A Plan to B-Team

[A Plan to B-Team]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.

While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.

As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.

There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.

[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]

The U. S. Senate, the nation and the world lost a great leader yesterday in Senator Paul Wellstone, but for liberals or progressives he was a leader amongst persons worth following.

Will France be a new leader or will laws?

Well I must consider now that the whole world is not following exactly. Though following as in paying attention is still valid. There is something disturbing about the label of follower or leader but not so much as there is with the statement "either you are with us or against us". Cooperation requires being able to play both positions, follower and leader. If we are nation or world of laws not men then those laws should be what are followed and cooperation is needed to write them.

Either you are for following laws or you are against them. The ONLY exception should be self-defense, which applies to the individuals and groups when engaged in otherwise legal actions. Violations of law by individuals or groups should not let governing bodies off the hook from following laws. Foreign policy must keep this in mind or risk leading to war. War should only result from a failure in foreign policy not as an extension of it. And one should not be a leader if unwilling to follow laws.

Subject of last post as it was faxed to selected representatives: WE ACT IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM?
retitled: "the whole world is following".

With the recent revelation about North Korea's nuke program being known to the administration the last 12 days my metaphor of a Pandora's box is maybe outdated. A more appropriate metaphor may be the little Dutch boy and the dike.

My fax and some earlier work may seem precognitive, but a look back may be more useful. i.e. 1947 National Security Act, and other foreign policy actions, treaty violations or secret diplomatic or military slight of hands that "the whole world is following".

After reading the War Resolution and several passages on why representatives voted the way they did, I still believe strongly that the arguments for the resolution were weak and the arguments against the resolution are many.

One issue not really highlighted is that of leadership. America is unquestionably in a leadership position. But what does a leader do but create followers? Are we prepared to live in a world where other countries will follow our examples? We are going after an international criminal but refuse to acknowledge the international criminal court. This seems to be a most blatant travesty of justice, and we act in the name of justice?

When laws are ignored, by any individual or group, it increase the likelihood of totalitarianism or anarchy as well as blurring the distinction between war and terrorism. When leaders lead poorly it would make sense that followers will act poorly. It would seem to increase the level of vigilantism as well as senseless crimes.

We are fortunate in this country that there are not more followers. But that does not mean we will be lucky enough to avoid an increase in poor followers.

The presidents speech was nothing new EXCEPT the following: "I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military,
if it proves necessary, to enforce UN Security Council demands."

YOU MUST VOTE NO, if it is anything more than that. Also VOTE NO, if it is anything less than with U.N. Security Council approval.

The administration said the speech was: "Comprehensive proof that military action may be necessary." The words "comprehensive proof" and "may be" seem to be mutually exclusive. My representative, Congresswoman Dunn said that there are 40 countries behind us on this. It is not clear yet if this authorizes unilateral action or not and if they would be behind us then.

CONGRESSIONAL COVER?

CONGRESSIONAL COVER?
At the Eastside Democratic Dinner, Senator Cantwell spoke of the war being a
shell game hiding the issue of the economy. The reverse can be true if the
economy is used to disregard concern for war and other foreign policy
issues. Both would be a case of running for political cover rather than
face what is right or wrong.
(Much thanks to Congressman McDermott!,and Senator Cantwell,
and Congressman Inslee---
SEE PREVIOUS POST of a two-page fax sent or emailed to others.)
TO THOSE IT MAY CONCERN: 10-8-02

WAR? NO! DEBATE? YES!

[faxed and e-mailed before the Presidents Speech]
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
[COWBOY MANIFESTO (NSS)? NO! ANSWERS TO RHETORIC? YES!]
Below is a short compendium of the argument.
It cuts through the scholarly to almost the common sense.
We need more than common sense,
but even it says... NO TO WAR!
NO TO THREATS!
YES TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CO-OPERATION.

PLEASE READ!
Debate Iraq Resolution!
Debate Cowboy Manifesto!
Further debate must be held on the Iraq Resolution indeed on the Cowboy Manifesto (National Security Strategy of the United States).

I am very concerned about the new preemptive policy in defense of the nation. Congress must not lose the power to declare war. The president still has the duty to inform congress of his actions in defense of the nation. Congress should review authorization for the National Security Act of 1947 and be informed of all covert actions taken in the name of defense. Congress should make sure all treaties and international laws are complied with or amend their actions and consent on the basis of any violations.

In regards to Iraq, enforcement of UN resolutions should be made in cooperation with the UN Security Council or there is no authority but that of congresses to go to war. Since Iraq’s transgression was mainly the invasion of Kuwait, regime change other than for purposes of enforcing UN resolutions is an act of war. Inspections and disarmament must be done under clear guidelines that prevent war preparations prior to violations being found and corrected.

If the United States chooses to take this responsibility on their own, what will the U. N. or any other nations that disagree hold us responsible for? Indeed which of our actions will other nations or groups take as an example?

The rhetoric must be cut through. There is a fine line between a bluff and a lie. Both should be difficult to do in a democracy. Questions must be answered or we must insist actions remain rhetorical!

Please keep war powers in the hands of Congress. Do your jobs and do not give the President a free hand.
He should have all the power he needs from the Constitution. Extensive changes show a lack of courage to do what is needed without political cover or more likely THAT IT IS WRONG! Please consider what has been done in our name with the power administrations already use or have abused.

RESOLUTION ON IRAQ [From the Washington State Democratic Party]
Never has a document so fully received my support. Patriotism is a word that could easily be misused, but the principles contained in the Resolution on Iraq from the Washington State Democratic Party, approved 120-0 have my strongest support. These principles are more important than partisanship and more deeply represent patriotism than anything before.

WSDCC Sept. 28th 2002
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Washington State Democratic Party strongly believes that the United States must not strike out unilaterally to force regime change in Iraq or any other nation, and such unilateral action would call into question the legitimacy of the United States as the chief proponent of the rule of law and as a leader of nations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any course of military action by the Bush administration must follow the Constitutional requirement of congressional approval, as well as consultation with the United Nations Security Council.

In addition to all the WHEREAS that are not included, here are my further comments:

There must be a full debate on foreign policy as well as war powers. If we are concerned about Iraq’s Saddam Hussein supporting terrorism, and terrorist states are the same as terrorist individuals, we must be certain we do not support any terrorist states or ruthless dictators. International law is the primary distinction between war and terrorism and this line is very blurred.

We must be certain we follow international law in our foreign policy. It is not enough to decide that someone has capabilities for terror or weapons of mass destruction, but to be convinced they intend to use them preemptively. Iraq dictator has mostly contained radicals and it is unclear that he would empower them beyond his control. Even if Iraq’s dictator were threatened in a last stand effort to survive he would probably use any means at his disposal rather than give them to others.

Since we have established a preemptive stand and given or allowed others to use weapons beyond our control, we are the ones that have to worry about enforcement of international law. War is certainly an answer to not having to worry over distinctions in law or methods of violence.

I am sorry that where Congressman Jim McDermott made his statements, has overshadowed his message. Maybe he did overstate his beliefs, but hopefully the President is overstating his, but congress should be more certain in authorizing war.

Catch-22*

[Inspired by an Oct. 1st reply to Sept. 24th Michael Kinsley piece in the Eastside Journal, Bellevue Washington.]

What is behind this need for name-calling and labeling? Conservatives, Liberals, good and evil, maybe to keep it simple? But pseudo-intellectuals, where is the point there?

Conservatives certainly aren’t all that bad. They just don’t know any better. Liberals aren’t that good. They just can’t be that certain. But what is the opposite of pseudo-intellectual? It must be either a real intellectual or a complete ignoramus.

Here we seem to have a catch-22. By tossing out such a label, one must imply one knows better. Of course that does seem to cover and reach a large portion of the population. But will they be listening to real intellectuals or the complete ignoramuses who both feel they know better?

Oops! Questioning isn’t part of the process nor patriotic. Neither is the need to listen to any sides. We all know good and evil when we see it. We all know we are the good guys. Now that’s pseudo-intellectual.

* 2-13-12 title(and labels) added due to search

WAR MADE SIMPLE ( An update on a personal lobby against war.) Sent 9-26-02
or A PRIMER FOR OPENING PANDORA'S BOX

To President George W. Bush: ( I guess I am an optimist too.)

I wish to let you know that I am very much opposed to going to war with Iraq in the manner that the administration is going about it. We must tone down the rhetoric but it is probably too late. I hope you have the answers to the following that are not rhetorical questions. For some it is as simple as saying war is "bad". For others it is saying they will have weapons of mass destruction so we need to stop them first. We know that it is not that simple no matter how much we know there is good and evil. If saying something was so made it so, we’d all be gods. If you have any taste for war, please have the guts for democracy.

>> see previous posting here: REGIME RHETORIC REPLY. [9/25/2002 9:00:32 AM | Roger Larson]
[Sept. 17th, 2002 to someone with appropriate concerns.]

Post Script:
Please remember any answers are good for other players too, especially being above having to answer the questions. And one final question. What happens when players go through regime changes either legitimate or not?

Sent.