Monday, October 13, 2003

WP: Senators Say Bush Needs to Take Control Posted here Monday, October 13, 2003 at 3:21:36 PM     The drama.. why would they say this when they know Bush can't do it? Daddy take control? Good to not jump to conclusions hre. It is an opening in the prrocess, a wondow into the inerior. By Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 13, 2003; Page A14 A key Republican lawmaker urged President Bush yesterday to take control of his fractious foreign policy team and plans for Iraq's reconstruction, as one Democrat deepened his criticism of the administration's arguments for going to war. "The president has to be president," Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That means the president over the vice president, and over these secretaries" of state and defense. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice "cannot carry that burden alone." In the first week of the administration's public relations campaign to explain its Iraq policy and highlight its achievements, Lugar noted that Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Rice had given speeches whose tone "was distinctly different" and that senators were rightly concerned about "the strength, the coherence of our policies." ********

Doug mini essay strategic approach terrorism. Posted here Monday, October 13, 2003 at 10:38:53 AM     Most comments about the current US approach to terrorism seem to me to assume an unspoken strategic frame and because unspoken, each comment seems like a lunge in a field of meaning rather than a clarification of the frame. Here is my take. Slightly in jest, (but the jester ...) Two immediate critical questions 1. should the US withdraw? 2. the fate of the US economy? In the immediate background 1. Nuclear options by Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Iran, terrorists, US? 2. Social disadvantage is fertile ground (since the Christians joined up with the Roman Empire and abandoned the poor)for Islamic conversion, so all current policy is creating more anti-us, pro terrorist sentiment. Longer future view 1. what does china do after the West Christian and Middle East Islam fight it out? 2. The fate of the democratization project under Chinese hegemony? 3. Rethinking the separation of religion and the state given that science is a religion (with its beliefs about the world, th origin of the universe, and has its priests and catechisms). Given this the strategic question is the choice between 1. does Bush tough it out? The argument in favor is that any late empire is subject to being torn apart if it shows any sign of weakness, both from within and without, and that Bush must prevail. As part of this view, the reality is that Pakistan (secular power and Islamic fundamentalism - i.e, classical new empire) is he real threat, too big to take on, so Iraq was a foothold towards making that incursion into Pakistan (and with it the ex soviet mafia, the extended business interests through Turkey to Indonesia..). The Iraq alternative can be read as a reaction to realizing that Israel is a bad partner in dealing the larger issues. A new Eastern surrogate is necessary to take on the Islamic crescent. (note that without any Islamic problem, Latin America and interesting parts of Asia would present us with the same issues.Even parts of the US are becoming significantly alienated from the American mainstream.) 2. The war gets redefined as a police action (downgrade) and other issues, such as globalization rules for environment, indigenous cultures,equity, legitimate protection of national agricultures (with the US rethinking its mega farm approach with grotesque subsides), and we talk about the American values of democracy, participation, human development, and less about free market. There is much to favor this. The question is, would American business allow this reorientation? It would be helpful to some, but not to others who are closer to power in both parties? Bush's lousy vision capacity, that if a man with no social vision whatsoever, makes this path even harder. Half the progressives and half the conservatives like big business and free markets. Since that is the majority opinion it seems hard to go against current policy based on arguments either of peace and internationalism,the progressive side, or isolation in order to pursue a communitarian family value rural value agenda of the right. If free market wins the political struggle, i think we get militarization and empire as part of the package. Which to me argues that t the war on terror remains the center piece of policy and action. I think it is a disaster, but hard to see the political will (which always means in part harvesting current existing momentum already in motion), A real alternative would need to 1. go against free market mega-corp globalization. this means undoing the law of incorporation and reimposing state charter provisions. 2. rethinking the role of the state in relation to mainstream science (a tradition that is rooted in messianic thought and progressivism and individualism that come directly out of Christianity). 3. desires for local nd regional semi autonomy and giving up on the idea of one coherent world system (which if it were to exist would be the main object of ownership and control..). So it comes down to 1. exploring that alternative, hard as it is, or 2. learning Chinese and maybe Arabic. Please take this in the semi serious semi playful intent that created it. ********