack Kissinger personally (the first step of an ad hom), but then you say two things (a) that you are not making an ad hominem since you're not disagreeing with his conclusions, but that you are striving towards an alternate goal of reducing his credibility, and (b) that his thinking and ideas about international relations are outdated, unrespected, and simply out of touch with the current geopolitical situation. Now to me, (b) would seem to be the second and final part of an ad hom, which is to declare the speaker/author's writing/ideas incorrect/flawed.

(a) Kissinger is an idea stealing egomaniac that no one listens to anymore. (b) We should not consider him credible in discussions of international relations. He is irrelevant.

I think this is an ad hominem attack. But its not important enough to get frustrated about. :)