War is Hell So, who do we bomb after Iraq? (BTW this is not an anti-war flame djf)

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

From Capitol Hill Blue

War is Hell
So, who do we bomb after Iraq?
By DAVID WESTPHAL
McClatchy Newspapers
Mar 16, 2003, 11:14

Even as President Bush struggles, against robust international opposition,
to launch a regime-toppling invasion of Iraq, some of the strongest and
earliest supporters of military action against Saddam Hussein are already
looking ahead to the next target.

Some hawks outside the government are beginning to turn up the rhetorical
heat against Iran and Syria, both Iraq neighbors and both known to be
funneling aid to Middle East terrorist groups. Others are focusing on North
Korea and its rapidly mobilized nuclear weapons program, or the African
country of Libya. 

"Even after Mr. Hussein is gone, other tyrannies, such as North Korea and
Iran, will continue to threaten world peace," said Max Boot, a scholar at
the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Some in Washington believe the Iraq conflict will mark only the beginning of
the U.S. resolve to exercise its military muscle.

"It takes little imagination to dream up other scenarios that might call for
pre-emptive military action," said Thomas Donnelly, a military analyst at
the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank that has led the
charge for war against Iraq.

Donnelly said one such example might be the imminent overthrow of the
Musharraf government in Pakistan, given the country's possession of nuclear
weapons. 

Few are suggesting that the Pentagon begin preparing a new set of Iraq-like
invasion plans. In fact, some foreign policy experts contend that a
successful campaign in Iraq might serve as an effective shot across the bow
at other, would-be targets.

Richard Perle, who heads a Pentagon advisory group and has long been a
leading advocate of an Iraq invasion, was making this argument just one
month after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

If the United States should topple Saddam, he said in a PBS interview, "I
think several of these governments will simply get out of the support of
terrorism business. It will be too costly, the risks will be too great."

That some are looking beyond Iraq, despite the massive effort and
uncertainties that surround the looming conflict, should not be surprising.
The administration's new National Security Strategy suggests an activist
American military, one more inclined to act pre-emptively if the president
concludes U.S. security is threatened.

In the updated strategy, Bush said the United States might unleash its
military might even if unprovoked.

"As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against ...
emerging threats before they are fully formed," the president wrote.

Among admirers of the new strategy is John Lewis Gaddis, a professor of
military and naval history at Yale University, who says it has the potential
to become the most sweeping overhaul of military strategy in half a century.

Yet Gaddis says a successful application in Iraq depends on meeting two
critical tests: that the Iraqis greet American troops as liberators, and
that the United States retain the high moral ground and international
support. On that latter point, Gaddis says, the Bush administration is
foundering. 

"A nation that sets itself up as an example to the world in most things,"
Gaddis wrote in "Policy Review" magazine, "will not achieve that purpose by
telling the rest of the world, in some things, to shove it."

Some military analysts say the Pentagon can adapt to a new, more activist
posture by undergoing a transformation process championed by Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. By shedding strategies designed for a war among
superpowers and moving to lighter, more mobile forces, the military can cast
a wider net without needing more resources, they say.

But others suggest the Pentagon will need a bigger slice of the federal
budget to take on a wider role.

"Increased force structure ... will be necessary to enhance the Army's
ability to fight the war against terrorism while also keeping the peace in
other areas," said Conrad Crane, a military expert at the Strategic Studies
Institute in Washington.

Regardless of whether the United States carries out the threat of
pre-emptive attacks, some think the American military will be kept plenty
busy in coming years.

The Sept. 11 terrorism strikes came during a time of growing instability in
much of the world - civil strife in the Balkans, in Africa, in large swaths
of Asia. Since 1948, the United Nations has authorized 54 peacekeeping
operations, and all but 13 of them were created in the last dozen years.

Eric Schwartz, a National Security Council adviser in the Clinton
administration, says this trend of growing conflict in pockets around the
globe likely will continue. And, because of the newly recognized threat of
terrorism, he says, these trouble spots are likely to receive American
attention. 

"Nobody disagrees with the notion that failed states matter now," said
Schwartz. "And the administration would say that where they matter
enormously, we need to be engaged."

© Copyright 2003 Capitol Hill Blue

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/