GW Bush Admin

Fallout for Tony Blair

William Hoge, "Blair Is So Down He's Up" (New York Times, 3/23/03):

Mr. Blair himself has remained steadfastly loyal to Mr. Bush in private as well as in public, but high-ranking members of his government say that the blunt comments that have come out of Washington have repeatedly undermined their efforts to reason with critics of America here.

In contrast to the custom in Washington of keeping presidents at a distance from forums and audiences that might embarrass them, Mr. Blair has actively sought out opponents to try to press home the unpopular American position. He has withstood heckling and a peculiar British form of speaker abuse known as slow hand-clapping. . . .

Britain, a country of 60 million people who buy 14 million newspapers a day, has one of the world's most aggressively competitive presses, and British newspapers are hard on prime ministers in normal times. In the current political atmosphere of Labor domination, they have taken on an added edge, assigning themselves the role of the opposition in British political life that the weakened Conservative Party is unable to fulfill.

But last week there was a notable break in the harsh treatment. The day after Mr. Blair gave the speech of his life in the House of Commons and managed to contain the Labor rebellion, The Independent, a relentless enemy of his war stance, published an editorial with unblushing language suggesting that Mr. Blair's lonely struggle, which seemed to be leaving him isolated and adrift, may have instead worn down his detractors and earned him begrudging respect.

Fallout for Tony Blair Read More »

War Budget: $80 Billion

Bush administration projects the cost of the war at $80 billion (after witholding a projection during key congressional budget debates) (San Francisco Chronicle, 3/23/03):

President Bush plans to tell congressional leaders on Monday that the war in Iraq will cost about $80 billion, administration officials said, three days after both chambers of Congress passed budget plans and authorized tax cuts without a war-cost estimate from the administration.

For weeks, White House officials refused to provide a cost estimate, saying they could not account for the various war scenarios. But officials said Saturday that on Monday, Bush plans to tell congressional leaders he will ask for additional funding of about $80 billion.

War Budget: $80 Billion Read More »

Don’t Blame Ralph

Ralph Nader: Bush is a dictator, but it's not my fault (Kaye Ross, San Jose Mercury News, 3/23/03):

Bush is acting "in effect as a selected dictator," Nader told the Mercury News in an interview Friday. The president has not listened to any of the many retired admirals, generals and foreign-policy experts who have warned against the war, Nader said. And the stated reasons for going to war "have either been disproved or greatly distorted," he said.

The greatest danger will come, Nader said, after the war has been won. Bush, whom he called "a hit-and-run president," will not stick with the difficult, protracted process of rebuilding Iraq and making it democratic, he said. . . .

But it's not his fault, he said. In fact, people could just as easily blame David McReynolds, the Socialist Party candidate in 2000, for giving the key state of Florida to Bush, he noted. McReynolds polled 622 votes in the state, and Democratic Vice President Al Gore lost by 537 votes. Nader, who ran as the Green Party candidate, got 97,488 votes.

"When people ask me this, I say, 'What would you have me do?'" Nader said. "Everybody has a right to run for office."

Don’t Blame Ralph Read More »

What We Know about Iraq

New York Times editorial: "Watching Iraq" (3/23/03):

What most of us know of Iraq we know from just the kind of television we are watching now. It's a nation seen over the correspondent's shoulder, or through the windshield of a fighting vehicle moving into a beige void. But in a way, America knows a great deal about Iraq. We actually know every inch of the country. United Nations inspectors have explored it in the ways that interest us most. Surveillance satellites are constantly watching overhead. We've been making fixed-wing surveillance flights since before the first gulf war. Perhaps in some declassified future, those photographs will serve the same purpose as the aerial photos the Luftwaffe took of England in the late summer of 1940. Now, they provide a clear snapshot of the country as it was, an archeological benchmark against which to measure all future change.

What We Know about Iraq Read More »

War Support Much Lower This Time

Poll: War boost for Bush smaller than for his father in 1991, and unlike then, Democrats and Republicans diverge sharply. Overall, 70 percent of Americans approve of the war and 27 percent disapprove (does that mean that three percent are undecided?); 93 percent of Republicans approve, but only 50 percent of Democrats (in 1991, these numbers were 94 percent and 81 percent, respectively). (New York Times, 3/22/03.)

War Support Much Lower This Time Read More »

“Your Names Will Be Written in Gold”

Just before it begins, Hani Shukrallah on what is really unique about this war (Al-Ahram Weekly, March 20-26, 2003):

With 280,000 US and British troops deployed in the Gulf -- 175,000 are in Kuwait -- US military commanders were promising a war "unlike anything anyone has ever seen before," according to the US naval commander in the Gulf, Vice Admiral Timothy Keating. Speaking to reporters on board USS Abraham Lincoln, Keating waxed poetic on the forthcoming invasion. The coalition troops would go "about this particular conflict . . . in a way that is very unpredictable and unprecedented in history -- remarkable speed, breathtaking speed, agility, precision and persistence" . . . .

On board USS Abraham Lincoln, Admiral Keating addressed hundreds of his men telling them: "When it's all done... and they rewrite history, because that is what you are going to do, your names will be written in gold on those pages."

Before that gilding begins history will have to be effaced, not rewritten. An illegal war waged in blatant violation of the UN Charter and of international law; a war against which 30 million people throughout the world have already demonstrated before a single shot is fired on streets from Los Angeles to Tokyo; a war to which opinion polls in virtually all the world's nations, with the exception of the US and Israel, have produced a definitive 'no' -- how can such a war be recorded except in infamy? And this, before the body count.

“Your Names Will Be Written in Gold” Read More »

American Tragedy

Jonathan Schell, "American Tragedy" (The Nation, posted 3/20/03):

When the Soviet Union collapsed and the cold war ended, the United States was left
in a position of global privilege, prestige and might that had no parallel in history. The moment seemed a golden one for the American form of government, liberal democracy. . . . A basically consensual rather than a coerced world seemed a real possibility.

Times Square news ticker, New York City, 3/19/03Who could have guessed that barely a decade later the United States, forsaking the very legal, democratic traditions that were its most admired characteristics, would be going to war to impose its will by force upon an alarmed, angry, frightened world united against it? . . .

The international order on which the common welfare, including its ecological and economic welfare, depends has sustained severe damage. The fight for "freedom" abroad is crippling freedom at home. The war to stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has provoked that very proliferation in North Korea and Iran. More ground has already been lost in the field of proliferation than can be gained even by the most delirious victory in Baghdad. Former friends of America have been turned into rivals or foes. The United States may be about to win Iraq. It has already lost the world.

American Tragedy Read More »

Shock and Awe

Jefferson Morley in the Washington Post (3/20/03) on the "Shock and Awe" bombing strategy, which he traces to Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade's Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance (National Defense University Press, 1996) -- available online. From the book's introduction:

Theoretically, the magnitude of Shock and Awe Rapid Dominance seeks to impose (in extreme cases) is the non-nuclear equivalent of the impact that the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese. The Japanese were prepared for suicidal resistance until both nuclear bombs were used. The impact of those weapons was sufficient to transform both the mindset of the average Japanese citizen and the outlook of the leadership through this condition of Shock and Awe. The Japanese simply could not comprehend the destructive power carried by a single airplane. This incomprehension produced a state of awe.

We believe that, in a parallel manner, revolutionary potential in combining new doctrine and existing technology can produce systems capable of yielding this level of Shock and Awe. In most or many cases, this Shock and Awe may not necessitate imposing the full destruction of either nuclear weapons or advanced conventional technologies but must be underwritten by the ability to do so.

Shock and Awe Read More »

Iraq Invasion: The Kurdish Context

Gareth Evans and Joost Hiltermann, " The Kurds: a Catastrophe Waiting to Happen ," International Herald Tribune, 3/20/03:

First, it is imperative that U.S. forces get to Kirkuk fast - before the Turks and before Kurdish forces.

Second, the United States must make abundantly clear to Turkey that it has to show restraint, avoiding any unilateral military moves in northern Iraq.

Third, Washington must simultaneously make clear to the Kurds that they should take no action that risks provoking Turkey: that they must refrain from unilateral military steps and consent to a temporary international presence in Kirkuk.

In exchange, America needs to give an explicit, public guarantee to the Kurds that it will protect them from attack (from either Turkey or a post-Saddam regime in Baghdad) and support their fair expectation of greater freedom to govern themselves during negotiations over the future of Iraq, including -- crucially -- an active Kurdish role in the central government.

Iraq Invasion: The Kurdish Context Read More »

Making 1441 a Justification for War

Josh Marshall (3/18/03) on the United States's hypocritical citation of Resolution 1441 as a sanction for invasion. Security Council members like France, Russia, and China clearly supported the resolution because they were confident that the Council retained the authority to evaluate Iraqi compliance and sanction any further response. What's more, that's exactly what the United States promised at the time. Marshall cites Maggie Farley and Maura Reynolds in the Los Angeles Times, 11/8/02:

U.S. officials said Thursday's concession on the language showed that the United States is genuinely committed to a multilateral process.

"There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution," U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte said. "Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken."

The compromise reassured diplomats who have suspected that despite engaging in negotiations at the United Nations, the U.S. will ultimately attack Iraq with or without the sanction of the Security Council. If the U.S. is sincere about involving the U.N., said Russia's ambassador, Sergei V. Lavrov, then the process has been valuable.

"We know the position of the United States," Lavrov said. "But if they say that this resolution is not about an extra authorization, [that] it's a genuine effort to have inspectors on the ground and to fulfill entirely the mandate, then it's quite important."

Making 1441 a Justification for War Read More »