Will the US finish the job?

Wilso, Anything is possible with Bush at the helm, but we still haven't resolved Al Qaeda (Osmam bin Laden), Afghanistan, and Bosnia. This administration is already talking about Syria. I don't really understand what's going through their brains, but I'm not ready to second guess these war-mongers. With over three thousand dead and counting on this war with Iraq, and nobody knows when this war will be over, talking about our next war is crazy at best. c.i.

Who know's what they'll do next. It's scary to say the least. Canada may be next for all we know!

Have Gun, Will Travel. I saw an old episode of that show recently, and it was terrific. Not sure, though, that I want it to be the sum total of US foreign policy...

What is really interesting to me is whether and, if so, how this U.S/U.K./Australia/Polish victory against the Arab world's most powerful military force can be used in solving the Palestine/Israel conflict. It is quite solvable in my opinion.

What is of value as relates to this problem is not so much the potency of our military (The coalition essentially rid Iraq of Saddam in half the time, with less troops, with less than half the casualties than the Gulf War. Source: NYT April 10, 2003 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1512-2003Apr9.html ) but the resolve to use it given the perception of a casus belli. As much as President Bush is disliked in the Middle East, he along with the U.S. now command a degree of respect and credibility. It is important that he strike while the iron is hot.

Solving the Palestinian problem will not solve all ills of this area but a credible solution here will go a long way to help further stabilize this area. Prime Minister Blair realizes this and I only hope that Bush can. Once this man becomes convinced and focused he seems to doggedly pursue his objective. If any conflict calls for dogged pursuit of a solution it is the Palestine/Israel problem.

Respectfully,

JM

The US will finish the job, all right. c.i.
********************************
Spoils of War
April 10, 2003
By BOB HERBERT

Follow the money.

Former Secretary of State George Shultz is on the board of
directors of the Bechtel Group, the largest contractor in
the U.S. and one of the finalists in the competition to
land a fat contract to help in the rebuilding of Iraq.

He is also the chairman of the advisory board of the
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a fiercely pro-war
group with close ties to the White House. The committee,
formed last year, made it clear from the beginning that it
sought more than the ouster of Saddam's regime. It was
committed, among other things, "to work beyond the
liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy."

War is a tragedy for some and a boon for others. I asked
Mr. Shultz if the fact that he was an advocate of the war
while sitting on the board of a company that would benefit
from it left him concerned about the appearance of a
conflict of interest.

"I don't know that Bechtel would particularly benefit from
it," he said. "But if there's work that's needed to be
done, Bechtel is the type of company that could do it. But
nobody looks at it as something you benefit from."

Jack Sheehan, a retired Marine Corps general, is a senior
vice president at Bechtel. He's also a member of the
Defense Policy Board, a government-appointed group that
advises the Pentagon on major defense issues. Its members
are selected by the under secretary of defense for policy,
currently Douglas Feith, and approved by the secretary of
defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Most Americans have never heard of the Defense Policy
Group. Its meetings are classified. The members disclose
their business interests to the Pentagon, but that
information is not available to the public.

The Center for Public Integrity, a private watchdog group
in Washington, recently disclosed that of the 30 members of
the board, at least 9 are linked to companies that have won
more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and
2002.

Richard Perle was the chairman of the board until just a
few weeks ago, when he resigned the chairmanship amid
allegations of a conflict of interest. He is still on the
board.

Another member is the former C.I.A. director, James
Woolsey. He's also a principal in the Paladin Capital
Group, a venture capital firm that, as the Center for
Public Integrity noted, is soliciting investments for
companies that specialize in domestic security. Mr. Woolsey
is also a member of the Committee to Liberate Iraq and is
reported to be in line to play a role in the postwar
occupation.

The war against Iraq has become one of the clearest
examples ever of the influence of the military-industrial
complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned against so
eloquently in his farewell address in 1961. This iron web
of relationships among powerful individuals inside and
outside the government operates with very little public
scrutiny and is saturated with conflicts of interest.

Their goals may or may not coincide with the best interests
of the American people. Think of the divergence of
interests, for example, between the grunts who are actually
fighting this war, who have been eating sand and spilling
their blood in the desert, and the power brokers who fought
like crazy to make the war happen and are profiting from it
every step of the way.

There aren't a lot of rich kids in that desert. The U.S.
military is largely working-class. The power brokers homing
in on $100 billion worth of postwar reconstruction
contracts are not.

The Pentagon and its allies are close to achieving what
they wanted all along, control of the nation of Iraq and
its bounty, which is the wealth and myriad forms of power
that flow from control of the world's second-largest oil
reserves.

The transitional government of Iraq is to be headed by a
retired Army lieutenant general, Jay Garner. His career
path was typical. He moved effortlessly from his military
career to the presidency of SYColeman, a defense contractor
that helped Israel develop its Arrow missile-defense
system. The iron web.

Those who dreamt of a flowering of democracy in Iraq are
advised to consider the skepticism of Brent Scowcroft, the
national security adviser to the first President Bush. He
asked: "What's going to happen the first time we hold an
election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do
you do? We're surely not going to let them take over."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

JM - I'm going from memory here, but hasn't the President spoken of the Israeli /Palestinian conflict even during this war? I think I recall something about him focusing on pushing for a resolution there, but I need to look it up.

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that I think we may be moving in the direction you advocate. If I find out more specific/verifiable info, I will post it.

Well, that didn't take me long. It is definitely being discussed as a "next step":

Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hasn't exactly been high on the Bush agenda. If Blair has been nudging him in the direction of dealing with it, then great. Nice to see something positive coming from the Bush-Blair relationship...

On what do you base that statement? (Provide us some facts we can check, or state up front that it's your opinion. Thanks.)

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, Tres. I can recall no evidence that the Bush Admin has done much to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What evidence can you produce to show me otherwise?

No, let's leave the shoe where it belongs, on your foot.

Is it the job of others to prove what you say is not valid? Really? I have to tell you that is a pretty unsupportable position to take. Most people here agree that you should be ready and able to back up your statements, and that simply challenging others to prove you wrong doesn't fly. I take it as a sign that you have no basis for your claims, and if that is the case in this case, why would anyone put any value in anything you post here?

Please either offer support for your claim, or simply acknowledge that it is an UNSUPPORTED OPINION. Don't pretend it is my fault that you can't back up your statements.

Perhaps the idea is that the job CAN'T be finished.

And I hope that the "Anti-War" movement can see this and realize that we may have a new "Cold War" on our hands.

tress,

There are many factors that indicate that Bush has deferred the Isreal/Palestine issue. He ignored the unprecedented Arab overtures and put off resolution.

He also set precedents by stating that there will be a Palestinian state but the more important factor was his acceptance of sequentialism.

But I suspect you want something like Bush saying "the issue isn't important to me" and if so your request is unreasonable.

trespassers will,

Let me say up front that both sides of this conflict have much to answer to when they stand before their respective deities on judgement day but I believe reciting past wrongs by either side will obviously only be counterproductive in this dispute.

They must both come to the table without pre-conditions. I think that most agree to the establishment of a seperate Palestinian state with concurrent guaranties for Israel's security concerns.

I know that many will not like my further comments and observations and may be tempted to call me names but I will put these out there for others to review in hopes I may learn further about this problem.

The Road Map is supposedly in existence and PM Blair, amoung others, wants it publizied to get the ball rolling. I agree. Our State Department is surley capable of handling more than one foreign situation at a time. Getting the UN involved is important, although, what role and the method of implementation I would have to leave to the experts.

So far the Arabs might agree with me. But why should the Israelis ultimately go along with any peace process? They have the upper hand so far. They have their original lands gained at the start of their nation and all those settlements thus far with absolutley no reason to stop the creation of more in the immediate future. Why is this so? The obvious reason is because of Israel's military strength.

But, why is this so? I beleive the solution to this conflict lies in the resources underlying Israel's military strength. Who ever controls these resources holds the key to solving the conflict.

I am under the impression that the U.S. has been a great friend and ally to Israel (and visa versa) over these many years and a lot of these good feelings between the U.S. and Israel stem from the large amount of economic and military aid we have provided them. Perhaps it has come time for the U.S. to convince its friend and ally it is time to come to an agreement with the Palestinians for the good of both themselves and the region. I am sure the lever I just described and a fully committed G.W. Bush could be an unbeatable combination to encourage further Israeli altruism and pursuit of peace.

D'artagnan,

I must admit that we are not the only ones who have noticed this administration's perceived reticence to address not only this conflict but also the North Korean problem which really has me worried. It is almost as if this administration feels U.S. foreign diplomacy can only act towards various conflicts as if they were contained in a FIFO (First In First Out) pipeline to be dealt with only one at a time.

Respectfully,

JM

c.i.,

The article you quoted mentioned Center for
Public Integrity , a very informative group. If interested here's their Website

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp

JM

Thanks, JM, that was very helpful. c.i.

Interesting that your expectation is that my request is unreasonable...

No, what I want is for Dart to show me why he (she?) thinks this is so. Is that really so hard to understand? I'm curious to know whether this person--who is expressing an opinion with which I am inclined to disagree--has information which I do not and which might cause me to change my opinion.

Now why is that such an awful thing for me to think someone would answer?

But craven, since you stepped up, can you provide me details on any specific overture from the Arabs, and show me that it wasn't considered but found lacking? Or is it your contention that the act of not embracing any overture that was made, proves Bush's lack of interest, without considering the value of the overture?

The Arab League's overture was unprecedented. Is that specific enough? Do you need a citation? I was working under the assumption that you followed current events enough to put 2 and 2 together and deduce which overture (as in the only relevant one in Bush's term).

Any overture? Get real. I am contending that this verture presented an opportunity that was ignored. I never said the overture was not considered. It certainly was evaluated before it was dissmissed.

I must remember April 10, 2003, as a significant day in the life of A2K. c.i.