War in Iraq will only hinder the war on terror
David Gardner, 1/26/03 Financial Times
This is the best analysis we know on US
possible responses to "bin Laden's absolutist brand of Islamism, an
ideology bordering on fascism."
It is not David Gardner's conclusions that set
this apart, but his grasp of recent Middle East history and realpolitic,
plus realistic
assessment of available alternatives.
He discusses in turn three reasons why Bush
wants war against Iraq: demonstration of overwhelming force; control of
the Gulf and its oil to replace Britain's historic role; and weapons of
mass destruction.
He concludes persuasively that Osama bin
Laden's "network and milieu, not Mr. Hussein, should be the
priority." He thinks that the US does not currently have the
legitimacy needed in the Arab and Islamic world "if it is to attack
the bin Laden phenomenon effectively."
He thinks that a war will be counterproductive,
and provides an alternative solution.
www.ft.com,
search for David Gardner
The Fifty-First State?
James Fallows, November 2002, Atlantic Monthly
After military victory in Iraq comes the
hard part. James Fallows talked to spies, Arabists, oil-company
officials, diplomats, scholars, policy experts, and many active-duty and
retired soldiers. These were from the US, Europe, and Middle East. He
concludes:
". . . Because we would have destroyed the
political order and done physical damage in the process, Iraq's claims
on American resources would be comparable to those of any US state.
Conquered Iraqis would be part of us. . . ."
He takes us through the First Week (refugees
and relief, catching Saddam Hussein), First Month (police control,
intelligence, forming a government), First Year ("de-Nazification"
and "loya-jirgazation," oil and money), and The Long Run
(including the minority, optimistic view of Woolsey, Perle,
Rumsfeld).
www.theatlantic.com,
then Back Issues, then November 2002.
Win the War on Terrorism -
With Arms Control
John Arquilla, 1/23/03, San Francisco Chronicle
We have been surprised, actually dismayed,
at the lack of open debate about alternatives to Bush’s Iraq war
strategy. Is war on this one country really the best way to deal with
the general threat of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups?
We don’t know about your newspaper, but the
one we read every day seems at last to be opening the subject up. Here
is a Chronicle commentary by an analyst at the Naval Postgraduate
School in Monterrey. Simply on strategic grounds, John Arquilla gives
reasons why he thinks that arms control, not war, is the preferred
solution for all offending nations, including Iraq.
www.sfgate.com,
search with quotes for "john arquilla"
Democratic Mirage in the Middle East
Marina Ottaway et. al., October 2002, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace
"From within the
Bush administration and on the editorial pages of America's major
newspapers, a growing chorus of voices is expounding an extraordinarily
expansive, optimistic view of a new democratizing mission for America in
the Middle East. The rhetoric has reached extraordinary heights . .
."
The authors counter the optimistic view, arguing
that intervention in Iraq is as likely to complicate the spread of
democracy in the Middle East as it is to promote it. The United States
should recognize that promoting democracy will require a long-term
commitment, rather than instant transformation through regime change.
www.cfr.org,
then enter, then Middle East, then page 2.
U.S. is Looking for an Excuse to Fight
Adam Hochschild, 1/19/03, San Francisco Chronicle
"The people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders . . . All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country."
Hermann Goering, commander of the German Luftwaffe.
Adam Hochschild notes that wars have seldom
started without a specific incident. Bush, eager for war, is undoubtedly
looking for a pretext, a plausible excuse.
What will it be? The author proposes some
possibilities.
In history, he notes that the trigger for war
has often been faked. Read about the German invasion of Poland in 1939,
the battleship Maine in McKinley’s time, Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 Gulf
of Tonkin incident. He refrains from suggesting that will be the case
this time.
www.sfgate.com,
search for "Adam Hochschild"
Doubt in the Ranks
David Ignatius, 11/1/02, Washington Post
In this column we were surprised to learn that
many Pentagon brass and CIA officers have doubts about Bush’s proposed
war in Iraq.
Rank-and-file CIA
officers "don't want to do this war." Partly they think that
an Iraq war "will jeopardize the ‘liaison’ relationships with
other intelligence services that are crucial in fighting al Qaeda."
They also fear that the Bush administration may
be "cooking" the intelligence, that is, "implying
connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that have not been
established."
Some Pentagon officers
have questioned whether their concerns about the dangers of urban
warfare are being sufficiently weighed by Rumsfeld, with his
"frequently abusive and indecisive" style. Click on www.washingtonpost.com/nation,
then columns, then david ignatius.
