Wednesday, February 26, 2003

[1:32 PM] A minor note I’ve noticed recently in reporting on North Korea. I’ve read that North Korea launched a “medium-range” missile. This particular piece—and it was an opinion piece—also implied that it was a ballistic missile. Neither is the case. It was a short-range cruise missile. This is a nitpicky point so I won’t link to the original, but it is somewhat important in the North Korean context for a couple of reasons. One, this particular missile was an anti-ship missile and didn’t have the range to reach Japan even it that was the intention. Secondly, if it was indeed a ballistic missile then this would be a more urgent matter, because the DPRK has through all of the current crisis, adhered to its self-imposed moratorium on ballistic missile flight tests.

Just a minor point, but it’s important not to exaggerate threats, which is a repeated tactic of the Bush administration when it comes to international security issues (this came from a left of center source and was unintentional).

# posted 1:35 PM

Friday, February 21, 2003

[11:55 AM] There hasn’t been a lot of chest-thumping rhetoric about the three Americans currently being held by Colombian guerrillas after their plane crashed. Now some U.S. Congressmen want a response. According this article the deafening silence on the part of the administration is designed not to put the men in any more danger—certainly a prudent strategy—while it contemplates a response. American Special Forces are already on the ground in Colombia as part a training mission for Colombian Armed Forces, the article notes and could be used in rescue attempt. Why does the cynic in me think the administration has been caught off guard (again) by another pesky non-Iraq-related development? This LAT op-ed also thinks the U.S. has been caught napping on Colombia.

# posted 12:00 PM

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

[12:13 PM] That was then, this is now. Remember candidate Bush—the one who couldn’t name the leader of Pakistan. He was the one who kept trying to separate himself from Al Gore, repeating that Gore trusts government; “I trust the people.”

Now things have changed; the “people” have been reduced to a focus group. “First of all, you know, size of [the war] protest, it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group.” This was Bush yesterday at the White House responding that he was unmoved by the size of the anti-war protests over the weekend.

Of course the president shouldn’t make policy base solely on public opinion. But Bush could have made that point without being dismissive and insulting. This, however, continues a theme of being disingenuous with the American people about a potential war and the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the U.S., which is best exemplified by the continued assertion of a link between al-Qaida and Saddam. Is it too much to ask for some honesty if we are indeed going to war? This administration being what it is, that of course is a rhetorical question.

# posted 12:16 PM

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

[4:24 PM] When I talk with my friends, who are not in the international security business, about the war, I still argue against it from the same standpoint as I do with any of my colleagues—Saddam presents no threat to the United States. Is he a bad person? Yes, and I don’t think anyone disagrees. But that’s what President Bush keeps implying. If you don’t agree with the war, you don’t think Saddam is bad. Here’s the president at the White House today:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. What do you make of the fact that millions of people across the globe have taken to the streets to protest your approach to Iraq? And if you decide to go to war, how do you wage a campaign in the face of such stiff opposition?

THE PRESIDENT: Two points, one is that democracy is a beautiful thing, and that people are allowed to express their opinion. I welcome people's right to say what they believe. Secondly, evidently some of the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace. I respectfully disagree. Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people. Saddam Hussein has got weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has made -- defied the United Nations. Saddam Hussein is providing links to terrorists. Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

Mangled English aside, it is certainly disheartening to hear the president imply that if you oppose a war, you are obviously don’t care about security. War is the only solution for peace in other words.

Joseph Cirincione points out that this part of the Powell Doctrine (public support—remember Vietnam?) has been abandoned.

# posted 4:27 PM

Monday, February 17, 2003

[11:19 AM] It’s time for the Monday morning critique of Thomas Friedman’s Sunday column. This Sunday there was no strange logic or tangential arguments. But in chastising China for what Friedman sees as showing little interest in the Iraq debate, he exposes the same behavior in the U.S. vis-à-vis North Korea.

After a recent U.N. session on the Iraq crisis, I asked a Bush aide how China was behaving. "The Chinese?" the official said. "They don't think they have a dog in this fight." … The job of the four pillars of the World of Order is to work together to help stabilize and lift up the World of Disorder. Unfortunately, China doesn't seem to realize that.

But I would argue that China realizes that all to well. Friedman just doesn’t like how it is going about it. Take North Korea as an example. China is handling North Korea very carefully precisely because it wants stability and feels that added pressure will only make matters worse (click here to read a colleague’s op-ed about just this topic). Whether you agree with that strategy or not, it’s unfair to characterize China’s foreign policy as indifferent—which is how some would characterize the U.S. foreign policy when it doesn’t have a dog in the fight.

# posted 11:23 AM

Friday, February 14, 2003

[2:48 PM]

Asked during a break in the council meeting whether there was any chance the French could now support a resolution authorizing war, [the French foreign minister] told The Associated Press, "No."

I think my bet is lost.

# posted 2:51 PM

[2:42 PM] Remember the “war on terrorism”? The Bush administration certainly doesn’t or it might have 150,000 troop in Central Asia instead of the Arabian (in honor of where we’re going to war) Gulf. Anyway, here’s is a case that will certainly die a quick death in the media and won’t even have to be spun by this administration. A U.S. government charted plane crashes in rebel-held territory in Colombia. According to this Reuters story, two of the American occupants were found shot dead near the plane. The plane crashed in territory held by the FARC (terrorists). Let’s keep an eye out for the White House response.

# posted 2:46 PM

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

[10:20 AM] Writing in Slate, William Saletan takes a healthy swing at Colin Powell’s assertion that the latest Bin Laden message demonstrates a clear link between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Sixteen months ago, Powell wanted to isolate Bin Laden from other Muslims, so he said Bin Laden was lying about being involved in Iraq. Now Powell wants to justify war against Iraq, so he says Bin Laden is telling the truth. Same claim, same media outlet, same speaker, same U.S. official assessing the claim, same congressional venue, different U.S. agenda, different result.

He could delivered a haymaker because the notion that this address shows cooperation between the two is just absurd. Bin Laden’s concern is creation of the “Greater Israel.” That this administration even tried to use Bin Laden’s words to bolster their obsessive notion that Saddam is linked to al-Qaida boggles the imagination. Click here to read a dreadful translation of Bin Laden’s remarks.Click here to get a pdf version of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service's much better translation.

# posted 10:24 AM

Monday, February 10, 2003

[9:54 AM] It’s becoming habit now that I comment on Thomas Friedman’s Sunday column, in which I’m beginning to notice a pattern of incoherence (is it because he’s distracted during the weekends?). This Sunday, he takes issue with France and its foot-dragging in getting “tough” with Saddam. According to Friedman, France has an identity crisis. As evidence of some of the roots of this Friedman writes, “Throughout the cold war, France sought to differentiate itself by playing between the Soviet and American bloc. France could get away with this entertaining little game for two reasons: first, it knew that Uncle Sam, in the end, would always protect it from the Soviet bear. So France could tweak America's beak, do business with Iraq and enjoy America's military protection.”

Is that the same Iraq, America was doing business with in its war with Iran or was that the Iraq with which the United States had “no opinion on Arab conflicts.” Or was that the Iraq run by Saddam that Bush number one could “still do business with”?

Friedman writes that Frances position on Iraq is incoherent. But I think that he’s not so subtly trying to say that their dovish position irritates him. France wants to avoid war at all costs. They just don’t want to keep saying that aloud. Friedman I think knows this. This again is the criticism I have with some of his writings (which again, I enjoy overall). He takes strange and tangential routes that aren’t always logical to make his point (e.g. replace France with India on the Security Council because “India is just so much more serious than France these days.” The same India playing tit for tat diplomatic expulsions with Pakistan?)

My mantra throughout this entire Iraq debate is that Iraq does not pose a strategic threat to the U.S. (or France). Perhaps France has figured that out.

# posted 9:58 AM

Thursday, February 06, 2003

[11:00 AM] One of my original motivations for creating this little web project was my continued annoyance with the way the media mishandles and misinforms on so many issues related to foreign policy and international relations—especially when it come to more complex issues that don’t fit neatly into 5 minute segments. Here is a case in point. I was watching Lou Dobbs Moneyline on CNN last night and the topic turned to North Korean missile sales (why on Moneyline I have no idea).

Here’s the first gem:

DOBBS: Coming up next here, North Korea is fueling an arms race by exporting missiles to almost any country that wants them. Kitty Pilgrim will have a special report on [a] country that is indeed a merchant of death.

Dobbs never goes on to explain how the DPRK is a merchant of death, but clearly exporting missiles really rubs him the wrong way.

PILGRIM: North Korea was sending Scud missiles to Yemen in December when the ship was intercepted. The United States decided not to risk straining the relationship with Yemen, a needed ally in hunting al Qaeda, by blocking the ship, so Yemen ultimately accepted the delivery of the Scuds.

But Kitty fails to mention that however despicable the North Korean regime is, they didn’t do anything illegal. North Korea is not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime—which Kitty refers to as a treaty (it’s not)—and neither is Yemen. Later former Undersecretary of State of Defense Fred Ikle, chimes in saying “[W]e have to stop the exports and we have to be prepared to have a better effort of interdiction than we had so far with the Scud missiles to Yemen.” We can have a better effort, but this debate did not mention that technically, it would be illegal (and the U.S. went down this road coming to that very conclusion when it did not intercept North Korean missiles bound for Syria in 1992). Yes, North Korea was in violation of its NPT commitments (the treaty which it has now abandoned), but it is not violating any agreement on the missile export issue. This is an important point and it’s an example of what’s lacking in these discussions that ordinary citizens need to form opinions about war and U.S. foreign policy. And it should be remembered that the U.S. (granted it was the Clinton administration) nixed an Israeli deal to get North Korea to selling missiles to the Middle East, particularly Iran. Do we engage or do we just keep complaining to Lou Dobbs that North Korea is evil?

It’s technical, nitty-gritty, non-sexy stuff. But it’s paramount to delve in if we’re considering pre-emptive strikes or all out war.

# posted 11:04 AM

Tuesday, February 04, 2003

[2:52 PM] The Bush administration frequently cites the reluctance of Iraqi scientists to be interviewed by UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors as evidence of Iraqi noncompliance. Of course this is silly. We’re told constantly how evil Saddam is—so what is he going to do to anyone he thinks is cooperating with inspectors? Or their families? If you want an idea check out the book at the left Saddam’s Bombmaker. Better yet, here’s an interesting tidbit courtesy of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service:

Iraq: Scientist reportedly killed to prevent interview with weapons inspectors

A reliable source in Baghdad has told Hawlati [the Kurdish language newspaper that this comes from] that four days ago Dr Rihab, who was known as Dr. Virus (because of her role in developing Iraq's biological weapons), was murdered in Baghdad. Dr. Rihab was the wife of Amir Rashid, the regime's former minister of military industries (as published, he resigned from his post as oil minister on 7 January 2003). The source indicated that this terrorist act seems to have been committed by the regime's men in order to prevent the UN inspectors from interviewing her and revealing the information she had about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

This translation was done by FBIS and comes from the newspaper Al-Sulaymaniyah Hawlati.

# posted 2:56 PM

[12:07 PM] Every fair-minded person knows that when Iraqi officials say something, they are trustworthy.
Saddam Hussein

Read former British Cabinet Minister Tony Benn’s interview with Saddam Hussein here.

# posted 12:11 PM