[PR] Rumor and Reality, Iraq and Vietnam, Vanunu, North Korea,
Progressive Response
of our subscribers received this issue. Thank you.
************************************************************************
Click http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume8/v8n13.html to view an
HTML-formatted version of this issue of Progressive Response.
************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response 07 May 2004 Vol. 8,
No. 13 Editor: John Gershman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response (PR) is produced weekly by the Interhemispheric
Resource Center (IRC, online at
<http://www.irc-online.org/>www.irc-online.org) as part of its
Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) project. FPIF, a "Think Tank Without
Walls," is an international network of analysts and activists
dedicated to "making the U.S.
a more responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen
movements and agendas." FPIF is joint project of the Interhemispheric
Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. We encourage
responses to the opinions expressed in the PR and may print them
in the "Letters and Comments" section.
For more information on FPIF and joining our network, please consider
visiting the FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/, or email
<<mailto:feed...@fpif.org>feed...@fpif.org> to share your thoughts
with us.
John Gershman, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst
with the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) (online at
<http://www.irc-online.org/>www.irc-online.org) and co-director of
FPIF. He can be contacted at
<<mailto:jo...@irc-online.org>jo...@irc-online.org>.
**** We Count on Your Support ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** OF RUMOR AND REALITY *** By Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)
*** SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT, BUT IRAQ LOOKS A LOT LIKE VIETNAM ***
By Ronald Bruce St John
*** THE RELEASE OF MORDECHAI VANUNU AND U.S. COMPLICITY IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF ISRAELS NUCLEAR ARSENAL *** By Stephen Zunes
*** INTELLIGENCE QUESTIONS IN NORTH KOREA*** By Karin Lee and Adam
Miles
*** EUROPE PROTESTS BITTER CUTS*** By David Bacon
II. Letters and Comments
*** NEOCON AMBITION ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
***OF RUMOR AND REALITY*** By Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary
available in full at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404rumorreality.html.)
May 1st marked a full year since President Bush declared major
combat to be over in Iraq. At that point, 138 U.S. military personnel
had died in Iraq, 115 killed by hostile fire.
Since then, another 598 have died, 456 in combat. Of this latter
number, 126 were killed in April alone; thats 22% of total combat
deaths (571) in one month.
Many of these casualties come from the three-week stand-offs at
Fallujah and Najaf. Brigadier General Kimmitt, a Coalition Provisional
Authority spokesperson, has warned repeatedly in the last ten days
that time is running out for peaceful settlement of the confrontations.
Our patience is not eternal, he remarked on April 28th.
He didnt address how patient the Iraqi people have been about the
slowness in restoring basic servicesclean water, sewage and garbage
collection, electric water, medical stocks for hospitals, education
for children, and above all else, physical security. When these
issues or the broader ones of reconstructing Iraq are raised, the
stock answer is that the lack of security has affected the pace of
reconstruction.
In this atmosphere, distrust is rampant, and so is rumor.
What is not rumor is the death and destruction on both sides. Yet
even here, what is reality depends on the point of view. In Fallujah,
a Sunni cleric told a reporter: They [Americans] are trying to
destroy everything.
Conversely, the U.S. military points to their controlled precision
fire and efforts to limit casualties among civilians. But as a
foreign occupying force, the U.S. version remains unconvincing to
ordinary Iraqis even when it is accurate. A recent poll discovered
that most Iraqis regard U.S. troop conduct negatively even though
only seven percent of those polled had had personal contact with
U.S. troops. Iraqi rumor becomes Iraqi reality.
At this point, only high-profile deeds have any chance against
rumor. The decision to bring in an all-Iraqi unit commanded by Iraqi
officers is a giant leap forward. Moreover, success in Fallujah
might just convince the CPA to rely more on Iraqs ex-soldiers and
ex-officers, properly vetted, in building Baghdads new armed forces.
Mark Twain once observed that rumor will die itself if you will
only give it three days. One year after the end of major combat,
the military has turned a corner by recognizing that a short-term
military resolution will only delayand increase the human cost ofthe
needed political solution.
Unfortunately, this recognition comes 362 days too late to stifle
rumors shelf life and avoid the deaths and injuries of thousandsU.S.
and coalition personnel as well as Iraqis.
(Dan Smith is a military affairs analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus
(online at <http://www.fpif.org/>www.fpif.org), a retired U.S. army
colonel and a senior fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends
Committee on National Legislation.)
For more information see:
The Psychology of War: Iraq and Vietnam By Colonel Daniel Smith,
USA (Ret.) (April 7, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404iraq-vietnam.html
Rendering an Account on Iraq By Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)
(March 18, 2004) http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0403iraq-ann.html
Why So Many Were So Wrong for So Long By Col. Daniel Smith, USA
(Ret.) (February 5, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402wrong.html
Fighting By the Rules, Not Against Them By Col. Dan Smith, (Ret.)
(December 18, 2003) http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0312rules.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT, BUT IRAQ LOOKS A LOT LIKE VIETNAM *** By
Ronald Bruce St John
Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary
available in full at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404presidentvietnam.html.)
At the end of the Persian Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush,
flanked by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell, proudly proclaimed wed finally
licked the Vietnam syndrome.
Is it any wonder then that President George W. Bush, surrounded by
the same advisors, refuses to recognize that Iraq increasingly
resembles that traumatic Asian conflict? In mid-April 2004, President
Bush flatly declared: The analogy [between Iraq and Vietnam] is
false.
I served a tour of duty in Vietnam in 1970-71 and returned in the
late 1980s for the first of several prolonged visits. Based on my
experience, Iraq today looks more and more like the Vietnam I knew
firsthand as an army intelligence officer more than three decades
ago.
First, there are the obvious strategic and tactical similarities.
American troops are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. The terrain
is difficult, and the insurgents know it better than we do. The
enemy attacks at a time and place of its own choosing, avoiding
troop concentrations where U.S. firepower can be brought to bear.
Urban warfare has become the norm with insurgents staying close to
U.S. troops, often engaging civilians to support or shield their
operations. As a result, the uncertain battleground of Iraq poses
enormous challenges for American soldiers, seeking to separate
combatants from civilians without alienating most Iraqis. We face
in Iraq, like we did in Vietnam, an enemy who refuses to play by
our rules and is clearly willing to die for his beliefs.
Before we finished in Vietnam, we had dropped more bombs on Indochina
than had been dropped on the remainder of the world in all the wars
to that time.
The U.S. military continues to believe in the might of firepower.
But it also wrestles with the difficult task of establishing the
appropriate balance between winning hearts and minds with aid and
reconstruction and using force to root out insurgents. In Iraq, we
have moved from shock and awe to building schools and hosting soccer
games. Were now back to block-to-block searches of cordoned cities.
In the process, the U.S. military has generally refused to account
for civilian casualties in Iraq, in part because they are frequently
huge. As in Vietnam, 600 dead or dying Iraqis too often appear as
600 insurgents in army press accounts. The refusal to acknowledge
civilian casualties, while meticulously accounting for our own, has
another downside. It suggests to Iraqis that American lives are
more important than those of the people we supposedly came to
liberate.
(Ronald Bruce St John, an analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, has
published widely on Middle Eastern issues. His latest book on the
region is Libya and the United States: Two Centuries of Strife (Penn
Press, 2002).)
For more information see:
Its Time to Engage, Not Isolate, Syria By Ronald Bruce St John
(March 12, 2004)
http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2004/0403syria.html
In Iraq, Timing is Everything By Ronald Bruce St John (January 13,
2004) http://www.fpif.org/commetary/2004/0401transition.html
Lessons From Qadaffi By Ronald Bruce St John (March 14, 2003)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0303qaddafi.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** THE RELEASE OF MORDECHAI VANUNU AND U.S. COMPLICITY IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF ISRAELS NUCLEAR ARSENAL *** By Stephen Zunes
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary
available in full at
<http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404vanunu.html>http://www.fpif.org/comm
entary/2004/0404vanunu.html.)
The recent release on April 22 of Mordechai Vanunu from an Israeli
prison provides an opportunity to challenge the U.S. policy of
supporting Israels development of nuclear weapons while threatening
war against other Middle Eastern states for simply having the
potential for developing such weaponry.
Vanunu, a nuclear technician at Israels Dimona nuclear plant, passed
along photographs he had taken inside the plant to the Sunday Times
of London in 1986. His evidence demonstrated that Israel had developed
up to two hundred nuclear weapons of a highly advanced design,
making it the worlds sixth-largest nuclear power. For his efforts,
agents from the Mossad, Israels intelligence service, kidnapped him
from Rome and brought him to Israel to stand before a secret tribunal
that convicted him on charges of espionage and treason and sentenced
him to eighteen years in prison under solitary confinement.
Though labeled a spy and a traitor, he was in fact simply a
whistle-blower who became a martyr to the causes of press freedom
and nuclear de-escalation. He never received any money for this act
of conscience, which he took upon recognizing that Israels nuclear
program went well beyond its need for a deterrent and was likely
offensive in nature. A former strategic analyst at the Rand Corporation
observed that Vanunus revelations about Israels nuclear program
demonstrated that: Its scale and nature was clearly designed for
threatening and, if necessary, launching first-use of nuclear weapons
against conventional forces. Prior to Vanunus revelations, many
suspected that Israels nuclear program was limited to tactical
nuclear artillery and naval shells.
Israel is one of just four countries--the others being Pakistan,
India, and Cuba--that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. UN Security Council resolution 1172 urges all countries to
become parties of the treaty.
It is noteworthy that Israel finds whistle-blowing more threatening
than actual spying. None of the half dozen spies convicted in Israel
for nuclear espionage served as much time in prison as has Vanunu.
Vanunu, who has been referred to by Daniel Ellsberg as the preeminent
hero of the nuclear era, has been awarded the Sean McBride Peace
prize, the Right Livelihood Award, and an honorary doctorate from
a Norwegian university. He has also been repeatedly nominated for
the Nobel Peace Prize.
The European parliament, former President Jimmy Carter, the Jewish
Peace Fellowship, the Federation of American Scientists, and many
other prominent individuals and organizations have long called for
Vanunus release. By contrast, with few notable exceptions--such as
the late Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota --there has been
virtually no support in Congress. The four administrations in office
during Vanunus confinement have been even less supportive. For
example, in response to an inquiry by Tom Campbell, the former
Republican Congressman from California, Clintons assistant secretary
of State Barbara Larkin claimed that Vanunu had had a fair trial
and was doing well in prison.
This lack of U.S. support for Vanunu is just one part of the
longstanding U.S. acquiescence of Israels nuclear program.
(Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace &
Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He
serves as Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus (online
at <http://www.fpif.org/>www.fpif.org) and is the author of Tinderbox:
U.S.
Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press,
2003). He is currently conducting research in Israel and the
Israeli-occupied West Bank.)
For more information see:
Bush Endorsement Of Sharon Proposal Undermines Peace And International
Law By Stephen Zunes (April 26, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404sharon.html
Defense of Israeli Assassination Policy by the Bush Administration
and Democratic Leaders an Affront to International Law and Israeli
Security By Stephen Zunes (April 2, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404yassin.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** INTELLIGENCE QUESTIONS IN NORTH KOREA *** By Karin Lee and Adam
Miles
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary
available in full at
<http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404iqnorthkorea.html>http://www.fpif.or
g/commentary/2004/0404iqnorthkorea.html.)
As the United States continues to struggle with the intelligence
failures that led to war in Iraq and preceded 9/11, the Bush
Administrations politicized, inconsistent use of new intelligence
coming out of Pakistan is complicating an already challenging
assessment of North Koreas nuclear weapons.
The New York Times recently published CIA intelligence on North
Koreas nuclear weapons based on the interrogation of Dr.Abdul Qadeer
Khan by Pakistani authorities. Khan admitted in February to supplying
nuclear weapons technologies and materials to Iran, Libya, and North
Korea. The intelligence reported in the New York Times will potentially
affect the U.S. diplomatic position at the next round of six party
talks in June.
On March 13, the Times reported that classified CIA intelligence
detailed for the first time the extent to which Pakistans Khan
Research Laboratories provided North Korea with all the equipment
and technology necessary to produce uranium-based nuclear weapons.
According to the Times, the CIA report concludes that North Korea
received all of the necessary components for the enrichment of
uranium into weapons grade material, including completed centrifuges
and uranium hexafluoride, and one or more weapons designs. Unnamed
American officials confirmed the information in the article.
On April 12, the New York Times published a story with more dramatic
information from the interrogation of Khan. Reportedly, Khan told
his interrogators that he was invited to view three nuclear devices
on one of his trips to North Korea. This would be the first account
of any foreigner inspecting a North Korean nuclear weapon.
Because the administration has not had access to Khan, the intelligence
presented in the Times article is, at best, third-hand information:
first passed from Khan to his Pakistani interrogators, then on to
U.S. officials, and finally to the New York Times. Throughout this
game of intelligence telephone, the information could easily be
subject to political interpretation and motives, not the least of
which is Pakistani eagerness to deflect international proliferation
concerns away from Khan. Further, U.S.
officials acknowledge that Khan (a trained metallurgist, not a
nuclear physicist) may not have the technical expertise to ascertain
whether the bombs he saw were, in fact, nuclear weapons. Detailed
tests would be necessary to conclude confidently either way. Stated
simply, it is unlikely that Khan had the ability to determine exactly
what he saw and the U.S. has no way of authenticating the information.
Despite this, the Times reported that during his recent trip to
Asia, Vice President Cheney used the new intelligence to pressure
China for stronger actions against North Korea. According to an
April 15 New York Times article, Cheney Presses Beijing on North
Korea Nuclear Program, the Vice President brought to the attention
of Chinese leaders a report in The New York Timesabout the Norths
nuclear program. Juxtaposed with Mr. Boltons statements concerning
the intelligence previously reported in the Times-not to mention
the somewhat dubious claims of the latter report-Cheneys rationale
for pressing China is deeply troubling.
The existence of North Koreas nuclear weapons program presents an
incontrovertible proliferation and security threat that the U.S.
must addressand with more flexibility and urgency than the Bush
administration has demonstrated thus far. However, what that program
has actually produced remains an open question. It is extremely
difficult to assess the extent of North Koreas nuclear weapons
program, and therefore, determine the surest route to a peaceful,
negotiated settlement of this crisis. Hundreds of thousands of lives
are at stake, should the situation on the Peninsula deteriorate
into a military confrontation. The Administration should seek only
the highest quality intelligence to guide U.S. policy decisions
vis-`-vis North Korea. As we have seen in Iraq, the price of
miscalculation can be very high.
(Karin Lee is a Senior Fellow with the East Asia Policy Program and
Adam Miles is a legislative intern at the Friends Committee on
National Legislation. They wrote this for Foreign Policy in Focus
(<www.fpif.htm>www.fpif.org).)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** EUROPE PROTESTS BITTER CUTS *** By David Bacon
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary
available in full at
<http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404workers.html>http://www.fpif.org/com
mentary/2004/0404workers.html.)
Europe's war between unions trying to protect the remnants of the
welfare state, and governments bent on shredding them further,
brought a million people into the streets on Sunday. Half a million
came out in both Berlin and Rome, while smaller numbers demonstrated
in France and other German cities.
For the first time, they've coordinated demonstrations in a
multi-country response.
This is no longer a simple war of left versus right. In Italy and
France, labor federations are defying the rightwing Berlusconi and
Chirac governments.
But in Germany, unions are fighting with the party they themselves
created, and its chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder.
Left or right, European governments have been proposing similar
reforms, from Paris to Stockholm, Berlin to Rome. They want to cut
payments to retired workers, and ask people to work longer. They
want benefits to the unemployed to drop as well, even while
unemployment rates average over 8% in Germany and 10% in Italy.
In front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, thousands of workers
created a sea of red flags and banners, carrying the symbols of IG
Metall, the German industrial federation, and Ver.di, the social
services and public sector union. But in a most un-German fashion,
many came with their own hand-lettered signs, voicing deep resentment
and a growing scorn for the chancellor their votes put into office.
On one, the abbreviation of the Social-Democratic Party, which in
German is SPD, was given another meaning: Social Plunder Party.
Another made an ironic comparison between the death benefit Schroeder's
relatives will get when he dies, about 20,000 Euros ($25,000) and
the average benefit a worker's relatives receive, about 500 Euros
($625). Schroeder's Agenda 2010 reform package would cut this
benefit. A third banner demanded that the well-paid university
economists, who provide the scholarly justification for cuts, take
the medicine they prescribe for those further down the salary scale.
The most common hand-made sign had no slogan--just an extended
middle finger with Schroeder's name on the palm. Voicing the sentiment
of the huge crowd, Jurgen Peters, the head of IG Metall, declared,
we're fed up with so-called reforms that we pay for, but which
benefit others."
Wolfgang Mueller, a union representative for IG Metall in high-tech
industry, explained the anger. In Germany right now the so-called
welfare state is being destroyed, he said. It started a long time
ago with minor cuts. Now the Red/Green government is starting to
do real damage, with big cuts.
(David Bacon is a <http://dbacon.icg.org/>reporter and photographer
specializing in labor issues. He wrote this for Foreign Policy in
Focus (<www.fpif.htm>www.fpif.org).)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Letters and Comments
*** NEOCON AMBITION ***
Re: <http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404neocons.html>Neocons
Aim Beyond Baghdad
The author is right; the neocons don't lack ambition. Luckily for
the rest of us, however, the world does not work according to their
ambitions! (For reference, see the situation in Iraq).
Pipes claims to be associated with "a group of anti-Islamist Muslims.
What an oxymoron! Islam is a religion and its followers are Muslims;
how can there be followers of a religion which are against it? His
desire to have, "Islam in America must be American Islam," begs the
following question: Has a similar demand ever been made of Christianity
or Judaism?
Pipes grant proposal might be able to raise funds for his institute
from those who don't know who Muslims in America are, how they live,
and what they believe. However, it is as unconvincing to an objective
mind as was the case to invade Iraq. It is clear to anyone who
understands the Muslim community in America, that their religion
is as varied as a practice in the private lives of Muslims, as any
other religion in the US. No one is "dictating the form of Islam
that will be followed in America" and if someone is, the American
Muslims are not listening.
Pipes assertion about Muslim communities in the United States,
Canada and Western Europe, being dominated by Wahhabism and other
radical trends makes an effective marketing soundbite to raise money
for an institute, however is far from reality. He mentions the
intimidation in these communities, which is even farther from the
truth. Muslims in these communities are not intimated by Wahhhabis
and radical elements but by those like Pipes and his followers, who
have created a myth in the U.S. society by asserting that all
Muslims, unfortunately, are suspects.
The dilemma of the average American Muslim is that his religion has
been hijacked by a few who use it for their own political purposes.
These people are the likes of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and
of course, Daniel Pipes.
The only difference among these people is that those falling into
the category of the first two named individuals are Muslims using
the religion for their political pursuits, while Pipes and others
like him are using Islam to make a darn good living by spreading
ignorance among the American populace.
- Jay Malik, jma...@ptd.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is
a new kind of think tank-one serving citizen movements and advancing
a fresh, internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although
we make our FPIF products freely available on the Internet, we need
financial support to cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly,
FPIF depends on you and other individual donors to sustain our
bare-bones budget. Click on
https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm to support FPIF
online, or for information about making contributions over the phone
or through the mail.
***** We Count on Your Support. Thank you. *****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and
useful, so let us know how we're doing, via email to
<<mailto:i...@irc-online.org>i...@irc-online.org>. Please put
"Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to
cross-post the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any
duplicate copies you may receive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Progressive Response, go to:
http://www.fpif.org/progresp/index.html and follow the instructions.
To subscribe directly, send a blank message to:
<mailto:newusfp-...@lists.riseup.net>newusfp-...@lists.riseup.n
et
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
<mailto:newusfp-u...@lists.riseup.net>newusfp-u...@lists.rise
up.net