Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning 2

In case you haven't seen these elsewhere, 2 pretty good articles:

9/11 and Iraq

Barbara Garson

I didn't want to be alone on the 9/11 anniversary but I feared that all
the formal memorials would turn into war-in-Iraq rallies. So I headed
out for a peace demonstration in the park. But I never got there.

Right on my own corner I saw a group of some two or three dozen people
looking downtown toward the spot where we used to see the twin towers.
They were the workers from a small factory on the block. I passed in
time to hear a man in shirtsleeves, a manager I guess, expressing the
hope that ".maybe it will bring the country together and the world." But
I kept going, still intent on joining that peace demonstration.

Then I came to a block that was closed to cars. There the men and women
of the 6th precinct stood at attention and listened to very personal
eulogies for the two police officers from their station house who'd been
killed. This time I stayed for the rest of the ceremony. What was my
rush to find the peace vigil? The entire city was a peace vigil that
day.

Oh yes, New Yorkers still hate and also fear terrorists. But I didn't
hear anyone try to link terrorism with Iraq or protection with war--at
least not until later in the day when George Bush came to town. What's
with this guy and war?

Right after the attacks, before he knew who did it, Bush insisted that
he had been handed a declaration of war. But Al Qaeda isn't a nation or
an army, it's a gang of faith based criminals. They don't deserve to be
elevated into warriors, they deserve to be apprehended and punished.
That's the way you deal with criminals. And the way you deal with crime
(and in this case the crime is murder) has to be through prevention or
interdiction.

Recently a couple was arrested in Germany with bomb making material.
According to the police they were free lance terrorists meaning to blow
up US installations there. Because it happened in a country without a
Patriot Act, there may be a trial where we'll learn more. If they're
guilty, we'll have the relief of knowing two genuine terrorists are in
jail. Meanwhile, they're off the street.

But that was achieved by police work, not military action. And it
involved a Turk and an American not an Iraqi. So why is Bush talking
about war and Iraq? And why is he talking about them now? I guess that's
the question everyone else is asking too.

Let me firsts discard a few of the conventional explanations. The most
obvious is oil? At anti-war demonstrations (I made it to several, though
not on 9/11) you can still occasionally hear that good old chant "No
Blood for Oil." Frankly I almost wish this Iraq thing were as simple as
one of those old fashioned interventions where a government is
overthrown (regime change) and an American oil company gets a more
favorable concession. That might have been what we tried recently in
Venezuela. But, except for Dick Cheney, none of the usual suspects among
oil profiteers seemed that keen on immediate war in Iraq.

Another explanation comes from Psychiatry. Bush is going to do daddy's
war bigger and better. The Oedipus Tex theory, you might call it. Make
what you will of that one.

>From the Democrats we hear that Bush is trying to turn attention away
from the economy and corporate scandals. Well that explains the timing,
but I'm inclined to be a little less cynical. After all, George W. Bush
would try to avoid the economy at any time. Being the economy president
is simply no fun. And that, I think, is the key to all this-fun.

Bush told us himself how he came alive after the attacks on the World
Trade Center, how he realized that terrorism--fighting terrorism that
is--would become "the focus of my presidency." We all know how good it
feels to have a focus to our lives. Imagine how great it felt to George
Bush.

The very next day, even before he knew the perpetrators, he accepted
their crime as a declaration of war. That's when he learned how much fun
it was to be a wartime president. For the first year or so his war on
terror involved airplanes and bombs and manhunts, "dead or alive." But
with Bin Laden neither dead nor alive, with no obvious targets to bomb
next, a war on terror stops being so much fun.

In fact, it goes back to being the police operation that it should
always have been. Crime fighting, as we learn from cop shows, involves
legwork, stakeouts and tedious cross-checking of data. It may also offer
the diversion of an occasional high-speed chase or even a shoot out, but
a cop who killed a building full of innocent bystanders, not to mention
a country full, would be grounded. That's no fun. Besides, police chiefs
take a lot of blame. No one criticizes a wartime president for anything.

Back when he first became the terrorism president, Bush warned that we
would lose our war on terrorism if we lost interest by the next World
Series. But once it no longer involved Commander-in-Chief type
decisions, he seems to have lost interest himself.

The problem is that America wins its shooting wars too quickly. To
regain the rush, the focus, the exhilaration of being a wartime
president, Goerge Bush will have to lead us from one new crusade to
another. Afghanistan has been bombed, but Al Qaeda and Taliban forces
are filtering back in we're told. If we win quickly in Iraq, as I assume
we will, Saddam's army will crumble and some nutty, angry people (though
not religious this time) will be dispersed around the world. So much for
all that careful containment. But those problems will be left to the
cops. To remain the wartime president Bush will have to move on.

On a purely partisan level this "Operation Enduring War" might appear to
be a crass calculation that if you float a real but arbitrarily selected
security risk every election time, those wimpy Democrats won't dare to
say boo. But who can doubt that at the same time that he calculates,
George Bush also enjoys the moral certainty that he's doing everything
he knows how to protect his people. He probably is doing everything he
knows how.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Bush has
an army and he knows how to wage war--or at least how to declare war.
There are countless sharp problems sticking up around the world. It's
much easier to hammer them down then to ease them out. So if he succeeds
quickly in Iraq (or if those spoil sports throw the doors open to
inspectors) the pundits will be seriously analyzing the next security
risk and then the next each election year of his presidencies. And he
has applauding friends around him, all civilians, with a long list of
targets whose destruction will make the map more to their liking.

Having a morally confident president leaping joyfully from adventure to
adventure (there were nine disastrous crusades in medieval Europe) is
bound to change this country. To speak personally, if Bush succeeds in
linking each new war to terrorism, then those who oppose any of them
will be abetting terrorists. That means that I could disappear into one
of those lawyerless black holes that the Patriot Act has created. Even
if you loyally support preemptive action wherever possible, your life
will change too under a full time war regime. Eventually Americans of
all parties may actually come to prefer the way the previous president
chose to have fun in the oval office.

Barbara Garson is the author of "Money Makes the World Go Around: One
Investor Tracks Her Cash Through the Global Economy.

Barbara Garson 212 741-1254

-----

Collective Security is Working
By Jeremy Brecher

As an American, I would like to thank all those people and countries
around the world who are helping to pull my country back from the brink
of war. And I want to assure you that your efforts are having a big
impact in the United States.

Unfortunately, the claim that the Bush Administration is determined to
make a pre-emptive attack on Iraq has been validated over and over -
most recently by Colin Powell's assertion on the BBC that Washington
might pursue "regime change" in Iraq even if the Iraqi leader complies
fully with weapons inspections.

Softening up bombing, the classic first phase of an invasion, has
already begun. So has the transport of war personnel and materiel to
the Persian Gulf region. The war marketing campaign is in full gear.
To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht, "When the leaders speak of peace, the
mobilization orders have already been given."

The Bush team's meticulous planning had presumed UN and Congressional
votes authorizing US attacks on Iraq by now, laying the groundwork for
permission to use Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, and other
countries as bases for attack. After President Bush's address to the
UN, the US Congress was poised to overwhelmingly pass a bi-partisan
resolution giving the President a blank check for war.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the battlefield. For months
people around the world have been expressing their outrage. Overwhelming
majorities in almost every country except Britain and Israel opposed US
plans. Politicians and national elites, while loathe to court the wrath
of their patrons and protectors in Washington, have been even more
terrified of the forces likely to be unleashed by the Bush
Administration's irrational obsession.

The effects of this global opposition on the US have been greatly
underestimated. There is broad support here for international efforts
to deal with Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. But there is
virtually no sector of American society that supports a unilateral
preemptive attack against Iraq without international support except the
President's immediate clique, a few members of Congress in both parties,
and the Air Force.

The top uniformed military, except for the Air Force, have been widely
reported to be extremely skeptical of such an effort. This summer they
aroused the wrath of the pro-war clique by submitting estimates of troop
requirements and casualties so high as to make the war seem too costly
to pursue. While the military brass haven't spoken against a unilateral
attack on the record, their retired colleagues have done so forcefully.
Top Republican military experts like Brent Scowcroft, many of them
cronies of former President George Bush and formerly high officials in
his Administration, spoke out against a unilateral attack.

This summer, popular and Congressional support for the Bush war plans
seemed overwhelming. But as members of Congress visited their districts
in August they were met both by organized delegations opposing the war
and by profound worry among their ordinary constituents. Democratic
leaders announced hearings and no "rush to judgment" on war policy. As
the Administration launched its war marketing campaign in September,
floods of phone calls and e-mails to members of Congress led former
Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore and the leadership of the
Democratic Party in Congress to end silence or reverse explicit support
for Bush's policies.

Most of the popular and elite opposition is not opposition to any attack
on Iraq, but rather to an attack on Iraq without allies. Little of this
opposition would have arisen had the rest of the world caved in to Bush
Administration demands for support. But the global united front against
a US war is transforming the balance of forces within this country.
While panicky Democrats in Congress may pass a watered-down resolution
authorizing war, US opinion is now clearly divided, and policy elite,
especially the Vietnam-burned military, is strongly averse to going to
war without broad popular support. If the international front holds,
there is a real chance that a US attack can be averted.

If the Security Council refuses to authorize US military action and the
UN inspectors go to Iraq, Bush Administration war promoters will have at
least two big problems. Neither public nor elite opinion in the US is
likely to support a unilateral, unprovoked attack. Neighboring states
are more likely to be firm in their resolve not to let their countries
be used as bases for US attacks on Iraq. (Bush's friend Ariel Sharon is
also making it easier for them to just say no to US demands.)

If a full-scale attack on Iraq becomes untenable, the Bush
Administration will probably follow three tactics. First, it will try
its best to undermine and discredit the UN inspection process; the
faintest hint of Iraqi non-cooperation will be met with fresh attempts
to initiate war. Second, it will expand the bombing it is conducting
already. Third, it will look for new openings to bully or bribe other
countries back into line.

This indicates the probable next steps needed to contain US aggression.
The tacit coalition of people and states opposing the US war on Iraq,
acting through the UN, should demand that the US stop bombing Iraq while
the inspection process goes forward. Of course the US will veto such a
resolution, but the demonstrated international opposition will
strengthen both popular and elite opposition in the US.
"State-supported nonviolence" -- for example placement of foreign
volunteers in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities with the support of their
national governments -- might also provide a deterrent to US bombing.

It is also essential that the inspection process go forward
successfully. While it is impossible to know exactly what led Iraq to
readmit inspectors, there was clearly at least a tacit quid pro quo that
other countries would attempt to stave off an American attack. Iraq
must be made to feel that it is safest if the inspection process
proceeds successfully.

After all, Iraq can reasonably feel that, by allowing inspection of its
real or imagined weapons of mass destruction, it is giving up a
significant deterrent to US attack. The containment coalition needs to
indicate that it will try to protect Iraq from US attack as long as the
inspection process goes forward, but that it will be much less able to
do so if Iraq's cooperation is less than complete.

Finally, it is necessary to block US efforts to bribe or bully other
countries back into line. The Bush Administration's snub of German
Prime Minister Schroeder in the aftermath of his reelection is only the
publicly visible tip of the iceberg of Bush Administration bullying.
There have been many journalistic references to other countries being
offered a share of the spoils of war -- Iraq's oil, for example, or the
contracts for post-war reconstruction - as a quid pro quo for joining
the US in the kill.

Russia has indicated an interest in US acquiescence in a Russian attack
on Georgia, justified as a means to root out Chechen rebels. Apparently
this is a price the Bush Administration is not yet willing to pay. No
doubt they would see it as giving the green light to restoration of the
Russian empire - establishing Russia's right to ignore the new national
boundaries that divide its once-and-future empire. But there is no
telling what bribes they will be willing to offer if they find their way
to war successfully blocked.

The Bush people tend to think of the world as a football game, and their
strategy is to knock off those who get in their way one at a time. In
the long run, containing them will require not just opposition by
individual nations, but rather some more conscious form of collective
security. There needs to be a global understanding that containing US
power is a collective responsibility. This might be expressed, for
example, in providing financial and other support for countries like
Jordan that are being threatened with US reprisals if they refuse to
serve as bases for war against Iraq.

Another step could be to forcefully stigmatize any country selling out
to the Bush Administration for such a "mess of pottage" as a share of
the spoils of war, some supposed geopolitical concession, or (for poorer
countries) cold cash. For a historical analogy, we might recall that
the Western powers tried to keep Russia in World War I by means of
scandalous secret treaties offering them other country's territory when
the war was won. The exposure of those secret treaties may have done
more than any other single act to destroy the legitimacy of the Russian
regime.

Most important of all is to continue the popular pressure on governments
around the world. Movement pressure in Britain has already forced Tony
Blair to publicly split with Bush over "regime change" and if it
continues to grow will make British participation in a unilateral attack
untenable; withdrawal of British support might well be the final nail in
the coffin for US war plans. German popular opposition swung the
election; it is leading American policy elites to fear that Bush
policies are undermining European acquiescence in US global dominance.
The fact that not one country in the world beside Britain has offered to
help the US attack Iraq has a major impact on US opinion. Please, keep
up the good work!

One of the central tasks for the tacit coalition of people and states
opposing the US war on Iraq is to win the hearts and minds of the
American people. Americans are still hurt and terrified by the 9/11
attacks and easily led to support absurd policies sold as
"anti-terrorism." Nonetheless their views are volatile and conflicted.
In a September 24 CBS News poll, 57 percent wanted the US to give the UN
more time to get inspectors back into Iraq and 52 percent thought the US
should follow the recommendations of the UN when it comes to taking
action against Iraq, instead of taking action on its own.

National leaders and ordinary people around the world need to reach out
to Americans and help them bring their government to its senses. An
example: A delegation of British anti-war religious leaders is coming
to the US to share with American religious communities their concerns
about US threats against Iraq. Containment of Bush Administration
aggression is - and should present itself - as pro-, not anti-,
American.

Ultimately, the issue here is far larger than the conflict between the
US and Iraq. Bush's new policy document, "The National Security
Strategy of the United States," which codifies previous pronouncements,
indicates the megalomaniacal scope of the Administration's ambitions.
The document notes, "The United States possesses unprecedented - and
unequaled - strength." It proclaims that "we will not hesitate to act
alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting
preemptively." The US will use its power for "convincing or compelling
states" to accept what it calls "their sovereign responsibilities."

This strategy for global domination is not limited to military matters,
but proposes to shape the whole of global society and political economy.
Indeed, the document goes so far as to declare that there is only "a
single sustainable model for national success."

Blocking the US attack on Iraq is a crucial step but only the first step
in the containment of these awesome aspirations for global domination.
It represents the emergence of a tacit but nonetheless real policy of
collective security to contain US aggressiveness. If such collective
security can be maintained, it bodes well for the containment of
"pre-emptive aggression" in the future. And perhaps it will lay a
foundation for addressing such other threats to collective security as
global warming, poverty, economic crisis, AIDS, and weapons of mass
destruction.

Nothing could be more in the genuine interest of the American people.

Jeremy Brecher is a historian and the author of twelve books including
STRIKE! And GLOBALIZATION FROM BELOW.

2

🔗Christopher Bailey <cb202@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <dante.interport@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>