A safer world?
Is the world going to be a better place if the US goes to war with Iraq some time in the foreseeable future? Is war with Iraq really in the US' national interest? Will Americans be safer?
Granted, war seems inevitable. But it only seems so in the shadows cast by the Bush administration's vision. This administration has never even publicly pretended that UN weapons inspectors would be able to prove that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. At the end of the summer, US Vice President Dick Cheney gave a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in which he opined that sending inspectors to Iraq wouldn't give us any assurances at all that Baghdad has complied.
While the Bush administration's concerns touch on wea-pons of mass destruction, it's main goal is unseating Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, rendering Iraq no longer a threat.
No one is saying that Hussein is a good guy. But, is it in the national interest for the US to wage a ground war and then maintain an occupational force for some indefinite period? Hussein is now 65 years old. Even without a war, he'll be out of power in the next 10 or 15 years.
Is the threat that Hussein poses to the US sufficient to go to war? Even in its own region, Iraq is not a powerhouse. Most countries in the region spend much more on their militaries.
Whatever happened to our war on terrorism? How will ground troops in Iraq stop al-Qaeda? Certainly they'll have a good chance of preventing Hussein from arming al-Qaeda. But surely there are al-Qaeda cells regrouping in other countries. How will the world be safer because the US wages war on and occupies one of the least-armed, least-equipped countries in the Middle East?
War in Iraq seems like the slowest, most expensive way -- in terms of dollars as well as human lives -- to fight terrorism. War in Iraq, like all war, will have a host of unforeseeable outcomes but an end to terrorism would not be one of them.
If we really want to stop terrorism why has the US just monitored, and asked the Spanish military to search, a freighter carrying Scud missiles and tanks of nitric acid from North Korea, bound for Yemen, and then release the cargo? The freighter was unidentified, flew no flag and offered a false ship's manifest. Obviously those selling and importing the weapons were trying to keep the transaction secret.
Yemen has been identified as a country in which al-Qaeda is known to be regrouping. Many suspect that if he's alive, Osama bin Laden is likely hiding in Yemen.
North Korea is one of the anchors of the "axis of evil." It has nuclear weapons and has just announced that it is to restart its nuclear program, in defiance of international law. In August, the US growled at North Korea for selling Scud components to Yemen. In November, North Korea delivered weapons to Pakistan.
If this is truly a war on terrorism, why did the US follow international law prohibiting the seizure of the weapons cache bound for a country that we all know harbors al-Qaeda cells? Why should the US honor international law in this instance? When the Bush administration says we're at war against terrorism, doesn't it follow that we have every right to confiscate weapons that could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and be used against us or our allies? Since the administration's rationale for committing US soldiers to an invasion force to bring Hussein down is based largely on his ability to harbor and/or arm terrorists, shouldn't we at least have confiscated those weapons?
The war on terrorism has been described as a new kind of war with no clear national enemy, so why is the US planning to get bogged down in an old-school ground war? And since we're planning to send US soldiers to invade Iraq, why are we allowing the region to become even more armed and dangerous?
So, will American people be safer if we go to war in Iraq? Definitely not. Those in the military will be put in a war zone and those at home will have the war zone brought to their neighborhoods in ever increasing terrorist attacks on US cities. Will Americans be better off? Will we be able to enjoy our "way of life" as an intensifying war requires more and more of our tax dollars at the expense of everything else? US citizens will be even more reluctant and scared to cut the military budget which is already the largest in the world by far. The US military budget for 2003 is US$396.1 billion. The next closest spender is Russia at US$60 billion followed by China at US$42 billion (2000 figures are the latest available for these two countries).
Will Americans be better off if the US wages war in Iraq? Only if they are involved in the military industrial complex and/or big oil.
Sandy Schaeffer
Taichung
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers