Bush’s Dangerous Obsessions
Newsweek Op-ed

President Bush’s speech to the United Nations was great stagecraft. But was it wise statecraft? That’s the question being debated in the corridors of the Capitol, even though Congress has little choice but to back the president’s obsession with ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. <Why is this?  Nothing prevents Congress from saying NO>

When it comes to the selective application of values, Bush is a master. His rhetoric about dictators and weapons of mass destruction is compelling, but what about Iran and North Korea, the other countries in his axis of evil? What about Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the way he terrorizes his people? What about India and Pakistan, who could blow up much of their region, along with themselves? Even if Saddam Hussein is an evil psychopath, is he crazy enough to annihilate himself, which is what would happen if he launched deadly weapons?

That brings us to the ultimate question: Why would Bush take such a huge risk with the military, the economy and the map of the Middle East? A psychiatrist might be best equipped to answer that one.

No Comments »

US poised for early strike on Saddam

United States forces in the Persian Gulf could be ready to attack Iraq in as little as three weeks, with an existing arsenal in the region being bolstered by a build-up of troops and weapons and stealthy logistical movements.

Military analysts point to shipments of tanks and other weapons, an air strike on a critical radar post, and disclosure this week that command personnel will soon be moved to Qatar.

As well, advance parties of British troops will begin moving into Kuwait within two weeks, possibly building to a force of 30,000, Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported.

No Comments »

How Other Nations Stand on Invading Iraq.

Via [Blog Left: Critical Interventions]

This is adapted from a Newsweek article — the article itself, much larger, outlines the dilemma of Secretary of State Colin Powell vis a vis Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld– see the whole article

Unlike the Gulf War, another full-scale U.S. attack on Iraq appears to lack the support of most Western allies and, more importantly, Iraq’s neighbors and key Arab states.

Here’s how the key nations have lined up so far on the issue of an Iraqi “regime change”:

With the U.S.
—————————————————————————-

Israel: A firm supporter of the U.S. policy to oust Saddam Hussein, the government has urged President Bush not to delay military action. Meantime, the Israeli public is being prepared for retaliatory Iraqi missile attacks in the event of an American attack.

Britain: Prime Minister Tony Blair has emerged as Washington’s strongest U.S. ally in Europe. Despite skepticism among the British public and within his own Labor Party about his pro-U.S. advocacy, Blair has warned that Saddam Hussein faces military action if he continues to defy U.N. demands for the return of weapons inspectors.


Arab opposition
—————————————————————————-
Egypt: President Hosni Mubarak says there is not enough evidence to justify military action.

Jordan: King Abdullah has campaigned against a military strike and said Jordan will not allow U.S. troops to operate from its territory.

Saudi Arabia: A key ally during the Gulf War, the kingdom has rejected any role in a new campaign.

Syria: Damascus, while no friend of Saddam Hussein, is opposed to U.S. action.


May support the U.S.
—————————————————————————-
Australia: The government has promised to give “serious consideration” to a request for military help from the United States.

Bahrain: Headquarters of the Navy’s 5th fleet, the tiny Persian Gulf island is already home to more than 4,000 U.S. troops. The government, while officially opposed to military action against Iraq, is expected to allow the U.S. to operate from its bases in the country.

Kuwait: No friend of Saddam Hussein, Kuwait has expressed reservations about a U.S. attack but would likely help in the event of military action. There already are thousands U.S. Army soldiers are based in Camp Doha near Kuwait City.

Qatar: Although officially opposed to an attack, the government has permitted the United States to rapidly upgrade its al Udeid air base over the past year. Commander of U.S. Central Command Tommy Franks has said the base is being developed for “times of crisis.”

Turkey: NATO member and Iraq neighbor, the government is worried about the fallout from a “regime change” in Baghdad, especially when it comes to the separatist aspirations of restless Kurds in northern Iraq and Turkey.

Other opposition
—————————————————————————-
Canada: Unlikely to join a U.S.-led invasion unless proof emerges that Saddam Hussein plans to attack the Western world.

China: Opposes military action, demands the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq.

Germany: The government, in the midst of an election battle, has been loudest among the European allies in criticizing U.S. plans.

India: Opposes armed action against any country, “more particularly with the avowed purpose of changing a regime.”

Iran: Tehran is strongly opposed to U.S. plans.

Pakistan: Claims that invading Iraq will unlease a “holy war” in rest of Middle East

Russia: Moscow staunchly opposes U.S. action and has recently improved its own relations with the Iraqi government.

United Nations: Secretary-General Kofi Annan has urged the United States to resist attacking Iraq.

No Comments »

Iraq human rights violations

Murder, torture, disappearing dissents, electocution, rape.  Yes, all these are used by the government against those opposing them.  Oh, wait, are we talking about Saudi Arabia or Iraq - as both routinely torture dissenters.

If Dubya is being so high-minded and moral about going after Iraq for these abuses, then why aren’t we going after Saudi Arabia who do precisely the same? 

Iraq has been doing this for decades. Why didn’t we bring this up with Iraq during the 80’s when they were torturing people?  When they were our allies in the war against Iran.  Did I just answer the question?

Iraq rather clearly doesn’t have nukes.  North Korea does.  Why aren’t we targetting them?

The whole thing is just too hypocritical… 

No Comments »

The last emperor

Guardian Op-ed

One thing was made crystal clear yesterday: there is no other authority than America, no law but US law.

The risks are frightening and the costs staggering. Petrol prices rise while stock exchanges fall at the prospect. Oil say some, but if US companies want Saddam’s oil, an oil-driven cynical administration could make peace not war and help themselves to fat contracts.

No, it appears to spring from a new ideology, a neo-conservative dream which Charles Krauthammer, guru of the right, calls the US’s “uniquely benign imperium” <benign?>. Hyperpower is not enough unless it is exerted so forcefully that no state ever again challenges benign US authority. One thing was made crystal clear yesterday - there is no other source of authority but America, and that means there is no other law but US law. What the US wants, the UN had better solemnise with a suitable resolution - very like the Roman senate and one of its lesser god-emperors. But this is not the real America. A small cultish sect is battling for the “imperium” within this bizarre administration, resisted by mainstream Republicans - so what is Tony Blair doing in there with them?

Maybe Blair, after his political career is over, wants to go to work for Carlyle, like his predecessor John Majors has.  Yes, the very same Carlyle that Poppy Bush works for, the corporation of the powerful and wealthy that makes billions off wars.  Ah, but I’m probably just too cynical.  Maybe Blair actually believes in what he’s doing.  The Glory of War and the Fight for Democracy, all high-minded stuff.  However he does have a well deserved reputation for being the docile puppy dog of US policy, first for Clinton, now for Bush.  I’m surprised he can still see, considering where he keeps his nose most of the time.

Bush at the UN.  Where’s the beef?  No new facts.  No new revelations or proof of Saddam having nukes or having aided in 9/11.  Yes, he’s violated UN sanctions.  Why does that automatically mean Iraq must be invaded, bombed to oblivion, with thousands of civilian dead?  What plans does Bush have when/if the Iraq government falls?  What then?

What about the geopolitical consequences?  A seriously destabilized Middle East.  Thousands of new terrorists created overnight.  And for what cause, to whack a little dictator? 

Why the mad compulsion to go to war?

No Comments »

Valley & Hollywood secession

Funny thing about secession. Many political groups in the involved areas are taking a neutral stance.  Why?  Because there is no way they can come to consensus on it.  Plus, maybe there’s no way they can even discuss it without ferocious argument.

At a Green Party of LA County Endorsement meeting yesterday we discussed the various propositions and measures on the Nov. ballot and came to easy agreement on everything but, you guessed it, secession.

We did stay civil during our sometimes heated secession discussion.  Plenty of cogent reasons on both sides, yet no one changed anyone else’s views.

Even the San Fernando Valley Greens, who are in the thick of it all, have no endorsement.  It’s just too hot and too divisive for most groups to even attempt consensus on.

I know hardcore Greens who are hardcore on both sides of the issue, as is also true for Republicans, Democrats, Latinos, business groups, Gays, you name it.  Very few political groups aren’t split on secession.

No Comments »