Mrs. JB: I'm not a complete a*hole... More in the category of "often obstinate and stubborn prick"...
Bush may not be bright, but I don't think he's mentally unstable. I don't think he really believes these countries are evil. Do you think he really believes this? If I really though that Bush believed these countries were evil I would be more scared of you that I would be of them. The kind of religious zealousness and judgmentalism that his statement suggests, if taken at face value, is the same as what we're facing with the radical Muslims. They say we're evil, now we're saying that they are evil. Maybe he's trying to send a message to them in their own language, I can't really guess. I just don't see any positive outcome from using that phrase. Irregardless, Gorbachev must have known the end was near, and so his motivation for being more conciliatory would have been the immanent collapse of his country, not the fact that Reagan called him names, I suspect. The fact that they kept that a secret probably allowed them to get a better deal from the Americans. Agreed, so why use this kind of language if it's not going to influence the people they say they are trying to influence? You insult the populace who you are ultimately trying to win over, and you alienate you allies. Surely they knew from the Reagan experience that this wouldn't go over well. What was it they were trying to accomplish? We're not dumb. We just disagree on the approach, and language like this goes a long way toward alienating us, like it did with Reagan. Don't they know this? Reagan was a laughingstock up here, when we weren't afraid that he might actually have the power to push the button if he saw evil Russians coming at him in his sleep. I'd like to know what it is, because I really can't see it. I agree that a line may have to be drawn. The question is how to do it to provide the greatest possibility of success. I think that one of our primary goals in this exercise is to positively affect public opinion in the area. That is, after all, the strength of the Al-Quaeda threat, and others like it. This is really a primary objective, I think. We are not bandwagon jumpers. I know you did mean it this way, but that's a bit of an insulting proposition, don't you think? We would be partners, minor partners granted, but certainly not lap dogs. I can agree with all of these, the Marshall plan equivalent particularly. The toughest would be establishing friendly relations with its neighbours. I alluded to some of my feeling on this above, but given the reality of Al-Quaeda and the conditions that support it and groups like it, how would you address the anti-American sentiments in the region before, during and after any military action? Now, see, this kind of talk makes us a lot less friendly.
Grizzled: What, "evil"? In the biblical sense, no, of course not. He sees the threat, and unfortunately, the simplest way (which is his way - the simplest) is to equate "threat" with "evil". He was trying to put in in terms that our enemies, educated people, and deeply religious people would understand. You can't please everyone. It's just semantics. I would have liked "Axis of Threatening A*sholes" more, myself. But the sad fact is that more people will get the gist of "Axis of Evil"... It's just a word meant to represent an idea. Semantics. It's being taken way too literally, IMO... Perhaps he did pick the wrong word? Hell, tar and feather the speechwriter. The intent is clear to anyone who understands what's going on. Well, Bush didn't say "Death to Iran!" or "Iraq will see unspeakable consequences from our weapons!", or anything of the sort... Not quite the same. Bingo! Except that he's trying to send everyone else on the planet a message with the same statement. How does he talk to a radical Islamic population, a secular democratic population, and a religious democratic population - all at the same time? And with a single sentence? Clearly impossible... This was the best effort at that that endeavor. No surprise that it is not perfectly clear to everyone. Again, just remember the context: the USSR had just finished the largest military expansion in history, and it seemed that they were the Top Dog. Reagan had ordered a huge military expansion, but it had not come to fruition yet. It looked like all the cards were in the Soviets' hands... And the economic problems were not evident at that juncture. This is key to understanding the situation. Even the CIA was totally shocked when the Berlin Wall fell - no one was expecting it. It was certainly not evident at the time of the "Evil Empire" speech and the Iceland talks. We were working under the assumption that these guys were even stronger than we were... Think of it this way: How would it look if we just attacked Iraq out of the blue? Bush has basically said: "You are on notice that we expect a change in your behavior, or we will deal with you forcefully". Giving notice was the first step. Hope against hope that it works, but don't hold your breath... The second step will be diplomatic action. We will next try to revive the "smart sanctions" issue in the UNSC. That will be defeated. We will press the UN to impose an inspections regime upon Iraq, so that they can fulfill their UNSC 687 obligations, and they will either refuse outright, or accept and make a mockery of UNSCOM just like they did last time. I would be absolutely shocked if Saddam actually let in a weapons inspections regime, and actually let them do their job - remove his WMD capability. That, said, if he actually did so, then even I would call off the invasion plans... We can look forward to several months' worth of diplomatic games - we are not going to go roaring in there tomorrow with the tanks. We will give Saddam every opportunity to redeem himself. IMHO, and in every other expert's opinion, he will simply fail to do so - as he has for 11 years. But he will have his chance. His Great Second Chance - we will give him that. Oh, I do not think you're dumb. I simply think that you have different information - inadequate information - and that you're well... misguided. You will have a chance later to change your position. If you still don't want to change your position after you have better information... Our relations will still survive. And prosper in the long run. That's a good point to start agreement on... A very good point. Side with us. Support us. As I said earlier, we can do it alone, but having you guys on board would make it so much easier. You still haven't given me a compelling reason why you shouldn't. Help us. That would probably actually be the easiest aspect of "success". The Turks, Kuwaitis, Saudis, Jordanians, etc - even the Iranians - do not hate the Iraqis. They would not hate an Iraqi democracy (although they might get jealous after a while). As it is now, they fear "that ******* on the other side of the border who's always moving his army towards us and who's always threatening to launch CBW missiles at us"... Anything is an improvement over that. Everyone in the area really does want him gone. Ok, Ok... Quebec can be its own country. The rest of you will be assimilated!!!!
The tripwire was set after the Sudetenland was invaded, I believe. The "peace in our time" speech is what I refer to as the setting of the tripwire. The next action Hitler took was the invasion of Poland. Of course, it's possible that I'm incorrect here. Haven't really looked at this in 3 years... Ah, but you're ignoring my assertion that war should be more accurately seen as a miscalculation of negotiation and a continuance of politics by other means. Your interpretation of my argument would imply that I'm a complete pacifist. I'm not. WW1 occurred because the alliance system created an environment where even relatively minor miscalculations would explode. Easier to rule, perhaps. But he also likes power, which he has less of. Heh... then we've come to an impass via the historical record. The fact that he was convinced he had to win the war quickly to forestall American intervention is documented. I suppose you could argue that he would have gone to war anyway... but I'm not so sure. Hitler didn't want ww2 to happen when it did in the first place... wanted to wait another few years. That shows that he was capable of at least stalling for strategic reasons, and recognized their value. But the question is ultimately insoluable. The problem with this idea consists in the humongous dissonance between the power of even a rising Iraq and nations like the US. Germany could dream of defeating the current hegemon. Iraq could never have hoped to best the US... 1. Her statement mischaracterized the relation to war and peace. All too often, they're assumed to be sort of like a yin-yang, which only clouds the real issues at hand. 2. ww2 and the current Iraqi situation do not arise from similar historical circumstance. Resemblance is, mostly, facile.
I've been out of this for awhile now but a few points I think worth making... JAG, I'd like to hear what you have to say about Haven's Chamberlain the mastermind assertions. I do read a lot and this particular time has been of interest, and I have not come across this contention. Chamberlain IS synonymous with appeasement and failure, or at least is generally perceived as so. Care to resolve this question since you seem to be the historian among our group? Also, I have been thinking about our post fest the other day and had this thought: when you are making policy it is often the case that SOME decision must be made. Often it is a case of 'which has the most chance of working' or even ' which has the least chance of spectacular failure.' I found myself frustrated in our discussions because it is possible to poke holes to any policy proposition. There are none that are without critics, or even 'just' criticism. You defer to the example: man has headache, i say cut his head off, you say not a good idea, and rightly so even without your own solution. Unfortunately, this example is so extreme because it parallels any action with criticism to complete failure, which is not the case in policymaking. There are degrees of success and failure. So if you were one of five advisors to the president, and you were to come up with a policy to address a particular problem, merely poking holes in the other people's suggestions would not be sufficient for the task. And proposing that any policy with valid criticism is unworkable would seemingly grind action to a halt. ScreamingRocket, If I'm not mistaken there was a Japanese invasion fleet on its way to Port Moresby, as a jumping off place to invade Australia. A US aircraft carrier task force, including the Lexington and Yorktown, engaged this force, turning it around, with Australia never to be threatened again in the war. That came at the direct loss of the Lexington I might add. Also known as the Battle of the Coral Sea. 1942. Hardly jumping in at the end of the war. But as I've said when addressing this twice already...I for one am glad to have allies like Britain and Australia!!! Dimsie, No problem. I got distracted by JAG. Great discussion all!!!
Princess, many people believe that it is an infringement upon their rights to force them to go and fight in a war they don't agree with, especially if they feel that way for religious reasons. Here's a hypo. What if our country became so overpopulated that the government instituted a "forced abortion" after you have had one or two children. How would you feel about that?
So the question then becomes, what message is the trying to send and what message is he sending? He doesn't mean the word "evil" literally, but how will the Muslim fundamentalists interpret it? How do his allies interpret it? I don't think this is true. I think most people, outside the US anyway, will and have gotten the wrong impression from the use of this word. It's not as simple at tarring and feathering the speechwriter. It suggests that he doesn't understand the political and moral sensitivities of the people he's dealing with, both friend and foe. Given the importance of PR in this exercise, this is concerning. Well, we could go off on an interesting tangent, I think, talking about what these phrases mean, to the people who made them and the people who are hearing them. Communication is critical in any project, and it's never as easy as is commonly believed. I would say that the use of that one word, "evil," has had a significant effect on this situation, and that's pretty amazing when you think about it. Again, I would say that I think that it was a poor effort, and that it has almost universally caused misunderstanding and concern. But why do think the Russians were surprised? Surely their actions were calculated and deliberate to some extent. They must have had somebody doing some accounting and trending in the preceding years who told them something drastic was going to have to change. Nobody is suggesting that. The questions are about how the messages should be conveyed and what approach to the problems is best. Well this is good news. This gives some time for some stakeholder management strategies to be employed. But in all honesty, I'm not confident that Bush and his crowd really understand what they need to be focussing on. That may sound harsh, or even arrogant, but that's my honest gut feeling. At some level it's not a question of information. It's a question of trust in the leadership. A good leader says the right things to inspire his troupes, right? Bush is not inspiring us. Blind trust won't be given. It's just not a reality. I think the preceding comments should give an indication of why there is caution and reluctance. We don't want to say no, but we don't feel good about saying yes under these circumstances. Our troupes are in Afghanistan and have seen action and captured prisoners, but that situation was much more clear cut. This one is not, as should be evidenced by the very different response from the international community. You need to approach this one differently of at the very least approach us differently, and you don't seem to understand this. I'm not so sure it will be that easy. Yes they hate Sadam, but they have other agendas as well. And you're pretty sure it's not the other way around, eh? Have you noticed many Canadians in your cultural institutions in the last decade or so? (hush! … I've said too much … )
<B>Blind trust won't be given. It's just not a reality. I think the preceding comments should give an indication of why there is caution and reluctance. We don't want to say no, but we don't feel good about saying yes under these circumstances. Our troupes are in Afghanistan and have seen action and captured prisoners, but that situation was much more clear cut. This one is not, as should be evidenced by the very different response from the international community. You need to approach this one differently of at the very least approach us differently, and you don't seem to understand this. </B> I think this is the key. The military has its use -- Afghanistan was one great example. I don't even have any particular problem on putting pressure on these countries to do what we want them to. However, I just don't think Bush understands the importance of politics. We always like to talk about how we need to cut the BS and do things in Washington, and that's nice, but there are real reasons politics is so bureaucratic and slow .. and they are GOOD reasons. I have no real problem with invading Iraq without world support either, but the way Bush is doing it is making us look bad. There are much better ways to go about it that make the rest of the world look bad.
Grizzled: The message that he is trying to send: The US will not tolerate state sponsors of terrorism developing WMD; either they will change or their own accord, or we will change them. The message everyone else has recieved is different for different populations. The US audience hears: We are going to go after these guys so they don't pull 9/11s on us whenever they feel like. We're going to take the fight to them, not back down... This is what the US population as a whole wants to hear, so the message was successful in the US. The Islamic fundamentalists - the Iraqi and Iranian govts - hear: We are coming for you. You will either cease your aggression against us, or we will totally destroy you. We will not just sit here and let you attack us whenever you feel like it. You can either change your ways yourselves, or we will forever change your ways for you ourselves. This was exactly the intended message, and there are signs that they are taking it very seriously, so this message was successful as well. Our Allies apparently heard: I am a madman hell-bent on war. You can either help me kill lots of people in unnecessary wars, or you can go f* yourselves... Obviously, this one didn't work out so well. I am still not sure whether the problem here is actually one of miscommunication on Bush's part, or whether the real problem is that our Allies do not understand the threat. I am still inclined to believe that the latter is the case, as I have heard absolutely no one from the allied camp actually express any understanding of the threat... That said, I'm sure that the Bush team could have worded it better. Notice how I often refer to it as "This Axis of Evil crap/sh*t"? I understand that it will be misunderstood (and the misunderstood significance overexaggerrated). Most people in the Western nations, you mean. Other relevant audiences appear to have actually understood it for what it is. See above. Oh, he understands it all right. There was just no perfect way to present the message - no way in which it could be understood by three totally separate and utterly different audiences - using a single message. One thing I would advise you (and everyone else outside the US to do) is to actually to listen to his post- State of the Union remarks; they show a significant understanding of the political and PR factors. One problem I see here is that you guys appear to think that he spoke once and said it all in one sentence. Listen to him consistently, don't just judge his beliefs, intelligence, capabilities, intentions, etc based upon a single speech. If things worked that way, then every single person on the planet would think that every single other person on the planet was a complete moron - no one ever explains the totality of their viewpoints well in a single paragraph. I agree. And it is truly amazing... Well, I think it was a decent effort made to try to accomplish an impossible task - again, how to communicate three separate messages to three totally different populations at the same time? Impossible. You should keep in mind who his primary audiences were: the US public (mission accomplished there) and the targeted regimes (mission accomplished - they definitely got the correct message). No offense, but you guys were tertiary in importance. Ahh... You must be under the mistaken impression that governments have legions of competent futurists (and accountants) who regularly warn the decision-makers about impending problems? It would be nice if governments operated like that, but it is not the case... And the Soviets in particular had a penchant for denial of bad news. Maybe some accountant tried to tell his superiors there that they were heading for economic collapse because of rampant corruption, overextended military spending, and widespread ineffieciency - but it is almost a certainty that in their system at the time the buraeucrat he tried to warn told him to shut up and not make any waves... The Soviets didn't know either. Well, yes, and that is debatable. I do not think that the "Axis of Evil" crap was ideal, but it was good enough. Exactly how would you have gone about this? Assume for a minute that you are Bush, and that the decision has already been made to invade Iraq and foster the overthrow of Iran's mullahs. What do you tell everyone? I don't mean this sarcastically, I am genuinely interested in what approach you think we should have taken, given the assumptions mentioned. The policy is not in debate here; just the diplomatic and PR aspects. What would you have done differently? Exactly what should they be focusing on? Please be specific. Of course they have other agendas, but there are two points that cannot be denied here: 1) Arab solidarity extends to the Iraqis, and the populations of the respective nations have no arguments - virtually none. Iran is of course not Arabic, but they have a strong Islamic solidarity with the Iraqi people as well - especially considering that over 2/3 of Iraq's population are of the Shi'ite strain, and favor friendly ties with their bretheren to the east... 2) The surrounding governments (save for the mullahs, who will also be replaced) have extremely bad ties with Saddam's government. As I have said, they do not like the ******* on the other side of the border who's constantly threatening to kill them. It could not possibly be any worse than it already is... Any change would be an improvement. Saudi in particular (as well as OPEC as a whole) has had problems in the past with Saddam in the oil markets; he just ignores OPEC decisions whenever he feels like it. Hell, we can even "convince" the new govt to be a productive (and loyal) OPEC member if we want to - one that abides by "collective" (meaning Saudi) decisions... There are many, many reasons why this would work, and would not even be too difficult. There are few (none, actually) why it wouldn't. That actually doesn't bother me. Being taken over by the Canucks? Hell, that's fine - since you're already Americans anyway.
Major: I agree with this (surprise), but I think that we need to look at our priorities, as well as the possibilities involved. For example, should we have just ignored Euro public opinion, and just worked with their diplomats behind the scenes? Not told everyone in the world that we might well go to war with a few of our long-time enemies? Seems that would have just magnified the outcry at the point of contact. When the Euros turned on their TVs and saw US tanks rolling towards Baghdad out of the blue one day... At least this way we have the opportunity to tell thewm what's coming. Actually much less shocking this way. Different wording could have been used? Probably. But what words to use to give the same basic message? I really don't know. How? I am not trying to put you on the spot here, but so far no one has offered a more constructive alternative - only the "Bush really screwed up" line. Offer an alternative, please.
Treeman: You made some very good points. And I have a few quibbles, of course, but fewer than usual. I'm heading out to run an errand so I may not get back to this until the morning.
<B> I have no real problem with invading Iraq without world support either, but the way Bush is doing it is making us look bad. There are much better ways to go about it that make the rest of the world look bad. --- How? I am not trying to put you on the spot here, but so far no one has offered a more constructive alternative - only the "Bush really screwed up" line. Offer an alternative, please.</B> Well, on the Iraq thing, I think connecting the dots is an important part of it. Rather than using the military as a "war-tool", use it as more of an "enforcement arm" of the diplomatic system. For example, we know the linkage between attacking Iraq and the WMD issue. However, I would propose making it very clear what our plan is all in one area. Up until this point, we have (at various times) said that Iraq needs to let inspectors in. We've said that Iraq is violating terms of the peace agreement. We've played chicken with Hussein basically by doing little bombings and stuff whenever we get pissed. Then suddenly we say they are evil and need to be eliminated. It's true, but it has all been said at different times under different circumstances -- we've never connected the dots in our official policy. I would propose a simple speech to the public (also very much meant for foreign consumption) outlining the following: (1) Iraq is violating terms of the peace treaty that they agreed to. (2) Why the peace treaty is so important and the reasons behind requiring the inspectors and such. (3) The details of why we think they have WMD (inspector reports, etc). (4) The details of why its fundamentally important to prevent them from getting WMD (it's pretty obvious, but this still can reinforce the argument). Include mention of Hussein's history of using WMD. (5) Our demands. For example, Iraq must let inspectors in with full access within 14 days or we will proceed with a military solution (that won't be cancelled by later acquiesence). Should inspectors be allowed in and then restricted or removed, the military phase will also occur. (This is what I mean by using the military as an enforcement arm of diplomacy.) (6) That the world should support us because they ALSO signed this peace agreement that Iraq is violating. Also state that we want and ask for the support of all those countries that were involved in the peace agreement. Now, what you've done is force the issue. You've made very clear why we're doing it, how Iraq is in the wrong, and when we're doing it. This is already pretty obvious to people like you or I, but I don't think it's so clear to the average American, European or especially the average Middle Easterner. It makes any government that doesn't support us look like they are backing out of their obligations under the peace agreement. It gives the allies a chance to be a part of the project. It gives them a chance to join in on principled grounds (enforcing the peace agreement) instead of looking like they are just acquiesing to what the US wants). It also helps focus public opinion in those countries which may or may not help, but certainly won't hurt. We've said all of these things at one time or another. However, because of our waffling in the past on the enforcement side (both by Bush Sr. and Clinton), Iraq had good reason to not take us seriously. Basically, this lays out the reasoning for our new actions in one concise new policy statement. While not a popular idea, giving Hussein some type of "out-clause" (letting inspectors in) is important because it reduces the "US is looking to create a mid-east war" fear. Present the demands so they look reasonable (which is not hard), and Hussein will look unreasonable in rejecting them. Most likely scenario, Hussein says "no" or "hell no" and we proceed as we would have. However, now our action starts based on Hussein's response, not because we suddenly decided to enforce something that the whole world had taken for granted for a long time. It's mostly just semantic and PR stuff, but like I said, I agree with the policy -- I just don't agree with how it was presented.
Excellent analysis! I don't have time for a long reply and I don't think I need one. I think this is very well thought through and would be a very successful strategy. I could easily back this and feel good about it.
Major: Uuhhh... It is both. It is certainly a "war-tool" in times of war. And did you fall asleep when your PoliSci prof was discussing Clausewitz? It is certainly the "enforcement arm" of the diplomats... That whole "War is diplomacy by other means" thing? I actually agree with this whole paragraph: we have not connected the dots. The entire Clinton era - as well as the Bush admin pre-9/11 - did nothing to address the threat or "connect the dots". We are playing catchup here, because the previous administration was woefully neglectful of the issue, and until the WTC fell the Bush admin seemed content to run the same line. Needless to say, things have changed... So granted - we have lots of catching up - and explaining - to do. I agree pretty much, and I am pretty certain that we will see such an "announcement" made in the near future. In fact, I could not imagine that the situation would not be laid out publicly before any action was taken. I actually mean this: fully expect an announcement that mirrors these ideas (and the approach - it is pretty dead-on) before any action is taken. Expect it. You must understand, though, that such an announcement - and explanation - could not be made within the State of the Union atmosphere. That arena simply did not allow for such a detailed explanation. It will probably be made from either the Oval Office or a speech to the UN General Assembley - the only atmospheres that would allow such elaboration. I agree (all points), but I think that it still needed to be taken in sequential steps. He gives the "Axis of Evil" crap first. Then we get a while to debate it, and hopefully get time to assess the validity of the threat. Then he makes the real speech outlining in detail why we have chosen this course. The hope is that after a few weeks of debate and thought, and with a well-thought out and logical second (main) speech, he can actually persuade some around the world of the necessity for action... I really do fully expect another major speech - much more detailed than the "Axis of Evil" one. It is a certainty before any action is actually taken.
<B>I agree (all points), but I think that it still needed to be taken in sequential steps. He gives the "Axis of Evil" crap first. Then we get a while to debate it, and hopefully get time to assess the validity of the threat. Then he makes the real speech outlining in detail why we have chosen this course. The hope is that after a few weeks of debate and thought, and with a well-thought out and logical second (main) speech, he can actually persuade some around the world of the necessity for action... I really do fully expect another major speech - much more detailed than the "Axis of Evil" one. It is a certainty before any action is actually taken.</B> I agree, and I expect to see something of the sort. I'd have no problem with the US policy -- I believe Iraq should have been taken out long ago, and any time we do it, I'll be happy. My main beef (which is not a real big one) is just that the whole Axis of Evil thing could have been skipped and it would have saved a lot of bad feelings from other countries. Ultimately, other countries' leaders want to (1) look good and (2) look like leaders. This sort of "we're doing it with or without you" only left other leaders the opportunity to look like US-tag-along followers if they joined in, so it is very difficult for them to do so. If we had made clear the cause and reasoning and all of that, it would be much easier for them to join in without looking like US tag-alongs, and I don't think we would have gotten the backlash we have (temporary as it may be). I just think the whole Axis-of-Evil portion was unnecessary, with only potential negative effects.
I think this is quite insightful, and takes us a full step deeper in understanding this problem. We're starting to really dig into the meat of it, IMO. I think I would add one more major stakeholder to this list, or possibly several depending on how they break down, and that would be the citizens of Iran and Iraq and the Middle East in general. I think that their understanding of the messages, and the degree to which they buy into the desired outcome, will have a significant impact on the long term success of the mission. I think this may be an indication that the miscommunication is going both ways, that the objectors aren't be as clear as they should be about what they are objecting to. I agree with this criticism. For me, this phrase has had a significant negative impact. As you suggest, the response of the allies was the third concern on the list when making the statement, but these are the things that later rise up to bit a mission in the ass, I think. More on this later. This is also a very valid criticism. We hear something that pushes a hot button, and we stop listening. This is a human tendency and one that I think we are probably guilty of here. OTOH, a situation somewhat similar to this arose early on when Bush used the "Crusade" word. This is another loaded term that pushed all kinds of hot buttons, but he immediately corrected it. I saw this as a very positive thing. I showed me that he was listening to valid concerns and was prepared to respond to them. The way this was handled caused my trust in him to increase instead of decrease. It was a potential negative turned into a positive because of the way it was handled. The message was not that "we're right, no matter what, and I'm not even going to listen to what anybody else has to say," it was, "I've listened to and heard what you said, and I see your point, and I'm prepared to modify my stance." This went a long way towards addressing deep-rooted concerns about how the US conducts it's foreign policy. In the case of the "axis of evil" statement, however, this has not happened, and the old concerns spring up anew. I think that this teaches us that we need to look closer at seemingly smaller things, because they can jump up bite you in the ass. I agree that the task is extremely difficult, but I'm not so sure the effort was that good. In fact, they seem to have forgotten the lesson learned by the "crusades" comment. Perhaps they feel the message they are trying to convey to Americans and the leaders in Iraq and Iran supersedes the messages being sent to the other parties, but I'm going to disagree with that if it is the case. (I'll also note that these two objectives are linked, because the US can only take strong action in the ME it there is strong public support in the US. So the message to the people of the US is a message to the leader of Iran and Iraq. It says "we're stoking up the war rhetoric, so we're getting ready to take action against you.") BUT, there are other stakeholders that will play a pivotal role in the success of the mission, I think, and it this is not clearly understood, and addressed, these seemingly tertiary issues will scuttle the mission. Positively influencing public opinion toward the US in the ME is crucial to long term success. If Sadam is replaced by Sadam II or Ayatollah II, then we have not accomplished our goals. Some of these tertiary issues have such high risk factors associated with them that they need to considered as primary issues, IMO. Lets use Major's suggested approach as a starting point. It's very close to what I would have said and in many ways better. What I might reinforce in Major's proposal is that public opinion in the ME is a real key. If this doesn't change, nothing will really change there in the long run. Engineering this opinion is an incredibly difficult task made all the more difficult by the fact that if there is any suggestion that it is manufactured it will lose its credibility. The first step is to be aware of the issues and not to do anything to make them worse. We can also look for opportunities support change. The piece by Muqtedar Khan is encouraging. That kind of message needs to get out, but it needs to come from Muslims, American Muslims and ME Muslims. We need to encourage this in such a way that it doesn't come across as a paid announcement. Getting moderate Arab states on board, and giving them perceived significant input into how this mission proceeds would be another strong positive. Let's face it. The US has the power to intervene in almost any situation, so why flaunt the power? This is bad PR. "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Come visit Canada sometime treeman. Check your guns at the border, of course, and bring your walking shoes, because you can walk around almost anywhere in our cities, at any time of the day or night. (Except parts of Toronto, and Vancouver perhaps, but if you're coming to Canada you don't want to go to Toronto anyway). Careful in the bars though, the beer might be a little strong for you. If you're interested in history, you can learn about our democratic socialist movement, and the social policies it has spawned that consistently keep our average standard of living higher than yours, and our country consistently rated as a more desirable place to live. So, do you still think we're the same?
The Independent -- UK America 'chasing phantoms' in Iraq says arms expert By Robert Fisk in Beirut 17 February 2002 Scott Ritter, America's former top arms inspector in Iraq, has a neat phrase for Saddam's regime. The "phantom threat", he calls it. And he backs up his argument with an impressive assault on the credentials of Ahmed Chalabi, the head of Iraq's opposition in exile, whose bogus claims of defectors "proving" Iraq's connection to the 11 September mass murders are persuading Washington to put Saddam on America's next hit list. Scott Ritter's damning evidence late last month should be taken seriously in the White House, even if Mr Ritter did once admit that he shared intelligence on the UN's Iraqi arms inspections with the Israelis. It was Mr Chalabi, he claimed, who promoted the Iraqi-Bin Laden connection by publicising the alleged meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence agent and the soon-to-be 11 September suicide pilot Mohamed Atta. Mr Ritter says that the subject of their discussion – supposedly an attack on the anti-Saddam Radio Free Europe transmitter in Prague – was a far cry from the 11 September attacks and that the Czech government's reports on this supposed meeting were conflicting. Far more seriously, Mr Ritter says that when he was arms inspector, he was tasked to liaise with Mr Chalabi and the "Iraqi National Congress" to gather intelligence information – "more flash than substance" as Mr Ritter puts it – from Mr Chalabi's defectors. Among the latter was a supposed engineer who helped to build a network of underground tunnels beneath Saddam's palaces, all packed with documents on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Mr Ritter's men dutifully went after the treasure trove of files. They found one drainage tunnel and no documents. When Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz needed a link between Iraq and the 11 September attacks, Mr Ritter says, Mr Chalabi discovered "defectors" who knew of the training of "Arab" hijackers by Iraqi intelligence at a facility near the Iraqi town of Salman Pak, complete with a commercial airliner that was used by would-be air pirates using only knives and – a lovely touch, this, in view of 11 September – practising only in "groups of five". The Salman Pak facility exists, Mr Ritter says, but its use as an al-Qa'ida training camp has never been substantiated. The UN, Mr Ritter reveals, "stopped using Chalabi's information as a basis for conducting inspections once the tenuous nature of his sources and his dubious motivations became clear". Mr Chalabi's "sponsors", according to Mr Ritter in the Christian Science Monitor, are Mr Wolfowitz, former CIA director James Woolsey, and former Under Secretary of State Richard Perle, who rejoices in the nickname of "Prince of Darkness". © 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
I don't know of any religion that specifically says that you cannot fight in a war, but if there is, I would like to know. My philosophy is that if you live in a country that is free, you are asked to support it. You can have negative things to say about it, you can question it's policy, but you still get the rights and freedoms, so you still have to support it. The draft is a duty to your country. I believe that if you want to keep your freedoms and rights, you are obliged to serve the country that gave you those freedoms and rights. I don't know if the abortion thing would work in the US under a democracy. We have rights and if our rights are infringed upon, we have every right to go against the government. I personally think it's a good idea, but I see why some may not like it. I don't think people on welfare should be able to have more children, but can we really stop them? Personally, I wouldn't want more than one or two kids! Here's my reasoning: The constitution does not explicitly say we can have as many children as we want (although it can be interpreted I think). By strict construction though, it does not say this. It says we are free, but it doesn't say we are free to drive as fast as we want to. We have a law that says how fast we can drive. A law limiting the number of children one can have isn't violating anything in this sense. It's not preventing people from having kids, just the number. Americans are not totally free. If we were, it would be total chaos. We abide by the laws and receive rights and freedoms in return. This could just be another law. The law is not taking anything away from you in this case. If this happened in a non-democratic society, I don't see how it would be a problem.
But not all religions are black and white. What one person gets out of it another person may not. So, if someone believes that fighting in a war is against their religion and they feel that they have a moral obligation to refuse to fight in that war, or support it an any way, how can you force them to do so? Forcing someone to support something they normally wouldn't is a slap in the face to the First Amendment. As for the abortion thing, are you serious? The crux of the entire abortion debate is that some believe that the fetus is a separate life, and aborting it is the same thing as murder. You would really support something that forced a great number of people to engage what they feel is murder?
