holy war

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/16/2004 1:45:55 PM Central Daylight Time,

dwatkins5@... writes:

>The political management of popular rage can't be accomplished by making

>everyone " conscious " (an impossibility). Popular rage has to be channeled.

Dear Members,

United States Senator ph R. Biden (D-Delaware), ranking member of the

Foreign Relations Committee, spoke tonight on a subject of urgent interest.

Here

is the transcript in full:

SPEECH OF SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN:

Getting It Right in Iraq

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) -- Washington, D.C.,

April 15, 2004

" I come here today out of a deep and abiding frustration hardened by a

nagging belief that time is rapidly running out on getting it right in Iraq.

Time is

running out and there is a glaring need to be brutally frank about the

challenge we face and being completely honest with the American people about

what

will be required of them in this war.

It is long past time that the only Americans asked to contribute to this war

are middle class and poor Americans whose children make up the overwhelming

bulk of the fighting forces in Iraq, and OUR children who are being saddled with

the sole responsibility of paying the enormous cost of this war. That is not

fair.

There are tens of thousands of patriotic Americans who will go to bed tonight

with a pit in their stomach, torn between their instinct to blindly support

our President and a nagging doubt that he does not have a workable plan for

either victory or to bring their sons and daughters home safely. That doubt is

complicated by a bewilderment as to why the fight against terrorism is the sole

responsibility of Americans and American children.

We owe them answers.

But I'm also well aware that anyone who dares to suggest how we should

proceed must come armed with humility. As I said a year ago, if the Lord

Almighty

had given the President every right decision to make for every tough issue he

has faced, we'd still only have a slightly better than even chance of getting

Iraq right.

It is that hard and I still feel that way.

Having said that, there are certain basic choices this Administration has

made over the past year that were seriously flawed and further reduced the odds

of success. My critique is not the product of 20/20 hindsight. In the lead up

to the war....during the war....in its aftermath....and today....thoughtful

people of both parties...from Kerry to Bill Kristol....urged the

Administration to correct course. But I fear the Administration is far more

worried

about conceding mistakes than it is concerned about sticking to a failed policy.

Some believe that we've already lost Iraq. I disagree. Is the situation

serious? Yes. Are we seeing more than the " flare-ups " to which the Secretary

of

Defense glibly refers? Yes. We are somewhere between an insurgency and

widespread insurrection.

The result is that we may soon confront an untenable situation: American

forces caught between an increasingly hostile Iraqi population that they were

sent to liberate....and an increasingly skeptical American public, whose support

they need and deserve.

I'm convinced we can still succeed IF we level with the American people about

the costs and the risks....IF we develop a coherent plan for success....and

IF we bring the Iraqi people and the rest of the world with us. That's what I

want to talk about today.

II. Too Little Power, Too Little Legitimacy

This Administration is full of bright, patriotic, well-meaning people. But

they began this undertaking with one fundamentally flawed assumption: that

Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America's security. And they

compounded

that mistake by failing to apply, as Fareed Zakaria has put it, sufficient

power and sufficient legitimacy. These deficits -- of power and legitimacy --

have cost us the visible support of the majority of Iraqis who reject a

theocracy and support a pluralistic Iraq. And they have cost us the help of the

major

world powers.

The result is a vacuum...filled now by Sunni malcontents and Shiaa extremists

and Jihadists....who are rising up against the American " occupiers. "

To understand where we must go from here, we have to understand the mis-steps

we've already taken.

FIRST, the Administration failed to plan for the day after. And this despite

dozens of Congressional hearings, think tank studies -- and even the work of

the Administration itself, such as the State Department's " Future of Iraq "

project -- that predicted virtually all of the problems we now face. Go back and

read the transcripts and the reports. Everything is there. The sorry state of

Iraq's infrastructure. The likelihood of post-war looting and resistance. The

impossibility that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for reconstruction. The need

for five thousand international police to train Iraqis. The folly of relying on

exiles with no constituency in Iraq.

SECOND, the Administration failed to build an effective coalition. Because

Iraq posed no imminent threat to America's security, we could have taken the

time to put together a real coalition. Not because we needed a single foreign

soldier to win the war, but because we needed them to secure the peace and to

make legitimate our temporary but necessary occupation of Iraq. Of course, for

some of our allies, going to war was never an option, no matter what Saddam did.

But by taking more time to bring others on board, we could have increased our

credibility and isolated the hypocrites. Instead, we did just the opposite.

THIRD, the Administration failed to bring Turkey along. We took Ankara for

granted. Then, the Administration flopped between trying to bribe the Turks and

bully them. We lost the option to attack from the North. As a result, we

by-passed the Sunni Triangle, which is the source of so much of our trouble

today.

FOURTH, the Administration failed to go in with enough forces because of the

Pentagon's desire to validate a new theory of warfare. General Shinseki was

ridiculed for suggesting it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure

Iraq. He's looking prescient today. So is whoever wrote an National Security

Council memo that, extrapolating from past missions, estimated that we would

require a force of 500,000 to stabilize Iraq. The failure to provide those

forces made it difficult to establish full control of Iraq...to stop the

looting....or to give the Iraqi people a sense of security. And it produced the

power

vacuum I mentioned earlier.

FIFTH, the Administration failed to understand that it would take years, not

months, to train Iraqis to provide their own security. When Dick Lugar, Chuck

Hagel and I went to Baghdad last summer, our experts on the ground were clear

and candid. They told us that it would take 5 years to train an Iraqi police

force of 75,000, and 3 years to train a new, small Iraqi army of 40,000. But

the Administration insisted on putting 200,000 Iraqis in uniform right away. We

rushed people out the door. Now, fewer than ten percent of the police and

army have been fully trained. Virtually none are adequately equipped. While many

have acted with incredible bravery, others abondoned their posts and some even

took up arms against us. This week, General Abizaid called Iraqi

security forces a " great disappointment. "

SIXTH, the Administration relied too heavily on Iraqi exiles, who have no

constituency in Iraq. That dependence continues to this day. Why are we putting

our thumb on Iraq's political scales by paying Mr. Chalabi and the INC nearly

half a million dollars a month? Is the plan to help him buy his way to power

after June 30? If so, it is profoundly misguided, because he lacks the

legitimacy to hold Iraq together.

FINALLY, the President squandered repeated opportunities to bring the

international community back together after the war. At the end of major combat

operations, when our apparent success gave us the high ground, many who sat out

the

war were ready to help -- if we had just asked. Instead, the Administration

tried to freeze them out of contracts and served up " Freedom Toast " on Air

Force One. And the President missed other opportunities to repair the rift over

Iraq. After the U.N. headquarters was bombed. Last November, when we abruptly

made a 180 degrees change in policy -- a change long advocated by our allies --

to turn over sovereignty as soon as possible. And as recently as March 11,

when the terrible bombing in Madrid should have inspired the President to go to

Europe in solidarity. Maybe the French and Germans were beyond reach. But since

Saddam was toppled, we've denied ourselves the help of tens of thousands of

Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Turks, for example, who could have

changed the dynamic on the ground in so many ways.

III. Leveling With The American People.

But I believe the costliest mistake the President made -- and the one he can

still rectify -- was his failure to level with the American people about what

would be required to prevail.

He didn't tell them that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for well

over two years. He didn't tell them the cost would surpass $200 billion dollars

-- and far exceed Iraq's oil revenues. He didn't tell them that even paying

such a heavy price, success was not assured, because no one had ever succeeded

before at forcibly remaking a nation and, indeed, an entire region.

INSTEAD, HE TOOK US TO WAR ESSENTIALLY ALONE....BEFORE IT WAS NECESSARY....ON

THE HEELS OF THE LARGEST AND MOST LOPSIDED TAX CUT IN HISTORY...WITH HALF THE

TROOOPS WE NEEDED TO SUCCEED.

And then he landed on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and spoke to the

American people dwarfed by a banner that read: " MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. "

It is not too late to regain the trust and secure the support of the American

people. I'm glad that the President made a start of it on Tuesday night. But

the President must do more than express resolve....more than reiterate his

intention to stay the course...more than describe a vision for Iraq that is

increasingly divorced from reality. He needs to explain the hard road ahead and

the

commitment we must make in terms of time, troops and treasure. He needs to

spell out the very real risks to come.

That's a tall order. No President likes to deliver hard truths. And even that

is not enough. The President has to convince the American people, the Iraqi

people and the world that we have a strategy for success, and secure their

active participation in seeing it through.

Yes, the President has a compelling vision for what Iraq can become...but no

concrete plan to realize that vision.

IV. A Plan for Success

So, what should be our plan?

I believe we need to start by recognizing two competing realities going

forward:

The Iraqis desperately need significant political, military and economic

support from the outside, for years to come. Even as they chafe at being

occupied,

they need a political referee to mediate their disputes. Foreign troops to

prevent a civil war. And tens of billions more dollars than we already have

spent for reconstruction.

We desperately need to take the American face off of the occupation. Iraqi

nationalism is on the rise, bringing Sunni and Shiaa factions together against

us. Even if their alliance of convenience does not hold, we will continue to be

blamed for everything that goes wrong and remain a target for every

malcontent.

And we will continue to bear the heavy burden of securing Iraq virtually

alone: nearly 90% of the troops and nearly 90% of the non-Iraqi casualties are

American.

How do we square this circle? By augmenting our power and increasing our

legitimacy in Iraq.

That's the only way to generate the single most important ingredient for

success: the emergence of that silent majority of Iraqis who can provide an

alternative to the extremes...and who can create a participatory republic that

will

endure when we leave.

'

And increasing our power and legitimacy is the only way to get the help we

need from outside Iraq -- in terms of troops, money and manpower -- to see this

mission to completion.

TO THIS END, THERE ARE THREE THINGS THE PRESIDENT SHOULD DO IMMEDIATELY:

FIRST, he needs to send in more American troops now to gain control of the

security situation...and to give other countries confidence that they will not

be walking into a quagmire.

SECOND, he should seek agreement right away from the major powers with the

most at stake in Iraq to form an international board of directors responsible

for overseeing the difficult political transition in Iraq. It could be the U.N.

Security Council. It could be an ad hoc group, like the kind we formed to

deal with Bosnia or the Middle East Process. It's members would include our

European allies, Russia and our friends in the Middle East.

A senior representative of that Board would replace Ambassador Bremer and the

CPA as Iraq's

primary international partner, and speak with the authority of the

international community, not just the United States. He would have the authority

to seek

consensus on a caretaker government...to help Iraqis decide what that

government will look like and who will run it...to mediate the disputes that are

sure

to arise between June 30 and elections next January....and to oversee the

elections themselves. Lakhdar Brahimi has begun to play that role informally.

Let's make it formal, with a clear, authoritative mandate from the major powers.

That would maximize his leverage....and our prospects for success.

THIRD, the President should ask the U.N. to bless this arrangement with a new

Security Council Resolution. Look, I don't have any illusions about the U.N.

I don't attribute to it any magic powers...or any special competence or

capability. But it's central involvement would, to quote Will, " usefully

blur the clarity of U.S. primacy. " Foreign leaders need political cover to

convince their people who opposed the war to help build the peace. The Iraqi

people are more likely to accept the words of a partner who represents the will

of

the world than to heed the decree of an American ambassador hunkered down in a

new " super embassy. "

If the President does these three things, I believe several major benefits

would follow. Other countries would be much more likely to take part in

rebuilding Iraq. During the 1990s...in the Balkans....in Haiti...in East

Timor...the

U.S. typically provided about 20 percent of the post-conflict reconstruction

resources. By that ratio, the $20 billion Congress has already appropriated for

Iraq should have generated $80 billion from the rest of the world. Instead,

we've raised less than $15 billion.

An international stamp of approval would also open the door to NATO. I know

that first hand from President Chirac and other European leaders with whom I've

met. NATO cannot take over security in Iraq tomorrow. But over a matter of

months, NATO could begin to patrol Iraq's borders, take over the North or the

Polish sector, and train the Iraqi military. That would free up as many as

20,000 American troops to focus on hot spots -- the very number of additional

troops General Abizaid is now calling for. Giving NATO a formal role also would

change the complexion of the occupation. And it would send an important message

to the American people that we are not alone in doing the hard security work in

Iraq.

Our ability to put this plan in motion will answer the vexing question of

whether to stick with the June 30 deadline for transferring political

sovereignty

to the Iraqis. the Administration has created an expectations problem. It

chose the June 30 date with an eye to the wrong political calendar -- ours, not

Iraq's.

If we push the date back, those who are with us in Iraq may be angry that we

are moving the goal posts. those who are against us will see vindication for

the violence they've unleashed. Conversely, if the turnover occurs on time but

the situation remains the same in the eyes of the Iraqi people -- including

the perception of an ongoing U.S. occupation -- we will add fuel to the

nationalist backlash.

But it's not the date -- it's the plan that matters. If we can develop a

coherent plan for the turnover...if we can invest the world in that plan...and

if

we can convince the Iraqi people that the turnover will result in a meaningful

change in their circumstances...the June 30 date will cease to matter.

V. PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

Some argue this is an unrealistic strategy -- that it's too late to get all

these players in the game. And it's true: the worse the situation gets, the

more reluctant they become to participate. It's like the old story about

misplaying center field....No one wants to be part of a failure. But I'm

convinced that it is not too late.

Our European and Arab friends have as much to lose from our failure in Iraq

as we do. Iraq is in their front yard --it's failure would endanger the supply

of oil, rile up Muslim populations, and create a lethal source of instability

that fuels terrorism and sparks aggression. Abandoning Iraq to chaos will put

radicals in the region on the offensive...moderates and modernizers in

retreat....and regimes in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi under intense pressure.

The Iraqi people themselves have the greatest stake in our success -- and the

most to lose from our failure. Trading a dictator for chaos is an even worse

deal for them than it would be for us.

At this late hour, it wil take some powerful persuasion to get them all on

board. But one man has the power to do just that...to change the dynamic...to

finally make Iraq the world's problem, not just our own. That man is the

President of the United States. Now is the time for him to lead.

The other evening, he told us he's been talking to the Italian and Polish

Prime Ministers. That's nice, but they are already on board, and that just is

not

enough.

The President should immediately convene a summit with our traditional allies

in Europe...our friends in the Arab world and Asia...representatives of the

U.N. Security Council and NATO...and Iraqi political leaders. He should tell

them that we need their help. He should acknowledge that success in Iraq

requires centrist Iraqis to step up....world powers to chip in....and Middle

East

countries to take a chance on representative government in Iraq. Then the

President should ask each of them what they need from us in order to

participate. And

he should work with them to forge a common plan for Iraq that they can

support.

I'm sure there are people around the President who will tell him to reject

this idea. They'll tell him that reaching out will make him look weak...that it

will be an admission of failure. I would say to them that the hour for hubris

and arrogance is long past. It's time for leadership. And right now only the

President of the United States can provide it.

VI. CONCLUSION

When the Cold War ended we were left virtually alone, a superpower seemingly

secure in our position, driven by our faith in freedom, by democratic values

and a belief that every man and woman is better off when they are free of

tyranny.

What we have learned since then should be clear. The world has changed and so

have the demands of leadership.

For the world to follow, we must do more than rattle our sabers and demand

allegiance to our vision of the world simply because we believe we are right. We

must provide a reason for others to aspire to that vision. And that reason

must come with more than the repetition of a bumper-sticker phrase about freedom

and democracy. It must come with more than the restatement of a failed

policy. It must come with the wisdom to admit when we are wrong and the resolve

to

change course and get it right.

Let me leave you with one thought. I come from Delaware. I have been to Dover

many times. the men and women there who receive our soldiers and their

families on that last long journey home know what this is about. When those

planes

fly over Delaware and land in the middle of the night, we are reminded that

this is not about politics, about whether we believe with every fiber of our

being that we are fundamentally right or that someone else is dangerously wrong.

This is not about assigning blame or about partisanship. This is about that

last journey home to Dover Air Base, about those brave Americans who are doing

everything in their power to get it right. We owe them no less than to get it

right ourselves.

This speech will be re-aired on C-SPAN at 3:00a.m. Eastern time, Fri. April

16. You may look for subsequent airings since seeng it on television provides

you not only with the speech but also with the spirited Q. & A. following the

event.

For further information about Senator Biden, visit his site:

http://www.biden.senate.gov/

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

wrote:

>

>

> A nuclear attack on a modern city, with realtime news

> feeds, would focus the collective unconscious like a

> laser, and induce a new awareness of what it means to

> be a species rather than a compartmentalized set of

> tribes and nations.

Problem is, a " compartmentalized set of tribes and nations " *is* our species.

That's what we do. That's what we are. Man is the political animal.

We've already seen two cities destroyed by nuclear bombs - and a bunch of others

destroyed by non-nuclear bombs - and it hasn't changed human nature

one iota. It there are pictures on CNN of an American city destroyed by an

Islamic nuclear bomb, what you will see pouring out of the collective

unconscious here are rage and a desire for revenge. These things can't be

changed, only managed.

Regards,

Dan Watkins

[Guest guest]

Dan,

You don't know that human nature may not have been changed. it certainly was for

the survivors.Those now causing the troubles in the world did not have that

awful experience..and I mean awe-full.

Those things you say cannot be changed, can be by the coming of consciousness to

those involved. Infecting others with our consciousness will take a long long

time. It is too early to judge effects. Rage can be managed if we are conscious.

Toni

Re: holy war

Dear ,

wrote:

>

>

> A nuclear attack on a modern city, with realtime news

> feeds, would focus the collective unconscious like a

> laser, and induce a new awareness of what it means to

> be a species rather than a compartmentalized set of

> tribes and nations.

Problem is, a " compartmentalized set of tribes and nations " *is* our species.

That's what we do. That's what we are. Man is the political animal.

We've already seen two cities destroyed by nuclear bombs - and a bunch of

others destroyed by non-nuclear bombs - and it hasn't changed human nature

one iota. It there are pictures on CNN of an American city destroyed by an

Islamic nuclear bomb, what you will see pouring out of the collective

unconscious here are rage and a desire for revenge. These things can't be

changed, only managed.

Regards,

Dan Watkins

" Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may

be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

omagramps wrote:

> Dan,

> You don't know that human nature may not have been changed. it certainly was

for the survivors.Those now causing the troubles in the world did not have that

awful experience..and I mean awe-full.

A change in an individual does not equal a change in the species.

The Islamic fundamentalists now causing the troubles in the world might well

welcome such pyrotechnics.

>

>

> Those things you say cannot be changed, can be by the coming of consciousness

to those involved. Infecting others with our consciousness will take a long long

time. It is too early to judge effects. Rage can be managed if we are conscious.

The political management of popular rage can't be accomplished by making

everyone " conscious " (an impossibility). Popular rage has to be channeled.

Regards,

Dan

>

>

> Toni

> Re: holy war

>

> Dear ,

>

> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > A nuclear attack on a modern city, with realtime news

> > feeds, would focus the collective unconscious like a

> > laser, and induce a new awareness of what it means to

> > be a species rather than a compartmentalized set of

> > tribes and nations.

>

> Problem is, a " compartmentalized set of tribes and nations " *is* our

species. That's what we do. That's what we are. Man is the political animal.

> We've already seen two cities destroyed by nuclear bombs - and a bunch of

others destroyed by non-nuclear bombs - and it hasn't changed human nature

> one iota. It there are pictures on CNN of an American city destroyed by an

Islamic nuclear bomb, what you will see pouring out of the collective

> unconscious here are rage and a desire for revenge. These things can't be

changed, only managed.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dan Watkins

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings

may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/17/04 2:09:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

marshkan1@... writes:

" Man is the only animal the blushes.....or needs to. "

Baboons blush w/their bottoms......:}!

Cldn't resist - after all that heavy news!

Nice to have u back!

love

naughty ao