We've all heard a lot about this xenophobic little country that sits on the other side of the world. Its neighbor to the south has been threatened, along with the United States, with harsh militaristic tactics.
The threat of "nuclear" war is imminent, according to the propaganda machine of North Korea.
Kim Jong Un, the untested boy, who inherited his power from his father and grandfather, is trying to fill some really big (er...) shoes by picking a fight with the biggest bully on the block (i.e., the United States).
Here's what I think:
1. The Chinese aren't doing much to calm down the rhetoric spewing from the Korean Peninsula, which makes it harder to swallow for countries like the U.S., South Korea, and Japan.
2. The United States seems to be stirring in the pie, too, by sending in fighter jets to South Korea and beefing up its missile detection network in the Pacific. This only serves to encourage Kim.
3. If the United States is going to "up" the stakes, then it needs to make it a real life exercise. With the blessing--or disinterest of China--the United States needs to take care of business by either withdrawing its beefed up operations in the region; thereby, calling Kim's bluff. Or, simply carpet-bomb the little third world country back to the Chinese border, starting at the DMZ and pushing northward.
This would show them that the "boiled pumpkin" really does have teeth and knows how to use them. I know it is cruel for the innocent people who are stuck between a rock and China, but it really is the only way to give this little country a chance for any kind of new start in the international community.
I'm not advocating an occupation. It is more of a calling card: "Hi, we received your message and dropped by. If you want to see us again, just use our name on the television...or drop a note-in-a-bottle into the sea! See ya, Uncle Sam."
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Monday, February 02, 2009
Throwing shoes
If you throw shoes--at either George W. Bush or the premier of China--make sure they are good shoes!
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Olympics
Over the hundred-plus years the modern Olympic Games have been in existence, it has been a symbol of many things, including oppression.
The 2008 Olympic Games, to be held in Beijing, are no exception to this tradition. Already we have seen the Olympic torch bearers accosted on the streets of London, U.K., as they symbolically take the flame of peace and fraternity across the globe, before it arrives at its final destination, Beijing. The protesters, who tried to steal the flame away and extinguish it with a fire extinguisher, are showing support for the cause in Tibet. Tibet has been a shining symbol of oppressive government interference in the past decades, because of China's harsh treatment of its quasi-province, located in the Himalayan Mountains.
I have often wondered what Olympic organizers were thinking when they selected Beijing to host the 2008 Summer Olympics. China has been a hot-bed of human rights violations. How can the Olympic Games, which are the very essence of peace and equal rights, be seen as anything except an affront? Of course, China has spent billions of dollars to prepare for the Olympics Games, by building gigantic, unconventional complexes--I admire the architecture--to host the various sporting events, such as the National Stadium, which has an exoskeleton quality, and the National Aquatics Center, with its uncanny resemblance to water bubbles suspended in mid-air.
The Olympics always seem to bring out the worst in everyone involved. People are always willing to use the international platform to rant about their personal gripes, which is ironic, considering they were/are designed to bring out the best in all of us.
The 2008 Olympic Games, to be held in Beijing, are no exception to this tradition. Already we have seen the Olympic torch bearers accosted on the streets of London, U.K., as they symbolically take the flame of peace and fraternity across the globe, before it arrives at its final destination, Beijing. The protesters, who tried to steal the flame away and extinguish it with a fire extinguisher, are showing support for the cause in Tibet. Tibet has been a shining symbol of oppressive government interference in the past decades, because of China's harsh treatment of its quasi-province, located in the Himalayan Mountains.
I have often wondered what Olympic organizers were thinking when they selected Beijing to host the 2008 Summer Olympics. China has been a hot-bed of human rights violations. How can the Olympic Games, which are the very essence of peace and equal rights, be seen as anything except an affront? Of course, China has spent billions of dollars to prepare for the Olympics Games, by building gigantic, unconventional complexes--I admire the architecture--to host the various sporting events, such as the National Stadium, which has an exoskeleton quality, and the National Aquatics Center, with its uncanny resemblance to water bubbles suspended in mid-air.
The Olympics always seem to bring out the worst in everyone involved. People are always willing to use the international platform to rant about their personal gripes, which is ironic, considering they were/are designed to bring out the best in all of us.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Just in time for the Summer Olympics
China is getting tough on its renegade province, Tibet. The avant-garde communist government has declared that it will "shatter [Tibet's] conspiracy" against Beijing. China is really cracking down on groups that cause political unrest lately. Of course, Beijing will be the host city of the 2008 Summer Olympics, which is why I am wondering about China's continuous efforts to turn the rest of the world against it just in time for the opening ceremony of the games!
(There's nothing worse than a pesky disgruntled quasi-province to really throw a wrench into a celebration of universal humanhood, such as the Olympics.)
(There's nothing worse than a pesky disgruntled quasi-province to really throw a wrench into a celebration of universal humanhood, such as the Olympics.)
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
China executes...official
In a state farce, not seen since 2000, China has summarily executed a former high ranking government official, Zheng Xiaoyu, who was in charge of the country's food and drug safety.
Zheng was convicted of taking almost $900,000 in bribes from various companies for favors. The court found that this type of behavior constituted a dereliction of his duties.
This sounds like an execution made out of anger, because of all the recent problems arising from China's food exports. It will serve as a very stark reminder of the obligations current and future officials have in securing the safety of China's food and drug programs.
Zheng was convicted of taking almost $900,000 in bribes from various companies for favors. The court found that this type of behavior constituted a dereliction of his duties.
This sounds like an execution made out of anger, because of all the recent problems arising from China's food exports. It will serve as a very stark reminder of the obligations current and future officials have in securing the safety of China's food and drug programs.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
The NEW Seven Wonders of the World
In a worldwide contest to determine a new list of the world's greatest wonders, people voted--via Internet and text message--for their choices.
The new list was revealed yesterday in Lisbon, Portugal. The final list showing the world's wonders includes:
The Great Wall of China
Petra in Jordan
Brazil's statue of Christ the Redeemer
Peru's Machu Picchu
Mexico's Chichen Itza pyramid
The Colosseum in Rome
India's Taj Mahal
Noticeably absent from the list is the only ancient wonder of the world that still stands today, the Great Pyramid at Giza. This omission has caused great exception with the government of Egypt, which maintains the Great Pyramid is the only wonder of the world.
The new list was revealed yesterday in Lisbon, Portugal. The final list showing the world's wonders includes:
The Great Wall of China
Petra in Jordan
Brazil's statue of Christ the Redeemer
Peru's Machu Picchu
Mexico's Chichen Itza pyramid
The Colosseum in Rome
India's Taj Mahal
Noticeably absent from the list is the only ancient wonder of the world that still stands today, the Great Pyramid at Giza. This omission has caused great exception with the government of Egypt, which maintains the Great Pyramid is the only wonder of the world.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
North Korea
North Korea says it may postpone the test of its first nuclear device if the United States will agree to direct bilateral talks, instead of posing unilateral sanctions against the nation.
Why doesn't the United States engage North Korea directly? What is the point of talking to one country through different nations? It's like when you were small and you said, "I'm not talking to mom...dad will you tell mom that I'm not talking to her." The funny thing is, mom is standing right in the room with you! That's how this whole "We're not talking to North Korea, except through China..." deal comes into play.
Bill Clinton's administration sought to directly engage the North Koreas. Secretary of State Madeline Albright went to Pyongyang and met with Kim Jong-il. This was a very large step of diplomacy for both nations and a great gesture of open relations with the North Koreans on the part of the Americans. What happened to this new relationship? George W. Bush is what happened.
George Bush's administration worked to undo all the work Clinton and his Administration had done. They returned to the indirect communication method and closed all relations with the North Koreans. What has that gotten us? It has gotten us a North Korea that is working tirelessly to build its own nuclear arsenal. It is creating tension on the Korean Peninsula and with the Japanese. It is giving China the upper-hand on dealing with this problem, because they are primarily the go-to-country for even speaking to the North Koreans.
If Bush was smart (and we all know he's not) and surrounded by equally intelligent, diplomatic people (instead of sycophants), then we might have averted this whole new North Korean tension. We might have followed the same model with Iran. The United States (Bush mostly) must get out of this mentality that we can bully other nations around and they will blindly follow along. We can no longer be the biggest, meanest kid on the school playground. Eventually, these little nations are going to gang up on us and give us a bloody nose. The United States is the world's oldest democracy. We have been in existence for over 200 years. From these many years of struggle and strife, we must have learned something of wisdom. The United States is in the best position of being the broker of genuine world peace; however, this can only be accomplished through direct talks with the parties involved. It must also take into account the art of compromise and the understanding that all parties have authentic positions on the issues at hand. It's not about one nation having the upper-hand on the other one. It's not about throwing around insults and insinuations. The United States must sit evenly at the middle of the negotiation's table and say, "This is what each party has brought to this discussion. Now, what can we do--with the things you have brought today--to find a balance to the issues and find commonality?"
That is called diplomacy!
Why doesn't the United States engage North Korea directly? What is the point of talking to one country through different nations? It's like when you were small and you said, "I'm not talking to mom...dad will you tell mom that I'm not talking to her." The funny thing is, mom is standing right in the room with you! That's how this whole "We're not talking to North Korea, except through China..." deal comes into play.
Bill Clinton's administration sought to directly engage the North Koreas. Secretary of State Madeline Albright went to Pyongyang and met with Kim Jong-il. This was a very large step of diplomacy for both nations and a great gesture of open relations with the North Koreans on the part of the Americans. What happened to this new relationship? George W. Bush is what happened.
George Bush's administration worked to undo all the work Clinton and his Administration had done. They returned to the indirect communication method and closed all relations with the North Koreans. What has that gotten us? It has gotten us a North Korea that is working tirelessly to build its own nuclear arsenal. It is creating tension on the Korean Peninsula and with the Japanese. It is giving China the upper-hand on dealing with this problem, because they are primarily the go-to-country for even speaking to the North Koreans.
If Bush was smart (and we all know he's not) and surrounded by equally intelligent, diplomatic people (instead of sycophants), then we might have averted this whole new North Korean tension. We might have followed the same model with Iran. The United States (Bush mostly) must get out of this mentality that we can bully other nations around and they will blindly follow along. We can no longer be the biggest, meanest kid on the school playground. Eventually, these little nations are going to gang up on us and give us a bloody nose. The United States is the world's oldest democracy. We have been in existence for over 200 years. From these many years of struggle and strife, we must have learned something of wisdom. The United States is in the best position of being the broker of genuine world peace; however, this can only be accomplished through direct talks with the parties involved. It must also take into account the art of compromise and the understanding that all parties have authentic positions on the issues at hand. It's not about one nation having the upper-hand on the other one. It's not about throwing around insults and insinuations. The United States must sit evenly at the middle of the negotiation's table and say, "This is what each party has brought to this discussion. Now, what can we do--with the things you have brought today--to find a balance to the issues and find commonality?"
That is called diplomacy!
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
North Korea Celebrates the Holiday with Its Own Fireworks
"North Korea test-launched a Taepodong-2 missile early Wednesday along with two short-range rockets, but the long-range missile apparently failed, U.S. officials said.
"North Korea's preparations for a long-range missile test have been closely monitored for weeks. A senior State Department official told CNN the Taepodong-2, which some U.S. analysts fear could hit the western United States, appears to have failed in flight.
"Military officials told CNN the long-range missile appeared to have failed less than a minute after launch.
"Two smaller North Korean missiles were fired from a different site shortly before the larger missile was tested, U.S. intelligence and State Department officials said.
"U.S. military sources said those two missiles landed in the Sea of Japan, one closer to Russia and the other closer to Japan.
"A senior State Department official said the launches were timed to coincide with the launch of the space shuttle Discovery from Florida, calling it 'a provocative act designed to get attention.'
"Analysts said the tests appeared to have been intended to draw international attention back to North Korea -- and to the stalled talks aimed at convincing Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
"North Korea is believed to have the capability to produce several nuclear weapons but has never tested one.
"'They are trying to send quite a signal not only to the United States but to the rest of the world that they should be taken quite seriously,' said Wendy Sherman, a former State Department official who held talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il during the Clinton administration.
"Washington and North Korea's Asian neighbors -- South Korea, China, Russia and Japan -- have been trying to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear program since 2002, but those talks have stalled in recent months.
"Jim Walsh, a national security analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the intent of the test appeared to be aimed at drawing attention back to North Korean demands in the six-party talks. But Walsh said the tests "do not represent an immediate military threat to the United States."
"'It's very difficult technology. They very clearly have not mastered it,' he said. 'Most estimates are they will not master it for another 10 years.'
"The United States, Japan and other countries have warned North Korea against a long-range missile test. The North Koreans fired a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan in 1998, but declared a moratorium on future tests in 1999.
"There was no official response to Wednesday's tests from either the White House or from Japan, which had threatened to seek economic sanctions against already-impoverished North Korea if it conducted a missile test.
"'One would expect from any administration for there to be sanctions, for there to be a tough response to this,' Sherman said.
"On Monday, North Korea's state-run media accused the United States of harassing it and vowed to respond to any pre-emptive attack 'with a relentless annihilating strike and a nuclear war with a mighty nuclear deterrent.'
"The White House has dismissed that threat as 'hypothetical.' But the U.S. Northern Command increased security measures at its Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station in Colorado Springs, Colorado, a few weeks ago, a military official confirmed Tuesday.
"The base is the seat of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and some of its command-and-control operations might be used if the United States attempted to use its ballistic missile interceptors to shoot down a Taepodong-2 test.
"But a Pentagon official said the missile appears to have failed on its own, without any American effort to knock it down.
"In other planning measures instituted in the past several days, Northern Command, along with the Federal Aviation Administration, has put standby commercial flight restrictions into place over Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Fort Greely, Alaska, where U.S. interceptor missiles are based.
"President Bush warned last week that the isolated Stalinist state would face even further isolation if it launched the Taepodong-2, which U.S. analysts fear is capable of reaching the western United States.
"'The North Koreans have made agreements with us in the past, and we expect them to keep their agreements,' Bush said last month at the end of a European Union summit.
"'It should make people nervous when nontransparent regimes, that have announced that they've got nuclear warheads, fire missiles,' Bush said.
"'This is not the way you conduct business in the world. This is not the way that peaceful nations conduct their affairs.'"
Source: CNN
"North Korea's preparations for a long-range missile test have been closely monitored for weeks. A senior State Department official told CNN the Taepodong-2, which some U.S. analysts fear could hit the western United States, appears to have failed in flight.
"Military officials told CNN the long-range missile appeared to have failed less than a minute after launch.
"Two smaller North Korean missiles were fired from a different site shortly before the larger missile was tested, U.S. intelligence and State Department officials said.
"U.S. military sources said those two missiles landed in the Sea of Japan, one closer to Russia and the other closer to Japan.
"A senior State Department official said the launches were timed to coincide with the launch of the space shuttle Discovery from Florida, calling it 'a provocative act designed to get attention.'
"Analysts said the tests appeared to have been intended to draw international attention back to North Korea -- and to the stalled talks aimed at convincing Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
"North Korea is believed to have the capability to produce several nuclear weapons but has never tested one.
"'They are trying to send quite a signal not only to the United States but to the rest of the world that they should be taken quite seriously,' said Wendy Sherman, a former State Department official who held talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il during the Clinton administration.
"Washington and North Korea's Asian neighbors -- South Korea, China, Russia and Japan -- have been trying to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear program since 2002, but those talks have stalled in recent months.
"Jim Walsh, a national security analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the intent of the test appeared to be aimed at drawing attention back to North Korean demands in the six-party talks. But Walsh said the tests "do not represent an immediate military threat to the United States."
"'It's very difficult technology. They very clearly have not mastered it,' he said. 'Most estimates are they will not master it for another 10 years.'
"The United States, Japan and other countries have warned North Korea against a long-range missile test. The North Koreans fired a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan in 1998, but declared a moratorium on future tests in 1999.
"There was no official response to Wednesday's tests from either the White House or from Japan, which had threatened to seek economic sanctions against already-impoverished North Korea if it conducted a missile test.
"'One would expect from any administration for there to be sanctions, for there to be a tough response to this,' Sherman said.
"On Monday, North Korea's state-run media accused the United States of harassing it and vowed to respond to any pre-emptive attack 'with a relentless annihilating strike and a nuclear war with a mighty nuclear deterrent.'
"The White House has dismissed that threat as 'hypothetical.' But the U.S. Northern Command increased security measures at its Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station in Colorado Springs, Colorado, a few weeks ago, a military official confirmed Tuesday.
"The base is the seat of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and some of its command-and-control operations might be used if the United States attempted to use its ballistic missile interceptors to shoot down a Taepodong-2 test.
"But a Pentagon official said the missile appears to have failed on its own, without any American effort to knock it down.
"In other planning measures instituted in the past several days, Northern Command, along with the Federal Aviation Administration, has put standby commercial flight restrictions into place over Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Fort Greely, Alaska, where U.S. interceptor missiles are based.
"President Bush warned last week that the isolated Stalinist state would face even further isolation if it launched the Taepodong-2, which U.S. analysts fear is capable of reaching the western United States.
"'The North Koreans have made agreements with us in the past, and we expect them to keep their agreements,' Bush said last month at the end of a European Union summit.
"'It should make people nervous when nontransparent regimes, that have announced that they've got nuclear warheads, fire missiles,' Bush said.
"'This is not the way you conduct business in the world. This is not the way that peaceful nations conduct their affairs.'"
Source: CNN
Saturday, June 17, 2006
The United States is the new Soviet Union?
Once upon a time, the Soviet Union was a world power. It was the main competitor with the United States. The US said capitalism is the ultimate in economics. During the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Union took a change in its economy. It became stagnant. The economy did not grow. People were out of work, people were in debt, and the select rich ran the country. There was no prospects for growth in that country's economy. Their economy tittered for years, before it finally crashed, leaving the Soviet Union dead. The United States worked very hard to make sure the Soviet Union's economy crashed, so they could cannibalize the leftovers when the country no longer existed. Effectively, the US would control the world!
Sure that may have happened, initially. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ended in 1990/1991. The US was the world broker of peace. It had brought democracy to the largest country in the world. We were at the pinnacle. Now, we are taking the same road the Soviet Union did in the 1970s. We are becoming heavily in debt. We are using our military to control other nations against their will (so guess where our money is going?). We want to hold our own in the league of nations of the world. We want the world to fear us, not respect us. We've got power and influence, but for how much longer?
In this year's national budget we had to allocate $200,000,000,000 ($200 billion) for the war in Iraq. Guess who put up that money? Was it the United States' taxpayers? Was it the surplus of money in the US Treasury that George Bush has put in there for us? No, it was the new world power who loaned us the money: CHINA! Did George Bush put that in a speech? I don't think so!
Our economy is growing at a rate of 3% per year. China's economy is growing at a rate of 8% per year! What's that translate to? China's economy is growing at a rate of almost three times the rate of our economy! What does that mean for us? China is quickly taking our jobs. We have outsourced our jobs so readily without any thought to the future. The US is buying rapidly from China to supply the demand of our consumers. China is getting our money in many different ways. Is China becoming the United States of the 1970s and 1980s? It looks like it, considering how fast their economy is growing. The US is slowly becoming the Soviet Union of yesteryear. How long can we last before China pushes us over the edge? We are slowly, but surely, becoming stagnate.
What will we do about it? Not much as long as King George is our leader, and Republicans control Congress. They seem pretty happy about it.
Sure that may have happened, initially. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ended in 1990/1991. The US was the world broker of peace. It had brought democracy to the largest country in the world. We were at the pinnacle. Now, we are taking the same road the Soviet Union did in the 1970s. We are becoming heavily in debt. We are using our military to control other nations against their will (so guess where our money is going?). We want to hold our own in the league of nations of the world. We want the world to fear us, not respect us. We've got power and influence, but for how much longer?
In this year's national budget we had to allocate $200,000,000,000 ($200 billion) for the war in Iraq. Guess who put up that money? Was it the United States' taxpayers? Was it the surplus of money in the US Treasury that George Bush has put in there for us? No, it was the new world power who loaned us the money: CHINA! Did George Bush put that in a speech? I don't think so!
Our economy is growing at a rate of 3% per year. China's economy is growing at a rate of 8% per year! What's that translate to? China's economy is growing at a rate of almost three times the rate of our economy! What does that mean for us? China is quickly taking our jobs. We have outsourced our jobs so readily without any thought to the future. The US is buying rapidly from China to supply the demand of our consumers. China is getting our money in many different ways. Is China becoming the United States of the 1970s and 1980s? It looks like it, considering how fast their economy is growing. The US is slowly becoming the Soviet Union of yesteryear. How long can we last before China pushes us over the edge? We are slowly, but surely, becoming stagnate.
What will we do about it? Not much as long as King George is our leader, and Republicans control Congress. They seem pretty happy about it.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Iran, Iran, Iran
What will we do with Iran? It is now the redheaded step-child of the international community. No one wants to even think about it, much less discipline it.
From what I know, Iran is now the foremost threat to our security. Not just the security of the United States, but that of the entire world. The Middle East is a volatile place. People there hate each other over religious and family issues. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is working hard to bring trouble to his country. His rhetoric is offensive, almost like he is begging for a confrontation with the West.
I am not sure what he means when he says that Iran's nuclear program is irreversible. I suppose he means that the IAEA can go suck a long one, and leave him the hell alone. I imagine the CIA is working overtime in Tehran this evening. It wouldn't surprise me that the United Nations moves forward with sanctions against Iran. Iran certainly is more dangerous than Iraq ever was. They now possess the "atom." We just must make sure they can't refine that atom further and then attach it to missile. To me the options are obvious, Bush must take direct action, along with the United Nations, to shut down Iran's nuclear program (I didn't say invade). I am talking about airstrikes against the facilities where uranium is being enriched. These attacks can take place from naval ships in the Persian Gulf and from B-52 bombers way overhead. Sure, this will piss someone off, but I think we will all be pissed off when Iran nukes Israel or China.
As for Israel, I am not sure what Ahmadinejad's motivation is for attacking Israel verbally. I believe it is a way to somehow create support for Iran with other Muslim nations. I believe, if anything, such rhetoric only serves to distance other Muslim nations from Iran. Today, the president of Palenstine stated that Hamas-led government should recognize Israel as an authentic nation. Iran has always been the ugly duckling of the Muslim nations. It is primarily Shi'ite in its worship of Allah. I believe other Muslim nations are wary of the Ayatollah, who is the "bigwig" of Iran's theocracy.
Basically, Iran is cruising for a bruising. It will simply take a concise aerial strike of Iran's nuclear facilities. That's all! We can leave the Iranians to be in charge of their own government. Of course, we can keep a closer eye on them and make sure they tow the line, or risk another strike.
Simply, Iran cannot be allowed to possess and utilize nuclear energy and technology!
From what I know, Iran is now the foremost threat to our security. Not just the security of the United States, but that of the entire world. The Middle East is a volatile place. People there hate each other over religious and family issues. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is working hard to bring trouble to his country. His rhetoric is offensive, almost like he is begging for a confrontation with the West.
I am not sure what he means when he says that Iran's nuclear program is irreversible. I suppose he means that the IAEA can go suck a long one, and leave him the hell alone. I imagine the CIA is working overtime in Tehran this evening. It wouldn't surprise me that the United Nations moves forward with sanctions against Iran. Iran certainly is more dangerous than Iraq ever was. They now possess the "atom." We just must make sure they can't refine that atom further and then attach it to missile. To me the options are obvious, Bush must take direct action, along with the United Nations, to shut down Iran's nuclear program (I didn't say invade). I am talking about airstrikes against the facilities where uranium is being enriched. These attacks can take place from naval ships in the Persian Gulf and from B-52 bombers way overhead. Sure, this will piss someone off, but I think we will all be pissed off when Iran nukes Israel or China.
As for Israel, I am not sure what Ahmadinejad's motivation is for attacking Israel verbally. I believe it is a way to somehow create support for Iran with other Muslim nations. I believe, if anything, such rhetoric only serves to distance other Muslim nations from Iran. Today, the president of Palenstine stated that Hamas-led government should recognize Israel as an authentic nation. Iran has always been the ugly duckling of the Muslim nations. It is primarily Shi'ite in its worship of Allah. I believe other Muslim nations are wary of the Ayatollah, who is the "bigwig" of Iran's theocracy.
Basically, Iran is cruising for a bruising. It will simply take a concise aerial strike of Iran's nuclear facilities. That's all! We can leave the Iranians to be in charge of their own government. Of course, we can keep a closer eye on them and make sure they tow the line, or risk another strike.
Simply, Iran cannot be allowed to possess and utilize nuclear energy and technology!
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Iran in the Crosshairs?
"The U.S. administration is stepping up plans for a possible air strike on Iran, despite publicly pushing for a diplomatic solution to a dispute over its nuclear ambitions, according to a report by influential investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
"Hersh's story in the April 17 issue of the New Yorker magazine, mostly citing unidentified current and former officials, says President George W. Bush views Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a 'potential Adolf Hitler,' and sees 'regime change' in Tehran as the ultimate goal.
'This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,' Hersh quotes an unidentified senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror as saying.
The White House, without denying the report, reiterated that it was pursuing a diplomatic solution. 'We are not going to discuss military planning,' said spokesman Blair Jones.
"'The IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Agency) and the UN Security Council have spoken clearly: Iran must return to full and sustained suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing activities.'
"Iran insists it only wants nuclear technology for power generation. Washington believes Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb and refuses to rule out an attack to deal with what it says is one of the biggest threats to regional stability.
"Its attempts to take action against Iran have been frustrated by the reluctance of fellow United Nations Security Council veto-holders Russia and China to consider sanctions."
Source
It would seem G.W. Bush is up to it again. He is going after part 2 of his axis of evil. He even went as far as to label the president of Iran as "Adolf Hitler." It sounds pretty serious. I just wonder if any of Bush's generals, who he relies on for intelligence and when to increase/decrease the military in Iraq, have bothered to tell him that such a move would be highly costly and dangerous to the welfare and integrity of the United States?
Even a selective airstrike against targets inside of Iran could only prove to provoke them further. They may undertake a full-force military invasion of Iraq. I doubt Tehran is as gullible and crippled as Baghdad was three years ago on Freedom Day. Out of the people I know from Iran, they are a truly arrogant and proud people. They probably would fight to the last man, for real! Instead of shaming the Iranian people into "regime change," Bush may move them to US policy change in the Middle East, especially when you have someone like the Ayatollah who is really pulling the strings and running the government behind the scenes.
In this instance, however, I agree with US policy-makers, we cannot allow Iran to have nuclear capabilities, even for peaceful use (which I do not believe). Iran has repeatedly verbalized its contempt for Israel, and such weapons, I am sure, would find a place on the tip of some mid-range ballistic missile, or in the backpack of some serious suicide bomber in downtown Tel Aviv!
George Bush should have taken greater care to gauge his enemies and place them into order in regards to their direct immediate and future threats to the United States and its allies. Now, we are stuck in a hopeless war (like Vietnam), which we will never win. We have already been defeated, and Iraq is locked in a civil war, which they can only decide ultimately. If Bush had attacked Iran first, we can be certain (mostly) that Saddam wouldn't have come to the aid of his blood enemies, the Iranians. Now, however, we have regime stagnation in Iraq, and Iran has vowed to aid its Shi'ite brethren in Iraq from the Sunnis who subjugated them for decades! American airstrikes can only go so far, when the Iranians invade the eastern borders of Iraq!
This is truly a conundrum for the United Nations to work out. The US cannot afford anymore unilateral "nation building." The cost of such policies in Iraq has already proven too great in money and American lives!
Bush is not the president to make such a decision for us at this time!
"Hersh's story in the April 17 issue of the New Yorker magazine, mostly citing unidentified current and former officials, says President George W. Bush views Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a 'potential Adolf Hitler,' and sees 'regime change' in Tehran as the ultimate goal.
'This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,' Hersh quotes an unidentified senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror as saying.
The White House, without denying the report, reiterated that it was pursuing a diplomatic solution. 'We are not going to discuss military planning,' said spokesman Blair Jones.
"'The IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Agency) and the UN Security Council have spoken clearly: Iran must return to full and sustained suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing activities.'
"Iran insists it only wants nuclear technology for power generation. Washington believes Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb and refuses to rule out an attack to deal with what it says is one of the biggest threats to regional stability.
"Its attempts to take action against Iran have been frustrated by the reluctance of fellow United Nations Security Council veto-holders Russia and China to consider sanctions."
Source
It would seem G.W. Bush is up to it again. He is going after part 2 of his axis of evil. He even went as far as to label the president of Iran as "Adolf Hitler." It sounds pretty serious. I just wonder if any of Bush's generals, who he relies on for intelligence and when to increase/decrease the military in Iraq, have bothered to tell him that such a move would be highly costly and dangerous to the welfare and integrity of the United States?
Even a selective airstrike against targets inside of Iran could only prove to provoke them further. They may undertake a full-force military invasion of Iraq. I doubt Tehran is as gullible and crippled as Baghdad was three years ago on Freedom Day. Out of the people I know from Iran, they are a truly arrogant and proud people. They probably would fight to the last man, for real! Instead of shaming the Iranian people into "regime change," Bush may move them to US policy change in the Middle East, especially when you have someone like the Ayatollah who is really pulling the strings and running the government behind the scenes.
In this instance, however, I agree with US policy-makers, we cannot allow Iran to have nuclear capabilities, even for peaceful use (which I do not believe). Iran has repeatedly verbalized its contempt for Israel, and such weapons, I am sure, would find a place on the tip of some mid-range ballistic missile, or in the backpack of some serious suicide bomber in downtown Tel Aviv!
George Bush should have taken greater care to gauge his enemies and place them into order in regards to their direct immediate and future threats to the United States and its allies. Now, we are stuck in a hopeless war (like Vietnam), which we will never win. We have already been defeated, and Iraq is locked in a civil war, which they can only decide ultimately. If Bush had attacked Iran first, we can be certain (mostly) that Saddam wouldn't have come to the aid of his blood enemies, the Iranians. Now, however, we have regime stagnation in Iraq, and Iran has vowed to aid its Shi'ite brethren in Iraq from the Sunnis who subjugated them for decades! American airstrikes can only go so far, when the Iranians invade the eastern borders of Iraq!
This is truly a conundrum for the United Nations to work out. The US cannot afford anymore unilateral "nation building." The cost of such policies in Iraq has already proven too great in money and American lives!
Bush is not the president to make such a decision for us at this time!
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Iran's Nuclear Program
The Russians were our only hope for hammering out an agreement with the Iranians for uranium enrichment. It seems that has failed.
Iranians turned down a compromise to have their uranium processed by Russians at a Russian location and then transferred to Iran for use as nuclear power.
It would seem the intent of Iran is not to have have a peaceful nuclear program. They are looking to become the next nuclear power in the Middle East. The United States has miscalculated the Iran-factor when it went to war in Iraq. Our forces are now engaged in a hopeless battle in Iraq as it fights a civil war. George Bush's "axis of evil" policy has failed. He allowed the two most powerful nations in this axis to slip through. Basically, I believe the US may have chosen the weakest member of the axis to make a point, which has only strengthened the military resolve of Iran and North Korea, while weakening our own!
Certainly, we will have to look to Europe to resolve the Iran issue; considering, the United States does not have the military presence and force to resolve the Iran issue unilaterally. Perhaps, China can keep North Korea in check. We can only hope!
Iranians turned down a compromise to have their uranium processed by Russians at a Russian location and then transferred to Iran for use as nuclear power.
It would seem the intent of Iran is not to have have a peaceful nuclear program. They are looking to become the next nuclear power in the Middle East. The United States has miscalculated the Iran-factor when it went to war in Iraq. Our forces are now engaged in a hopeless battle in Iraq as it fights a civil war. George Bush's "axis of evil" policy has failed. He allowed the two most powerful nations in this axis to slip through. Basically, I believe the US may have chosen the weakest member of the axis to make a point, which has only strengthened the military resolve of Iran and North Korea, while weakening our own!
Certainly, we will have to look to Europe to resolve the Iran issue; considering, the United States does not have the military presence and force to resolve the Iran issue unilaterally. Perhaps, China can keep North Korea in check. We can only hope!
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Gotta Love Those British!
More bad news for King George about his terrible rumpus into Iraq, made possible by British government sources! Yay! This British release supports the information found in the infamous Downing Street Memo, which I discuss in my previous post.
The Eyes Only Briefing supports the facts, or lack thereof, the Bush camp used to justify a military incursion into Iraq at the peril of 1,700+ American soldiers' lives and about $200,000,000,000 of MY money! I definitely want a refund!
I have underlined some very interesting points made by the brief! Enjoy!
The text of the The Eyes Only Briefing (as provided by Democracy for America):
PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY
IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION
(A Note by Officials)
Summary
Ministers are invited to:
(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.
(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.
(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.
(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.
(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.
Introduction
1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.
3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.
4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.
The Goal
5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.
US Military Planning
6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.
7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.
The Viability of the Plans
8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.
UK Military Contribution
9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.
The Conditions Necessary for Military Action
10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.
Justification
11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.
12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.
13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.
14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.
An International Coalition
15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.
16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.
17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.
A Quiescent Israel-Palestine
18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.
Benefits/Risks
19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.
Domestic Opinion
20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.
Timescales
21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.
22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that: (a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels
The Eyes Only Briefing supports the facts, or lack thereof, the Bush camp used to justify a military incursion into Iraq at the peril of 1,700+ American soldiers' lives and about $200,000,000,000 of MY money! I definitely want a refund!
I have underlined some very interesting points made by the brief! Enjoy!
The text of the The Eyes Only Briefing (as provided by Democracy for America):
PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY
IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION
(A Note by Officials)
Summary
Ministers are invited to:
(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.
(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.
(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.
(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.
(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.
Introduction
1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.
3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.
4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.
The Goal
5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.
US Military Planning
6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.
7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.
The Viability of the Plans
8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.
UK Military Contribution
9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.
The Conditions Necessary for Military Action
10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.
Justification
11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.
12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.
13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.
14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.
An International Coalition
15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.
16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.
17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.
A Quiescent Israel-Palestine
18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.
Benefits/Risks
19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.
Domestic Opinion
20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.
Timescales
21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.
22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that: (a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)