dyslexia suggested:
Quote: They would simply announce that henceforth, they were administering the departments of government, including access to all government documents.
I seriously doubt that Saddam would have any interest in even pretending to go along with that scenario.
timber:
email traffic off? That is surely significant, but of what? To reduce the background noise to concentrate better on other chatter?
I've been in daily or so e-mail contact with "In Theater" folks who have at the least become "Out of Touch", while others have indicated they soon will be out of touch. This simply means that they are not accessing the internet as readily as they had been. They might be busy, they might be posted to a location without access, communications restrictions may have been imposed or may not have been. It could mean a lot of things, but it does indicate a heightened state of mission-directed activity and a lessening of "personal time". Read from that what you will.
timber
sumac; " seriously doubt that Saddam would have any interest in even pretending to go along with that scenario."
i am assuming that it would make virutually no difference what interest Saddam had, i realize its just an idea but i happen to think a damn good one. Saddam really doesn't have much in the way of alternatives other than death by suicide or death at the hand of others.
bob
timberlandko wrote:I've been in daily or so e-mail contact with "In Theater" folks who have at the least become "Out of Touch", while others have indicated they soon will be out of touch. This simply means that they are not accessing the internet as readily as they had been. They might be busy, they might be posted to a location without access, communications restrictions may have been imposed or may not have been. It could mean a lot of things, but it does indicate a heightened state of mission-directed activity and a lessening of "personal time". Read from that what you will.
timber
The Oz government issued instruction to Australians to leave Iraq about 5 days ago. That was the confirmation for me.
Richard Nixon biographer Roger Morris writes in a New York Times op-ed that in 1963 the CIA, under President John F. Kennedy, "conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein...Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other U.S. allies -- chiefly France and Germany -- resisted."
New York Times
One of the most frustrating and hurtful aspects of this situation is the attempt on the part of some right-wingers to paint dissenters as un-American. That is why the heartfelt expressions expressed by John Brady Kiesling in his letter to the secretary of state (below) mean so much.
?- A Diplomat Disagrees
John Brady Kiesling is a career diplomat who has made headlines with his public resignation over the Administration's Iraq policy. Mr. Kiesling served from April 1983 until March 2003 as a Foreign Service Officer of the U.S. Department of State. His postings included Morocco, Armenia, Israel and Greece. In 1994 Mr. Kiesling was one of a group of foreign service professionals presented with the Rivkin Award, given by the American Foreign Service Association for constructive dissent. Kiesling was also a member of the group of a dozen State Department officials that pushed for intervention in Bosnia.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.
It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.
The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.
The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?
We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.
We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant"** really become our motto?
I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?
Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests.
I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.
**"Let them hate so long as they fear." The quote is attributed to Roman tragic poet Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC). It is believed to be a favorite saying of the notorious Emperor Caligula.
angie
He's quite a fellow, is he not. On Moyer's show last night, he also said that the idea Iraquis will welcome US soldiers is a false hope. He may be wrong, but he sure knows better than I.
Of course it's a "false hope".
Americans (correctly or incorrectly) are viewed as rich, white, western, Christian, and pro-Israel.
Iraqis are poor, dark, eastern, Muslim, and anti-Israel.
Oh yeah sure, they'll welcome us with open arms !
blatham, There was another program I watched intermittently where a lady newscaster asked people living in Iraq, Jordan, and Syria about how the Iraqi people will react to US intervention. Most of them said, you can't force them into accepting American style democracy. Not only has this administration failed to look into what this war will cost in human lives and dollar cost, but what the aftermath will be like. People just do not follow like sheep into another form of government or economic system - over night. It's gonna be interesting to watch. I hope they are successful, but there's alot to say it will also fail. c.i.
Quote:When heads of state ignores millions in this world, there is something drastically wrong.
You only have a problem with them ignoring those who agree with you. You refuse to recognize that if Bush listened to you he would be ignoring the majority of his own people. Somehow, you would think it okay for him to ignore
those millions, though.
Quote:Americans (correctly or incorrectly) are viewed as rich, white, western, Christian, and pro-Israel.
Iraqis are poor, dark, eastern, Muslim, and anti-Israel.
Oh yeah sure, they'll welcome us with open arms !
Upon what do you base your clear implication that the Iraqi people are bigots? (Perhaps this assumption stems from your own bigotry?)
By the way, ever seen the American military? If you are correct that Iraqis have the prejudices that you list above, they will likely fail to recognize our soldiers as American, since so many are black and other races.
The 3/15 NYTimes has a great compilation of diplomats' and others' thoughts on what the UN could and should do. Here are some excerpts -- but I hope you will check out the article itself:
If the U.N. Were Being Created Today
...a new vision of peacekeeping is required, one that fully embodies regional solutions to regional problems by regional organizations. This approach has proved its merits in confronting ethnic and religious violence in East Timor (where Australia led an Asean peacekeeping and nation-building operation) and in the continuing European peacekeeping presence in Kosovo. Ironically, much of this "new" vision of peacekeeping is provided for in the United Nations Charter (in the long-ignored Chapter 8). This approach would align national interest with humanitarian or peacekeeping interventions and strengthen the Security Council's legitimacy...
...I'll start with one thing I would not change: the preamble. Beginning with the immortal words "We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," the preamble is a magnificent testament to the soaring aspirations of the United Nations' founders. The charter's Chapter 1, "Purposes and Principles," also stands up very well nearly 58 years later...But the one fix I would make is in Chapter 18, "Amendments." The charter is too hard to change...
...Establish a permanent military force at the sole disposal of the secretary general. This force would be completed by civil observers who could suspend unfair and illegitimate election returns or constitutional changes.... Enlarge the Security Council by introducing as permanent members some countries according to their population and to their budgetary contribution.... Establish an automatic right to intervene in and manage areas where there is a danger of massive human rights violations or genocide...
...Permanent Security Council membership must be expanded from five people to seven. The United States, China and Russia should stay; British and French seats must be combined into one, and given to the European Union (which will greatly stimulate its foreign and security policy integration); Japan, India and Brazil should be welcome to join as new permanent members. The eight elected seats would be filled on a regional quota basis: three for Africa, two for Asia, two for North and South America and Oceania, and one for European countries outside of the European Union. The veto right should be abolished...
...A capacity to collect, analyze and publicize critical information about international conflicts has been lacking at the United Nations since its inception. Such information, neutrally acquired and channeled, might often have helped limit sterile debates about "the facts." What I have in mind is something akin to the Congressional Budget Office in Washington, useful to and respected by most policy actors at any given time....
...The window of opportunity to reinvent the United Nations as a new coalition of freedom-loving and action-oriented states, that was open by democratic revolution in Russia in the early 1990's, has been largely missed. Russia was too weak to lead the way and met with spectacular shortsightedness in the United States and the West...
...If we had to reinvent the United Nations charter today, we would certainly come up with something worse. The same could be said of the United States Constitution. That is reason to move cautiously in the direction of change....
...There are no quick fixes. The problems are not structural. They are political. The organization can survive and thrive if its members carefully manage one critical paradox: balancing principle against power... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/15/arts/15FORU.html
And from the 3/16 NYTimes, Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman and the editorial:
Mashing Our Monster
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
Everyone thinks the Bush diplomacy on Iraq is a wreck. It isn't. It's a success because it was never meant to succeed... ...It's not a simple task, carving new divisions in Europe, just as Europe is moving past the divisions that led to the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. The Bush hawks never intended to give peace a chance. They intended to give pre-emption a chance...
...The hidden huddle in the Azores is trompe l'oeil diplomacy, giving Mr. Blair a little cover, making Poppy Bush a little happy. Just three pals feigning sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya," as the final U.S. troops and matériel move into place in the Persian Gulf and the president's "Interim Iraqi Authority" postwar occupation plan is collated.The hawks despise the U.N. and if they'd gotten its support, they never would have been able to establish the principle that the U.S. can act wherever and whenever it wants to ?- a Lone Ranger, no Tontos...
Repairing the World
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Some days, you pick up the newspaper and you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Let's see, the prime minister of Serbia just got shot, and if that doesn't seem like a bad omen then you missed the class on World War I. Our strongest ally for war in Iraq is Bulgaria ?- a country I've always had a soft spot for, because it protected its Jews during World War II, but a country that's been on the losing side of every war in the last 100 years... I am glad Mr. Bush is meeting with Tony Blair. In fact, I wish he would turn over leadership on the whole Iraq crisis to him. Mr. Blair has an international vision that Mr. Bush sorely needs...Lord knows, I don't diminish the threats we face, but for 18 months all we've been doing is exporting our fears to the world. Virtually all of Mr. Bush's speeches are about how we're going to protect ourselves and whom we're going to hit next. America as a beacon of optimism ?- America as the world's chief carpenter, not just cop ?- is gone. We need a little less John Wayne and a little more J.F.K. Once we get this Iraq crisis behind us, we need to get back to exporting our hopes, not just our fears.
The Summit of Isolation
Three men meeting on an Atlantic island seems an apt symbol for the failure of the Bush administration to draw the world around its Iraq policy... President Bush was dealt a bad hand by others... But the Bush administration's erratic and often inept diplomacy has made matters immeasurably worse. By repeatedly switching its goals from disarmament to regime change to broadly transforming the Middle East, and its arguments from weapons to Al Qaeda to human rights, the White House made many countries more worried about America's motives than Iraq's weapons. Public arm-twisting of allies like Turkey and Mexico backfired, as did repeated sniping at Hans Blix, one of the U.N.'s two chief arms inspectors. ...Mr. Bush finds himself about to embark on an uncertain course of war and nation-building in one of the world's most dangerous and complex regions, with an alliance far too narrow for comfort.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html[/size]
Blatham,
I agree with you with regard to the reaction of most Iraqis (not including Regular soldiers who will surrender when and if they can). When the Bush administration started talking about Iraqis greeeting us as liberators - I thought, What, are you of your ******* minds? How could our intelligence people come to this vast generalization? That is why I found the Turkish journalist's views saying essentially the same thing as our administration to be interesting.
dsy,
Wouldn't it be nice though? Iraqi regime change occurs by UN representatives flying into Iraq and saying, OK, now we are in charge. We are the new regime. Saddam, pack your bags, and get out, or we will kill you. And, take all your loyalists with you. No bloodshed, no military involvment, no huge costs to just the US. Yes, that would be lovely indeed. I am not being sarcastic. It would be wonderful, but still, IMHO, improbable.
Last week the Pentagon put out a news release claiming that Saddam Hussein had ordered replicas of U.S. uniforms -- for the purpose of blaming Iraqi atrocities on American soldiers.
While the report could of course be accurate, it just as easily could be disinformation -- intended to inoculate U.S. forces from potential charges of committing atrocities. Revelations of American military atrocities have turned public opinion against other wars (i.e. Vietnam), so the Pentagon has an interest in pre-empting such news.
In other words, if it later were alleged that innocent Iraqis had been executed, tortured, or otherwise savaged by American forces, the Pentagon already has in place a cover story: it must have been Iraqis in disguise.
I have yet, however, to see much skepticism expressed about this story in the media.
Yahoo!
Excerpt:
Iraq is acquiring military uniforms "identical down to the last detail" to those worn by American and British forces, Jim Wilkinson of U.S. Central Command said Thursday. He said Saddam had ordered procurement of the uniforms, but he said he could not reveal how this was known.
Just so that I have this straight:
The administration can't locate any of the WMD it says Saddam has. It says it can't take out Saddam without going to war because they don't know where he is most of the time. It says that they can't beat Iraq without committing a Guernica-like bombing of Baghdad. But somehow it manages to discover a secret Iraqi plot to have Saddam's soldiers dress up like American and British soldiers and kill Iraqis.
Yeah, sure, uh-huh.
This is unrelated to the topic at hand - apologies to participants:
Pursuant to an exchange of e-mails initiated by "perception" it has been brought to my attention that in prior statements of mine his flying record might have been placed in doubt, and that his views on the gravity of the Cuban missile crisis might have been belittled.
May I post here a retraction of critical comments I may have made in that regard, adding that I'm no expert on yet another matter, the Louisiana purchase, and that I never meant to contradict any of "perception"'s statements on the above. I regret the misunderstanding, greatly appreciate his apology to me on other statements he made concerning me, and hope that this wording is satisfactory and that this matter can finally be deemed closed. Thank you.
I have a simple question I'd like to ask; I thought of it while watching Colin Powell and George Stephanopolis this morning on This Week on ABC:
Do you believe that George Bush is going to the Azores to actually honestly look at some kind of options to all out war in Iraq, or do you believe that this is simply his last best effort at PR to appear willing, all the while intending to go to war no matter what?
I would especially be interested in Asherman and TW's reply to this.
i believe the meeting is to set a date for invasion.
This time next week we're shooting and bombing.
Well , you didn't ask me snood, but I'll jump in. I figure there will be some talk of "Re-Wording" The 18th Resolution, and that a "Joint Announcement" will be drafted, but that actual war conduct plans and post-war measures will be the meat of the conversation.
The Azores news conference is a few hours off yet, but I anticipate little cause for surprise. I'll watch it anyway.
As to how Iraq will "Welcome" US troops, there are reports of acts of sabotage and other civil disobedience in Iraq, and they appear to be increasing. Things like trains being intentionally derailed and police stations getting bombed are unusual coming out of Iraq. I'm sure that means something.
timber
It seems the latest news is that Chirac is ready to set time limits with Blix's approval.
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=7&aid=D7PQ9KNG0_story c.i.
