Hitler in Crimea

Hillary Clinton referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent incursion into Crimea (which is part of Ukraine) to protect Russian minorities as being akin to Adolf Hitler's wolf-in-sheep's clothing declaration of protecting German minorities in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, during the dawn of World War II.

I don't think Hillary Clinton was calling Putin--himself--Adolf Hitler; she was simply stating that his tactics are similar. We can already see that what she said is true. The Crimean parliament has voted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. It will put the matter before the people of Crimea in the next ten days.

Secretary Clinton also used an interesting phrase in her speech, in which she stated that President Putin did not simply want to solidify Russia, but he wants something more grand. He is looking to "re-Sovietize" the Russian frontier. Perhaps after bringing Ukraine to heel, he will work on the other former Soviet states. Who's next? Georgia? Armenia? Certainly, they contain Russian minority groups worthy of Mother Russia's very firm protection.

Yassir Arafat

Yes, it's a story worthy of the Комитет государственной безопасности​ (KGB), Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo), and/or (let's do one more) Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Stasi)...or maybe, too, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)...okay that was two more.

But now I digress!

The remains of former PLO leader, Yassir Arafat, are being exhumed as I type this missive in hopes to quash, or sustain, the suspicions of his wife that he was clandestinely poisoned by the המוסד למודיעין ולתפקידים מיוחדים‎--MOSSAD--or Israeli intelligence agency.

Arafat met his demise in a Paris military hospital in 2004 of unknown circumstances. Since his death, clues have surfaced that point to the possibility that he had been poisoned by polonium, which had been used as a method of assassination by the (defunct?) KGB on one of their former jabber-jawed agents in the United Kingdom. After all, they found evidence of the isotope on the former PLO leader's clothing.

Okay, maybe that part is hearsay and construed partly from my own wild imagination, but the truth remains that there exists a veil of a less than natural demise.

I think it is a ploy to rebury him in Jerusalem, since he was denied that courtesy by the Israeli government, citing, "Jerusalem is the burial place of Jewish kings, not of Arab terrorists."

That's harsh!

Personally, I'd like to see what he was keeping under that thing he wore on his head. I guess there are reasons I'm not invited to every exhumation!

The Soviet Union is rising again

Since Friday, the tiny country of Georgia has been the focus of the Russian military. Russia is working to prop up its ally, South Ossetia, which is a separatist Georgian province.

The Russian government has bombed many areas of South Ossetia's capital city, Tskinvali. As a result, the Georgian military has fled the city and called for a cease fire. Although, Georgian government officials seem to be bowing to Russian superiority, Russia is bombing areas inside of Georgia, while its tanks continue to roll across Georgia, in order to reach South Ossetia. The Russian navy has also set up a blockade along the Black Sea to cease shipments to Georgia.

The United States has called on Russia to halt its incursions into sovereign Georgia, but that has done little to alleviate the tense situation. As a result, the United States has called the Russian response "far disproportionate." Russia has accused the government of Georgia of attempting to implement a plan of genocide to cleanse South Ossetia of Ossetians, who are loyal to Russia.

All of this brings back memories of the Soviet Union. A large military power forcing its will on its smaller neighbors. Since Boris Yeltsin resigned as president in 1999, the democratic Russia he had worked to build has slowly degenerated back into its communist ways. Former Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who is now the prime minister, hails from the spying stalwart of the KGB. It is of little surprise that Russia has taken on many of its former Soviet qualities over his eight years as president. Instead of stepping down, Putin merely transferred his authority from the office of the president to the office of the prime minister. The new president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, was hand-picked by Putin as his successor. One might ask, "Where do his loyalties lie?"

Bush says "до свидания" to Russia

After a relatively unproductive meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, George W. Bush says good-bye to Russia for the last time as president.

The presidents were unable to come to a consensus about the United States implementation of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. Russia remains adamantly opposed to the idea. I suppose the meeting was more ceremonial, since they are both leaving their positions of power in the coming months. Thankfully, Bush only has a little over nine months left in his final term. I am hopeful, but not convinced, he can complete that time without getting the United States into anymore trouble!

Putin Digs in His Heels

After today's parliamentary elections in Russia, Vladimir Putin's party has won a strong victory in the Duma.

In a feat, which probably has Boris Yeltsin reaching for another drink in his still flushed, vodka-soaked grave, Putin is looking at expanding his powers further. Not convinced that the end of his eight years as president of the former Soviet Union's largest member is enough, he is looking at becoming the next prime minister or even president again.

The latter part has many people worried about democracy in Russia.

The Russian constitution forbids Putin from running for a consecutive third term; however, he would be eligible to run again in the 2012 presidential election. Also, there are some constitutional analysts who believe Putin could resign before the end of his second term as president and be eligible to run again in the 2008 presidential election, considering he did not serve two, full consecutive terms in the presidency.

Putin, an ex-KGB agent, who is only 55 years old, is certainly not ready to count his blessings or slip off into the night to assume a life of leisure and silent reflection in retirement.

Condi Rice mis-states the obvious

"Mr. Putin, tear this Kremlin down!"

This could be heard today, causing Ronald Reagan to rotate 180-degrees in his grave, as Condi Rice gave a stern warning to Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Secretary Rice's criticism comes at a time when the once cozy relationship between Washington and Moscow has become quite cold and distant. Rice is concerned about a new Russia, which has one part of its government usurping the authority of the other branches of government.

Hmmm...can we say hypocrite?

This is definitely a bit of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black.

Russia's Mission to the Arctic

Last week, Russia "planted" its flag at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, via a sub, in an attempt to lay claim to the area's wealth of natural resources (i.e., oil and natural gas).

The governments of the United States and Canada claim that the media event doesn't justify Russia's exclusivity, when it comes to the exploitation of the resources.

I agree. I think the time of planting flags on the shores of distant lands (or sub-marine landscapes) is passe.

Serbia Is Not Loving Bush

Yesterday, while in Albania, President Bush made the comment that Kosovo should be returned to Albania.

Today, we get a comment from the Serbian prime minister's office stating that the United States "has no right to give away Serbia's territory to Albanians."

Rightfully so.

It would be like the prime minister of Serbia going to Russia and telling the Russians they should get Alaska back. By what right does he do this?

I guess the love fest showered on Bush in Albania was short-lived, by Serbian accounts.

Foreign Adoption

There has been a lot of press given to Madonna and her desire to adopt a Malawi boy. He is currently undergoing an 18 month transition period where his progress will be marked and the final approval will be given to Madonna and her husband (who he is again?) to adopt this small, African boy.

Now, the boy's father says he never understood the implications of the government documents he signed given Madonna custody over his son. He says he only thought Madonna, and Mr. Madonna, would "raise" his son, but he would remain his child's legal parent. The man, apparently, is illiterate, which might complicate matters if it is proved that the Malawi government and Madonna's lawyers tried to pull a fast one on this poor simple man.

Some agencies have looked down on this so-called adoption. They say children should be raised in their own countries, and by people who are their countrymen. I can agree with that somewhat. Now, speaking as a person who may someday look to foreign adoption to answer the "expiration" of my own biological clock, I believe it is completely fine to look toward foreign adoptions for a multitude of reasons.

Some of these reasons are quite obvious. Firstly, in the United States it is near impossible to finalize an adoption. You have to sift through years of paperwork that only a team of Harvard trained lawyers can fully understand. Secondly, many people are looking to adopt children who are less than a year old. That creates a bit of headache for these families, because over 90% of families seeking to adopt a child are looking for babies. If I can file paperwork in Russia and then six months later come out with a newborn baby, why would I seek to crush myself in paperwork and make the whole overall experience harrowing?

The next part I do agree with. Celebrities, who adopt, may be looking for some glory from the limelight that goes with international adoptions. They are seen as saviors, who aren't pretentious or stuck-up about their families and what is important to them.

I doubt that if I adopt a child the media will care. That's the bottom line!

Bush is making a mistake...yet again!

Today, Bush is trying to pressure Syria to stop backing Hezbollah. Now what's wrong with that you might ask? Instead of Bush bringing Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., to the table to negotiate their differences, he is playing favorites. Now, I've never been president of the United States, I'm not an ambassador, but I have enough sense to know that you can't pressure one side to stand down while the other side is blowing up jack.

As a good faith movement, the United States should ask Israel to implement a 48 hour cease fire in Lebanon, and then ask Hezbollah, through Syria, for the same. There, you have an even-handed approach to a situation that is quickly growing out of control. Both sides are being asked to do exactly the same thing. No side is being singled out as the bad guy. Then during that 48 hours you work like mad, openly with both sides, to create a long term cease fire, while creating a proactive dialogue for both sides. That people is what you call coming to the table! It's not George Bush in Russia telling Syria what it will do. I'm sorry, but that doesn't work. Did it work in Iraq? I don't think so! But here Bush is again trying to tell another country what to do. When are we going to impeach this asshole exactly?

I am in agreement with the prime minister of Lebanon; the escalation of hostilities is disproportionate with the abduction of Israeli soldiers. Instead of attacking Lebanon, perhaps Israel should have offered them economic incentives to implement military programs to root out Hezbollah from Lebanon's southern border. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, Mr. Bush!

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

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!

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

A History Lesson

I hope that no one is insulted by the title, but I have to teach a lesson in history. If you are insulted, then close your eyes and take a nap.

In 1917, the Russian Empire was falling. The czar, Nicholas II, and his dynasty, the Romanovs, were in decline and headed for political and personal destruction. A small, radical group, called the communists, led by one V.I. Lenin, raised enough power from the czar's unpopular and basic laissez-faire policies to throw him out of his palace on his butt!

As the years went by, Lenin brought to the people of Russia, now the Soviet Union, prosperity, equality, and renewed hope in their common future. Shortly after the revolution of 1917, Lenin died. His body still lies in repose at the Kremlin in Moscow. Yes, you can go see it if you want. It just costs a few kopeks...but now I digress.

Josef Stalin, literally the man of iron, took for himself the prosperity and glory of the Soviet people. He was a man with a giant complex of inferiority. He could never see beyond his own security and selfish goals. Even though, he beat the Nazis, even though American history will tell you otherwise, he was still a deeply disturbed man. He literally sent tens-of-thousands to the gulags in Siberia, and outright slaughtered millions more. But why? These were his people, but they were reminders of how precarious his position was. He was one small man (literally), but he commanded the masses to unyielding loyalty; therefore, if you uttered a word against him, you probably wouldn't be around to see the next day. All in all, the Soviet Union reached its zenith under Stalin. His policies and ideas for expansion would see the Soviet Union grow in technological and agragrian markets, including humanity's conquering of space.

Even though, Stalin is a hated figure today, the people of his Soviet Union seemingly adored the man (he was their "Grandfather"). His death in the early 1950s, sent the Soviet Union into a political vaccuum. The Communist Party was in disarray and fighting within itself, but one figure led the Soviet Union on out of the darkest years it had seen, Nikita Khrushchev.

Khruschev debated Vice-President "Tricky Dick" Nixon in Moscow during the late 1950s. John F. Kennedy, who was unprepared for the political genius of Khrushchev, left a conference with him feeling like he'd been horse-whipped by Khrushchev's tongue. Khruschev laid the foundations for a modern Soviet Union. He expanded Stalin's ideas and principles with one hand and denounced and belittled him with the other. Khrushchev, however, was ahead of his time, and the ruling Communist Party, whom he represented, was unprepared for his propositions and they forced him from power in the 1960s.

Khrushchev was replaced by moderate Leonid Brezhnev. Brezhnev was a party boy. He knew how to play by their rules and keep them smiling. He was also the one that sent the Soviet Union down the road of stagnation. It was during his tenure from the mid-1960s to early 1980s that the Soviet Union headed into its decline. Brezhnev was not Stalin nor Khrushchev. He lacked the vision and determination to be anything more than what the Communist Party told him to be. Brezhnev spent big bucks (or rubles) on the Soviet military and the Cold War. The Soviet Union also spent atrocious amounts of money on the "space race" with the US.

Brezhnev's death was followed by a rapid succession of leadership within a two year period. The period of 1982-1985, saw the Soviet Union under the leadership of four individuals (including Brezhnev and Gorbachev).

By 1985, Mikail Gorbachev was the youngest and last leader of the Soviet Union. The Communist Party had given him the highest position because of his youth and the embarrassment of losing so many leaders in so few years. Gorbachev, like Stalin and Khrushchev, was a tactician and visionary. He had great plans for the Soviet Union. He had to undo over twenty years of economic stagnation and failed policies of the Brezhnev-era, but he was determined to accomplish this feat.

Although, Gorbachev was a polarizing figure, he lacked the political strength to control his policies. His policies were radical compared to his predecessors and his contemporaries. The Communist Party said little at first, but they became more vocal and adament after the effects of these policies were apparant.

Gorbachev, like Nicholas II before him, was leading the Soviet Union into a trap that had been set by radical reformers within his own country, and those nations of the West, like the United States. Today, many westerners call Gorbachev a great man, but his own short-sightedness led to the collapse of what he was attempting to save, the Soviet Union. His policies were radical, but they were not beyond the scope of Communist thought and ideology.

I like to compare this to licking the spoon when you are baking a cake. Gorbachev allowed the Soviet people to lick the spoon from the cake he was making. His inability to see beyond the short term effects allowed the Soviet people to break out and go for the entire cake! How is this wrong? Gorbachev did not calculate the risks of a nation of people who were starved and devestated by twenty years of economic decline. By tasting the cake, the Soviet people rebelled for greater access to the "cake."

Now what is the point of this long-winded essay?

Today, many people attribute the fall of this "Evil Empire" to Ronald Reagan. I argue, however, that Reagan was merely at the right place at the right time. Reagan's policies did little, if anything, to facilitate the fall of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was on the decline long before Reagan was president.

The Soviet Union's decline was a result of many factors, including Brezhnev's starving of the people--both mentally and physically, and Gorbachev's haphazard baking!

You don't give a man dying from dehydration in the desert a gallon of water to drink at once. You give him a little bit at a time until he's back on his feet and well again. Just like when you're baking and a hundred homeless people show up at your bakery, you don't let them in or they'll take over your shop!

Hence, the story of the Soviet Union.