From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun 10 Nov 2002 - 02:02:47 GMT
> > > >
> > > >But we ARE thinking about a Post-Saddamic Iraq...
> > > >
> > > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-438299,00.html
> > > >
> > > The writer of the article you referred us to seems to take the
> > > opposite position:
> > >
> > > There has been much less debate on the second great question: how
> > > will Iraq be governed after the American victory? This failure is
> > > harder to overlook, as we have reached the same point twice before
> > > — in 1919, when Britain became the mandatory power, and in 1991,
> > > when the Gulf War had been won. On each occasion there was a lack
> > > of preparedness. On each occasion, the failure to answer the
> > > question of Iraq’s future government led to great further
> > > difficulties.
> > >
> > > Perhaps one can make a checklist of the Iraq policies. Can the
> > > United States remove Saddam Hussain? Yes. Will that have UN
> > > support? Probably. Will Britain take part? Yes. Will victory
> > > remove Iraq’s threat of weapons of mass destruction? Yes. A better
> > > Iraq? Very probably. Are the US and UK willing to pay the
> > > long-term cost of their global defence commitments? There’s the
> > > rub.
> > >
> > > * * *
> > >
> > > My point is that there has been little or no debate of what to do
> > > and who will pay for it. What this writer says doesn't do much to
> > > assure me that the problem is being addressed and debated by the
> > > American and British people or the leaders of the two countries.
> > >
> >The appearance of such articles signals that the question is being
> >considered; there will have to be nation-building and
> >institution-building; the US knows that. Post-USSR Afghanistan and
> >post-Gulf War Iraq taught us that the US cannot conquer, cut and run
> >to keep things on the cheap, for (eventually) cheap it is not. The
> >US will not repeat those mistakes, for it full well knows their cost.
> > Instead, it will look to its successes in Japan and Germany for its
> >model.
> > >
>
> I can only hope your crystal ball projects an accurate view of the
> future. The actions of the Bush team thus far don't give me much hope
> for that outcome.
>
I disagree. Multilateralism and consensus has been sought, and
gained, by the US on three different levels; in the US Congress, with
the elected representatives and senators, in the mid-term elections,
where the US voters' voices have been heard, and in the UN security
Council, where the US mightily labored for the consensus it finally
achieved. Whatever happens now with Iraq, no one can credibly claim
that the Bush administration has not strived diligently for multilateral
cooperation on the issue.
>
> Grant
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________ The
> new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 10 Nov 2002 - 02:06:41 GMT