You are right that the article is about what others think, what's abot France.
Turkey
'landed' was thr wrong word, sorry.
"US military convoys have been ferrying military equipment and troops through Turkey" it should have been correctly.
It will be not that easy for Blair:
Quote:[...]
For Mr Bush, the absence of a UN mandate would not have been, and would still not be, a great liability. The faith of Americans in the UN's capacity to do anything is not great. For Tony Blair, however, it could make the difference between winning or losing party, parliamentary and public support. By last week, the question of legality loomed so large that Britain had apparently sounded out the US about possibly not taking part in combat operations at all.
Not before time, the legal position is to be clarified today by the attorney-general, Lord Goldsmith. His now well-leaked view is that the previous UN resolution, 1441, can be read as legitimising a war. He has also apparently advised that the legal position would be distinctly weaker if a "second" resolution were submitted to a vote and defeated. The Security Council would then have expressly rejected an immediate move to war.
This is a situation that no national leader should find himself in, least of all Mr Blair. He has spent enormous amounts of time and political capital trying to obtain a majority in the UN that he has so far been unable to obtain and would actually be better off without. That does not reflect well on his advisers.
The decision to continue working through the UN is the most heartening aspect of yesterday's summit. Returning to the Security Council, with a new draft resolution if necessary, is by far the wisest course, and however urgently Mr Bush wants a decision, it should on no account be rushed.
http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=387838
The Guardian discusses about how 1441 is been seen legaly in the UK and that the attorney general has a tricky task in defending the legal basis for war:
Sorry, Mr Blair, but 1441 does not authorise force
Australia has never attacked another country before. Once it done the first time, it can't ever be undone. History will remember it forever. That's why I don't want my country involved.
Wilso - of course, you would know, but wasn't there a small ANZ contingent in the Crimean War?
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't have a clue.
Just heard on the news that the cabinet has been called back to Canberra and are meeting right now. It's 8:45pm here. You can read into that what you will.
Another fascinating analysis from an Indian strategist.
The occupation of Iraq, either peacefully or with force, will take place sooner or later. US preparations for taking action against Iraq are at such a level that not taking action is no longer an option. The US has moved huge forces over a distance of 7,000 kms, spending close to $9 billion. Backing down now would mean political suicide for President Bush.
Even if Saddam Hussein is to comply with all that the US wants the US will make sure he is ousted and a regime change affected in Iraq. The issue of possession or detection of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is irrelevant for the Americans.
It appears the planned operations have two main aims:
1. To secure control of Iraqi oil, that is close to 17 per cent of the world's oil reserves. This is of special urgency since the US-Saudi agreement of February 14, 1945 expires in 2005. This 60-year arrangement signed on board the USS Quincy by President Franklin D Roosevelt and King Ibn Saud gives Americans monopoly rights over Saudi oil. In combination with the complete control over Kuwaiti oil, established after the 1991 war, the US will be in a position to control even the European and Japanese economies that depend heavily on Middle Eastern oil.
2. Secondly, by taking action against Iraq, the Americans are sending a clear signal to the Muslim world and Islamists that the US is prepared to go to any length in its fight against terrorism. The strong message the Iraq episode conveys is aimed at the Islamic world. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 General Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO forces, stated that Muslims countries have to choose between an Islam that is tolerant or one that is militant. The Americans seem to have calculated and accepted the risk of alienation in the Islamic world. The recent softening of Iran towards the US shows that the divisions within the Islamic world seems to be working to the advantage of the Americans.
This year's Strategic Review, nicknamed the 'Bush Manifesto,' makes it clear that the US will pre-empt all threats to its security. Significantly, President Bush talked of 'American justice,' not mere justice. It is a misnomer to say the US intends to become a global cop! The US has no such intention; what the US is telling the world is it will become global sheriff -- and Saddam Hussein is the first guy in its crosshairs.
Why Iraq?
Other than Turkey and maybe Egypt, Iraq is the most developed country in the Islamic world. Literacy is close to 80 per cent, women have great deal of freedom and the sway of religion is far less. It is only after the first Gulf War of 1991 that Saddam flirted with Islamic fundamentalism to shore up support. Iraq is closest to a 'secular' model in the Arab world. Ironically, it is the very success of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist party that has become a liability.
Iraq is the right place to begin the American war on Islamic fundamentalism. Success here will be easier to achieve than other countries like Saudi Arabia. In addition, Iraqi oil will compensate for the loss of Saudi oil.
Even economically it is a good bargain for the Americans. It is estimated the war will cost close to $40 billion and the reconstruction of Iraq another $90 billion. Once Iraqi oil exports begin, these amounts are not so huge and can easily be earned over a 10-year period.
The US wants to establish a new world order. The creation of a political climate which supports US global economic interests is crucial for this purpose. The elimination of threats to US assets, in the homeland and overseas, from non-State actors committed to violence, and the States that support them is therefore on top of the US agenda at present.
A war in Iraq seems unavoidable unless Saddam leaves before the strikes begin. The war is likely to take the form of a siege by American and its allies' ground forces. The air strikes on vital targets will commence and continue till the accumulating pressures cause capitulation by Iraq. Water supply and electricity may be targeted so that the civil population is directly affected and clamours for the end of war.
I started a poll today on a new thread: "How Dare We Call It a War":
Poll to How Dare We Call It a War
Kara - thanks for the link to the Herbert editorial. I've posted this link now in a few of my blogs. He was succinct and you were too - "With Ears and Eyes Closed" / "says it all"...
cobalt, I liked Herbert's phrase..."his coalition of the hard-of-hearing."
Herbert also noted the tens of thousands of us who marched in Washington on Saturday. I was surprised that there was no coverage of this mass protest in the Washington Post nor in the NYTimes. I think the media is largely behind our hard-of-hearing administration.
Here's another one of those OPO (other people's opinions) timber dislikes so much:
The U.S. has already lost the prewar battle over Iraq, whatever the outcome of a further U.N. vote. Even if it wins a fig-leaf majority vote in the Security Council, America will be entering its first preemptive war faced with opposition from nearly all of its allies and much of the rest of the planet. A world that rallied to America's side in unprecedented demonstrations of support after September 11 increasingly perceives the U.S. itself as a great danger to peace. How did things come to this? The failure of the Bush Administration to manage its diplomacy is staggering, and the price paid, even if the war ends quickly, could be higher than anyone now anticipates.
BusinessWeek
timber
Re your last post to me...I think it is just fine to post opinions other than one's own. Actually, I think it is quite beneficial, broadening the range of ideas and viewpoints available to us here. I simply thought I'd point out that the Lexington Institute likely wouldn't want me for a member, as I have a second cousin on my mother's side who once rode on a subway car which was adjacent to another that carried a communist. But as right wing think tanks go, it's a fairly mild one, which is why I didn't even point out the internal logical contradition inherent in 'right wing (think) tank', which was very hard to resist.
As you know, were I in Chirac's place, I'd have done the same. And I certainly do not think US motives are less directed by self interest or cultural nuttiness than the French. There is, clearly, a strategic PR campaign from the White House and from supportive groups to denigrate France, to make it appear singularly intransigent and out of step. Of course, it's not, or the US could win an easy majority with the UN, and it isn't winning that even given the threats and arm twisting and bribes of billions (plus god knows what else).
The perception of the majority in the world is that the US is the singular and out of step force in this debate - and that's the correct perception by any measure, other than a poll of barbershop habitues from below the Mason Dixon (whom, god almighty, can't even sing four part harmony any longer).
...note...please preface all above with "Of course, I stand foursquare against evil" and "America is the greatest country on earth ever" and "steak is way bigger and firmer than any croissant" and "in my opinion..." and a wink.
I didn't read the printed word yesterday, or yet today, Kara, but can't believe there would be a blackout of coverage of yesterday's and Saturday's events. CNN and Fox were nonstop full of them.
Gautam,
I truly do not believe that oil is an important issue here. If so, we would be profiting from Kuwaiti oil at this moment, and I have never read anything to the effect that we are enriched here. We get most of our oil from South America. The cost of transporting oil from the mideast to the US for refining would be prohibitive. We are told by our self-surving administration that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and will go a long way to reconstructing the country into a better neighbor in the region, and giving some of the people, hopefully most of its people, a better life in Iraq. Let us hope that this is true.
Cynicism, and being primed to believe the best, or the worst, of a country, company, or other similar entity, may be tempting. But it may be too distorting a view.
timber,
Long story about my involvment in volunteer Cross Hill Fire Department. Glad that your callouts didn't exceed your meetings and/or training. Not the case here. No municipal fire departments nearby, rural area, helping each other so that we are always called out when a neighbor gets called out, even if it is to just send a tanker and sit around, waiting to see if they need extra fighters. Add to that that we were all first responders also, called to the scene of everything under the sun. Add to that the good old boy southern mentality who weren't comfortable with an uppity NY broad in their midst.....you get the picture.
sumac, I would'nt call it cynicism, just real politik. I, along with several others, am really struggling to understand the real reason for this war - if it is not for oil, or worse still "finishing what my dad could not"
WMD - There are several other (rogue) countries with them
Invasion of neighbours - Every tinpot dictator in Africa has invaded, overtly or covertly his neighbour
Human Rights - Countries with far worse record of Human Rights
Contravention of UN resolutions - Again, several countries which are in contravention of US resolutions passed.
Harbour terrorism - No proof against Saddam, infact it is generally acknowledged that Iraq is the least fundamental of all Arab countries.
So what is the reason ?? Selection by elimination always comes to Oil.
While I agree that US might not be overtly dependant on middle east oil, remember, by controlling the oil from the middle east - US is hoping to control, or have some influence on the economies of the countries which depend on middle east oil. I don't like you, you don't listen to me - I will not sell you oil !!! They have set a precedent today, by refusing Turkey the aid which they had promised because the Turks did not support them in this illogical war.
And pls, "I will hold the oil for the Iraqi people" - do u, even for one moment, believe this ?? It's like a kid finding a unlocked candy shop and standing guard till the owners return !!
gautam
You might want to add Israel into the mix above.
As Kara suggested, a quote from the Friske(sp?) article:
Quote:For UN resolution 377 allows the General Assembly to recommend collective action "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".
This arcane but intriguing piece of UN legislation - passed in 1950 and originally known as the "Uniting for Peace" resolution - might just be used to prevent Messrs Bush and Blair going to war if their plans are vetoed in the Security Council by France or Russia. Fundamentally, it makes clear that the UN General Assembly can step in - as it has 10 times in the past - if the Security Council is not unanimous.
I am becoming very disillusioned with the UN's ability to accomplish anything of importance in this modern, fast-paced world. Decisions by committee are always slow, cumbersome in coming, and hardly bold in action or intent.
The General Assembly could have been called into play a long time ago by Anin, or by themselves, acting as an independent body, other than the Security Council, within the UN. None of this happened. The world is moving too fast for a slow-witted, lowest common denominator, slow-paced entity to have any kind of meaningful influence.
As timber pointed out, the UN has acted twice, decisively, in N. Korea and Iraq. And nothing of benefit was accomplished. Just holding actions which delayed important decision-making to another generation. Not good.
ul, thank you for the link to the Washington Post. I thought I had read the paper cover to cover, but somehow I missed that story. An excellent article, and the Washington Post is back in my good graces!
