Posted 3:57 pm by BOTE
An update on the invasions effect on global security. It seems that because of delays and mistakes by US troops in securing sites known to contain radioactive material 200 250kg containers containing "yellow-cake" uranium, cesium, and cobalt have gone missing. An article from the New Republic goes on to point out that the last two of these can be used to make dirty bombs. Efforts to recover the materials to date have failed, and on the whole appear entirely inadequate given the risks involved. Another nail in the coffin of the "World is better off" thesis.

Posted 12:36 pm by BOTE
Is the Bush administration going after Iran?

coming soon.

Posted 12:35 pm by BOTE
The NY times runs an article today about a report that the EPA will publish on the state of the environment. Despite a consensus in the scientific community that the preponderance of evidence suggests that global warming exists and human activity is a significant contributer to the problem, the Bush administration has intervened to all but remove any reference to the problem. Could the administrations links to industry and George W.'s need to fund his re-election campaign have anything to do with the intervention? You decide...

Posted 12:28 pm by BOTE
There can be no argument with the fact that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. He maintained his grip on power in a fractious Iraq by brutally supressing anyone he perceived as a rival. The demise of his regime is not a matter for regret. The question of whether the world is better off now that he is gone is more complicated.

The end justifies the means is probably an accurate characterisation of the approach the US administration has taken to ousting Saddam. This time worn phrase captures the essence of the Bush political philosophy. A decision was made to take out Saddams regime and the administration did everything in its power to realise that goal. Everything included riding roughshot over world opinion and the UN security council and there is evidence to suggest everything also included lying to the American people (omission of facts and self-serving manipulation of evidence can be considered lying. Republicans have all too recently been strong advocates of this view).

The magnitude of damage to the global stability as a result of the cavalier disregard for world opinion is a matter for debate, but damage there is. Global resentment of the US and its policies is the highest for a generation. Even close allies and neighbours refused to support the war against Saddam. America's moral authority and its position as a beign beacon of freedom and prosperity have been undermined. Terrorist groups have been handed a powerful new tool to recruit disenfranchised youth the world over. The imperialist Americans have shown their true colours, the Jihad is the only way to punish this offence against Allah...etc etc. Had the US shown a little more restraint and forced Saddam to accept intrusive arms inspections then perhaps this outcome could have been avoided. The war for hearts and minds across the globe is more important than ousting one two-bit dictator.

The US has committed almost half its military strength to taking and now holding Iraq. This presence is likely to become increasingly unwelcome as competing local groups organise and begin to press more effectively for power. The inability of US forces to restore conditions for ordinary Iraqis to something approaching their prewar level will lead to increasing resentment as time passes. 'At least we had x before the Americans came' will resonate more and more as time passes. Recent attacks on American troops and demonstrations bear witness to the growing frustration of Iraqis.

If Afghanistan is an example of the Bush administrations approach to nation building then it is unlikely that the necessary resources to stabilise Iraq and to give it a fighting chance of a prosperous future will be forthcoming. Iraq would then become another source of instability in a region that scarcely needs more problems.

Then there is the collateral damage. Relations between the EU and The US are strained. Don Rumsfelds references to 'Old' and 'New' Europe were not appreciated in the capitals of Europe, nor was the effort to divide European foreign policy position using Eastern European countries. The new distance between Europe and America is likely to lead to intractability across a range of issues that will lead to a diminution in prosperity for everyone. Trade protectionism, for example, is already on the increase in the US and a harsh European response is now more likely.

Is the world better off without Saddam? Its not clear yet, but the omens are not good.

Posted 3:37 pm by BOTE
From the New York Times:

"The president is 99 percent safe on this one," said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House.

"The literary class that dislikes Bush and dislikes American activism is thrilled, whether in Europe or in the U.S., to have this question to raise," he said. "But in the United States at least, given the mass graves, given the level of torture and brutality by the Baath Party regime, you're asking the American people to side with the apologists for replacing Saddam. Does even the most left-wing Democrat want to defend the proposition that the world would be better off with Saddam in power?"

I think I'll take that challenge...