Dr Masaad Shlash, of the department of sociology at Kuwait University, a prisoner in Iraq after the invasion, said: "Look at Saddam's treatment of his own people. He's the closest thing the Middle East has to Hitler."

Quite an understatement. Right now, Saddam is world class in that particular category...

Wow. Never would have thunk it.

Gee, didn't read this in the NYTimes.

Wonder why............

"Those people who say that sending weapons inspectors into Iraq may be a solution to the current crisis are not those who are living within reach of his missiles and his chemical weapons. How can we feel safe with Saddam Hussein next door?"

Pretty much sums it all up here. All "inspector advocates" should absorb these two sentences.

But in the NYTimes today, they do talk about Palestinian "justice" (without the scare quotes of course) in dealing with collaborators. They report on how they've executed that woman (but ignore the torturing of her son) and now her 17 year old niece. (and they have a nice unchallenged quote from the Arab in charge--it's the Jews' fault for destroying the PLO's "courts, jails, etc")

This comes right after a scary article last week about how America is absolutely horrid for executing criminals who committed (real) crimes at 17 (and have had 10 years of appeals, minimum).

Bias? Nah......not the NYTimes.....where America is always wrong, but the West Bank Arabs are a-ok.

Is there something in the water lately? First, we have Quaddafi acting almost human over the weekend and making nice noises to the US about AQ bad guys; now we have the Kuwaitis who, just a few months ago, were shouting "Down with America", "Kill the Americans", "Down with the USA" and now its, "Oh, okay, we'll support you, 'cause big bad Saddam is still threatening us anyway".

If it weren't so despicable it would be laughable. What the heck; it is laughable!

Of course the Kuwaitis are going to support the U.S. defending their asses.

Perhaps is occurred to some Kuwaitis that, as his diplomatic delays start to appear to him to fail, Saddam's obvious move is to reoccupy Kuwait, and change the subject, hoping to get the UN to lift sanctions and remove the US's ongoing authority in response for Saddam leaving Kuwait.

More about that on my own blog, anon, or in an anon and a half.

Is there something in the water lately?

Not really. Everyone, from the French to the Lybians to the Kuwaitis, is realizing that the U.S. is not just blowing smoke here, and are quickly moving to not end up on our bad side. Expect to see more falling in line as we get closer to the date of invasion.

The message from the minister has to be a fake. He never mentioned how evil Jews are. :)

I think as much as it annoys us, it was not realistic to expect the Kuwaitis to take a publically supportive stance until Saddam's removal appeared to be a done deal and imminent. They, after all, are in Saddam's shadow and his for the eating.

This may be a sign that Operation Regime Change is more imminent than we know.

"Not really. Everyone, from the French to the Lybians to the Kuwaitis..."

Oh come on, the French! Have you read something I haven't? Have the cheese-eating-surrender-monkey's wised up too?

They changed sides because we gave them a nice, pretty gift:

Apache attack helicopters.

Be nice if they were doing this for the right reasons, but the ugly truth is that the Kuwaitis are a petty little monarchy that the US just bought.

Guess who else supports a resumption of weapons inspections: Powell.

Yes everyone's favorite friend to all nations (except Israel and the US) Colin Powell is not yet convinced that Saddam is a threat.

"I think that the world has to be presented with the information, with the intelligence that's available. A debate is needed within the international community so that everybody can make a judgment," he said in another excerpt that was broadcast. "I think, in the current debate, too much attention has focused on the United States and what debate is taking place within our administration as opposed to attention being focused on the Iraqi regime."

Although Powell is often seen as a lonely moderate in an administration staffed by hard-line hawks on Iraq, the State Department has sought to emphasize that Powell's views are in sync with the administration.

Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman, last week told reporters that inspections were not a substitute for "regime change."

"If an Iraqi regime wants to come clean and get right with the world, inspections can help demonstrate that they've done that," Boucher said. "If an Iraqi regime like the one we've got continues to try to cheat and hide, inspections have shown in the past the ability to find some things the Iraqis were trying to cheat and hide on, and destroy some things that they might have admitted."

But foreign-policy experts appearing on the Sunday public affairs programs yesterday viewed Powell's comments as another sign of disarray within the administration. Richard C. Holbrooke, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton, told "Fox News Sunday" that "instead of making the case unambiguously with a single group of people singing from the same song sheet, they're singing at least, at a minimum, different lyrics to the same music, and they're undermining their case."

Former secretary of state Lawrence S. Eagleburger, who like Scowcroft served in the administration of the president's father, told NBC's "Meet the Press": "There is a disconnect here and I don't understand it."

Justin (#12):

>>? Have the cheese-eating-surrender-monkey's wised up too?

Well, it wouldn't have been completely a surprise if the Kuwaitis had suddenly said 'thanks, but no thanks'...not like anyone else in the region has done anything like that before.

Reading around, notice the Media is doing back three and a half somersaults to drum up the 'everybody else is against an invasion' patter...such as This spinning top

Favorite parts of the 'Russian Warning'

Any decision to use force against Iraq would not only complicate an Iraqi settlement, but also undermine the situation in the Gulf and the Middle East

pretty plain, straightforward assesment statement, vice a dire warning.

Ivanov said he hoped the issue of authorizing a strike on Iraq would never go before the Security Council.

"We hope that the question of use of force will not be put to the Security Council and, therefore, the right of veto will not be necessary," he was quoted as saying.

Is it just me, or does this sound like ...don't bother, it would be a mistake, so skip it? Hmm..he was sitting right next to the Iraqi when he said it. But it was right on the heels of saying...

"I will say frankly that I see no alternative to a return of the international observers," he was quoted as saying. "Our task is not to seek alternatives of any sort but to create conditions for the return of the inspectors in order to open the way for sanctions against Iraq to be lifted."

Ok, maybe I'm seeing plans within plans here, but...that seems to be an excellent setup for a face saving 'out' if...no...when Saddam balks at letting inspectors back in.

They round it out, padding a few more inches with this piece of meaningless diplo-fluff

Ivanov also praised the "dynamic development" of relations between Russia and Iraq. He made no mention in his opening remarks of a cooperation program which Baghdad's ambassador last month said was close to signature and worth $40 billion.

The journos throw this in, but guess it isn't worth the Russians mentioning it...

Then wrap it all up with a nice stab at this -

Wider rifts appeared in U.S. public opinion at the weekend over any possible attack, with Secretary of State Colin Powell suggesting the return of the inspectors was a critical step, in contrast with Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Several commentators were quick to point out the contradictions(emphasis mine)

Not officials, or Congressmen, or Senators, or anyone else with an opinion that really carries any weight...
I guess on the theory that if you peddle BS long enough...wouldn't serve the agenda at all to admit that Cheney and Powell were addressing two facets of the same policy, hmmm. Could it be that Colin is the 'Mr. Reasonable' straight man, asuaging all the worlds anxieties, laying the groundwork for our demonstration of all reasonable care (let the inspectors back in), while Cheney is also out there, very calmly tapping a baseball batt in his hand (or we will be kicking your ass).....

JLichty - man, don't tell me you're falling for the split thing. Mentioned it before, that while I may not have a really high personal opinion of Powel, he's trooping along playing his part in the show...

Didn't it set off any alarm bells for you that the two folks quoted as 'pointing out the split' are Dick Holbrooke and Larry Eagleburger...both left wing toadies that served in an administration that did oh so wonderful things in preparing the stage for the main attraction of September 11th?

Like I said, Powell aint up there on my Christmas card list, and neither is Richard Boucher - but read what they are actually saying!

Powell isn't making a judgement statement here. He's suggesting people should quite yammering and pecking at what the U.S. is doing, and look at the actual problem - Saddam!

Boucher is re-parroting the standard 'let the inspectors back in' line - the rejection of which will probably be listed amongst the reasons for plastering Mr. Husseins but into a grease spot when the party actually kicks off.

Some "inspector advocates" advocate inspections precisely because they will help to make the case for war.

I reckon no thinking official here in Britain really believes that Saddam will accept tough inspections. Officials advocate them all the same because the inevitable failure will help to build the case for action in places where that case has, so far, not been accepted.

In my view, it is a shame some in the US administration appear to have decided not to take this opportunity to blacken Saddam's record even further, and so neutralize the "let the UN try" crowd. That crowd ranges from crackheads who should know better (and who need to be severely embarrassed, again, for the good of the cause) to simple people who just don't understand foreign policy, but will readily understand Saddam defying "the world".

Anyway, yes, people are cracking. The lead story in the Financial Times this AM: UK leads EU to more hawkish stance on Iraq. An optimistic spin, but there is some substance to it.

Plus these two surprises from Arab News:

"The sooner the Arab and Muslim countries realize that it is not PR campaigns that shape your image abroad, but reforms, attitudes, accountability, justice, and transparency at home, the better."

"While we make highly charged emotional statements, our enemy acts with meticulous planning, converting his wishes and emotions into action. Unlike us, he does not babble about his plans for future attacks. He speaks only after all the arrangements for action are in place. Is there an Arab leader in modern history who carried out the threats he made to his enemies?"

The international opinion equivalent of "floating voters" is a fairly big constituency with some important members. Courting it more assiduously, even if the very idea seems repugnant when Saddam is what he is, just might pay off. And paying off is all this war should ever be about.

Kuwait did not support the US until everyone else had forbidden us from using their territory. I'm sure someone told Kuwait that without a place to launch Saddam stays and we might be pulling out of the region because of lack of local support.

Thus, with a bullet to their head they had to agree to support the US. They don't want to be a scud target, their position shows some sense, even if its cowardly.

Oh, France is falling in line all right... they're probably already making plans to cede Marseilles to the USA, just in case our "unilateralism" does get out of hand...

Joke's on them, though, 'cause we don't want it.

I do remember the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US openly stating that they owe nothing to the US and that they "didn't need the US's help in the first place...they would still be there without it," This is EXACTLY what was said (the drift of it at least) to the utter surprise and shock of the interviewer, on CNN I think, who apparently still remembers what ACTUALLY HAPPENED before the US interviened....nothing. I think that the US said that Kuwait looks like a nice base of operations, but if they couldn't get the Kuwaitis' support, that they might have to withdraw all of those nice US army soldiers, and take their nice, Republican-Guard-annihilating machinery with them...not to mention all of those monetary 'gifts'.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the new state wouldn't try to export its democratic ideas to its little neighbor, or say, make a move on its oil fields that would go conspicuously un-noticed....and it WOULD exist anyways. The 'Palestinian struggle' is discredited by most rational thinkers in the US and Israel, where it actually counts, the Israeli Military is letting its soldiers go on a looser leash, and it is working, the Arab states are threatened by the US if they dont cease their support of Terrorists, the endgame is here.

-Ratz

-Ratz

Riverman - good articles. Somewhat surprising at first, and the second Arab News item, from the exerpt, was almost an indication that 'ah hah, they finally get it'...nope. It is an amazing rant against Arab leaders shooting their mouths off. Wonder if they'll pass it to the imams and prayer callers at the mosques...and would they heed it?

tatts, I would love to have marsailles as a US territory. We would have a nice base in the Mediterranean, and it would do wonders for American tourism in the area. No international boundaries to cross! (wishful, empy, sarcastic thinking).

-Ratz

Windy:

I have followed for Powells sheepish politics for too long to believe that this was anything but another attempt by the State Department to undermine the defense department.

The State Department has just too much baggage as a saboteur of American interests for me to believe that this was anything but Powell attempt to make nice with the rest of the world in his effort to convince them that we are all not chicken-haws or meanines who want to topple the elected leader of another country.

Powell has kissed far too much Saudi, Arafat, Euro butt for me to believe the rope-a-dope theory, which I once subscribed too. I think Powell is terrified to change to status quo which he and State find to be quite tolerable. Saudis come here and spend money and do nothing to disturb oil prices, besides, where would these State Dept boobs work after they left civil [dis]service if not for Saudi?

I hope you are right Windy, but why would we expect the State Department to approve of a war against one of its clients?

J. Lichty:
I watched "Meet the Press" yesterday morning, with Fred Thompson -gonna miss that man - making the case for the invasion and Eagleburger, of course, arguing against. Eagleburger trotted out all the usual excuses for not invading Iraq ("distablization" of the ME, etc,etc) and Thompson countered with yes, all those things are probably going to happen, but at the end of the day, action is better than inaction. At the end, Russert asked the two if they thought there would be an invasion of Iraq and Thompson immediately said yes. Eagleburger, as I've noted elsewhere, made a wonderfully sour face and muttered "Yes, there's going to be an invasion." It was like a 7 year old kid being asked "Tell the truth, did you take money out of mommy's purse?" You could tell it just about killed him to say yes. I take this as a very good sign indeed. Eagleburger knows Dubya isn't listening to him or Scowcroft.

I'm in shock.

An Arab government representative mentioned Hitler without using it in reference to an Israeli leader or action.

Was there something else in the article I should have noticed? ;-)

Wind Rider,

Let's hope that the nutty imams don't get it until it is too late. I would like nothing more than to see them overturned by their own people in the name of freedom. That seems like a very remote prospect in the Arab world these days, but, hey, I remember the Iran of 1979, and look at that place today. It’s across the water from the Arabs and it could go. Our way.

As for State being the problem, I must say, I am sick of this story. Of course the record is chequered. Which record in DC is not? In any case, if better policy in the Gulf boils down to bashing State, somebody had better tell the oil industry, the manufacturers exporting to Saudi, and the arms folks. Since State has rarely had a look-in at the top levels of this relationship, America’s “Saudi business as usual” folks have traditionally turned to the White House, the military, and various non-State (and non-ex-State) fixers to get their work done. I think quite a few of them have yet to change today. Yet neocons have very little to say about that. Wishful Thinking 101, anyone?

Interest in the “status quo” is offensive as well. The “status quo” is diplomats getting taken hostage, shot at, and bombed. Some of America’s bravest people work for State. They deserve a lot better than they get here some days.

I didn't mean to intimate that there will be no invasion or action against Iraq. I think there will. I think not only are Scarecrow (Scowcroft) and Chickenberger (Eagleburger) against this, but also Powell is. He makes that face that you described whenever the war in Iraq is mentioned. I don't think he is on board, and I think that he thinks that he is being coy with his opposition when it plain as a saudi visitor visa that he cannot stand the prospect of an attack on Iraq.

I hope people are right in stating that Powell is just being used as a diversion, but for someone who is supposedly making a case for an invasion of Iraq he sure isn't very convincing. Perhaps he should get some notes from Cheney.

I just have not seen any indication from Powell that he supports any action by the US that is based upon ideology (not to say the prospect of Saddam getting Nukes is idiological, but our overall strategy of democracy building is idiological). He saw an idelogical war in viet-nam go bad and thinks of all wars in that context. He is very much of the view that the US is simply part of the world community and must bend to the will of the world. He is comfortable with the status quo and starts to worry when philosophy guides our foreign policy. Unlike his subordinates, I don't think he does it because he loves the Saudis or other Arab countries, I just think that he loves the status quo and does not see into the future consequences of our failure to act.

To suggest that another round of inspectors be sent in is like suggesting that Israel should sign another Oslo accord (which I think Powell would support as well). He is prone to false messianism and taking our enemies at their word. It is a dangerous world view and one that is based upon fear. Whenever he opens his mouth he does not project a good image to our enemies as he makes us appears indecisive and weak.

Contrast him with Rummy and see whether Powell is really speaking from a position of strength or if he appears to be running scared.

I hope all you Powell supporters are correct and that he is playing paper tiger to throw everyone off the scent, however I have seen too much over the past year to believe rope-a-dope. From his apologies for terror, his almost immediate call for reopening talks with Arafat after Bush declared him persona non-grata, and this latest round of undermining the drum beat make believe that Powell is freelancing.

Andrew (#13)

The US didn't give those Apache helicopters to Kuwait--we've agreed to sell them to Kuwait, to the tune of several billion. It's "their" payoff to us.

Wow! Stunning! Dr. Shlash ought to be the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister with quotes like that.

Just as everybody is saying the US is all alone on this (and the Presidential team alone even in the Republicans), suddenly Kuwait gets onside, Britian apparently comes round, and things are beginning to look up. I think James #11 is on the money, or at least I hope so; this is a dramatic turn of affairs from the Gulf.

#28

I am not so sure that Powell is a Paper Tiger - it may well be that he has been directed to do his job the best that he can [bacause "Shrub" is supposed to be a hands-off manager].
When time is up, the President may look at Rummy, than at Powell, and see who has the best plan, then run with it.

Assuming Iraq were innocent of harboring WMDs, if Powell was a bit better, or Saddam a lot less stubborn, Iraq would be DEMANDING that UN weapons inspectors come in with full unlimited access vs. being pummeled by the US for having WMDs.

Far as Kuwait falling in line probably has more to do with State Dept sweet-talking than the Defense Dept's sabre rattling.

Gary Bruce:

"Apache attack helicopters."

Not a gift, Kuwait is buying them to the tune of about $4 billion.

What's more significant is the model of Apache. These are "D" models with day/night, all-weather capability and with Hellfire missiles.

Normally, we do not sell our top of the line stuff to other governments. All weapon systems have export and US versions; we may have to face them as foes some day. But in this case, Kuwait is getting the US model. We wouldn't be doing this except in anticiaption of a long term friendly relationship. It probably also indicates Kuwait is serious about its military capability.

If Powell were "freelancing", he would be on the street, panhandling in Dupont Circle rather than developing US foreign policy. As would his subordinates, if they are were as stupid and fearful as some make out.

Powell knows war and terror, personally, inside out. So do a lot of other people in US foreign policy, from Langley to Foggy Bottom to Pentagon City. Their caution is about horror and winning, not weak fear or political point scoring.

As for W, well, his Vietnam war record speaks for itself, doesn't it? As do the records of other greying dodgers in the neocon brigades.

Don't get me wrong. I do like Rummy, a lot. But I am very glad Powell too is in the mix, for some hard-headed reasons that play well everywhere but right wing DC.

As for Cheney, well, he goes down overseas like a lead balloon. And the US can ignore "overseas", every time and in every way, at its own peril.

J Lichty - By no means am I defending Colin Powell, or his views. The distinction I draw, and the attribute that I think you overlook, is that one of Powell's major traits is that of the Team Player. He didn't rise to be Chief of the JCS by freelancing, and on something like foriegn policy, particularly with the alignment, the deliberateness and the messages I've seen out of the administration over the past few months, I'm absolutely convinced that Colin is in the process of saluting smartly, and carrying out the President's instructions.

A goal has been set (remove Saddam), and there is a plan in motion to achieve that aim. Any and all discussion or debate, among the actual decision makers in the process (and Powell was likely a part of those discussions, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice) has already been had, and the direction chosen and set by the man. Watch carefully. They are in the process of execution, right before our eyes.

Not exactly what we are used to, given the previous eight years of an administration that weathervaned by the overnight pop opinion polls, or the whims of the Eurocracy. Take a closer examination of all the surrounding noise about the 'indecision' or the 'rift' or the 'disagreement'. Source it. Then take a look at the actual released work product from the players involved, on this issue. Its pretty linear, and it fits together quite well.

Don't think they could do something like that without some of the self proclaimed bloodhounds in the media getting wind of it and blowing the whistle on it? Take as example the formulation of the Homeland Security package. Whatever you may think of the package itself, did anyone really know that Tom Ridge and several others were actually formulating a comprehensive policy package? And that the goal was to deliver a virtually completed product (to cut down on the posturing and dilution via endless compromise, or having it log jammed by folks that would love to be able to pin the falure to arrive at a plan on W) Not a clue. Not a peep. And all the while Ridge was taking a boot in the teeth on practically a daily basis for his apparent inaction. With the result, that a 'complete' plan was delivered from the executive to the legislative branch - and any damage or blame for delay would end up squarely on Congressional shoulders. Pretty neat trick, actually, despite what you may think of the actual plan itself.

Nope, like I said, the administration is already well into the execution of their strategy - most people know what the end state is going to be (invasion of Iraq), but without a color coded road map of how they plan to get from A to B (which seems fairly obvious to me, but), it does leave a lot of room for the 'lets all just talk about this and have peace and understanding while we hide our heads because oh my gosh this would be just horrible and sombody might need a band aid or be emotionally damaged think of the children for g-ds sake so maybe its better if we just sit on our hands and do nothing and maybe they'll learn to reaaaaally understand us and everyone can make nice' crowd to fill in the blanks with the way they'd like things to go. As if.

Anyway, I think rope a dope is the wrong analogy for the whoring Colin is doing for the Boss right now - I like to think of it more along the lines of 'bait and switch'.

Said it before, and I'll probably mention it once or twice again...sure glad we have an unsophisticated rube of a cowboy as President, so far as they know. (heh heh).

Riverman, I think you are right about Cheney's profile overseas to some degree. The BBC, if my memory serves me correctly, called his speech to the war vets the most hawkish one yet on the subject. Period. I am grateful for Cheney's speech, and I thought he made his points with clarity and pursuasion.

I like the range of news on the BBC, but I get really annoyed with these kind of snide comments on Americans generally and Republicans and Bush people in particular. I think the reason Cheney doesn't go down well overseas is because the Overseas, as someone here in LGF stated (I'm sorry, I forgot which thread to look in), free rides off of America.

For some, their commitment to "diplomacy" is driven by genuinely good intentions (road to hell) which harden into a sort of ideological calcification. A darker explanation is also in order: these people, and my PM is first among them, habitually turn a blind eye to evil. They don't have the stomach to realize that war is sometimes a necessity to preempt worse evils. I wish that we in Canada had a plain spoken leader like Cheney or Australia's John Howard.

What annoyed me about the BBC was that it got in the dig "hawkish" in a news article. Of course, the article did not address a single one of Cheney's points.

Riverman -

Such a Metro riding opinion you've got there....;)

Yes, Colin does bring a moderate voice to a private discussion - sometimes too moderate imho. Perhaps if his voice had not been so moderating 10 years ago, we wouldn't still be doing this. But, with that said, I think he is a good and capable man for the position he now occupies, despite my personal read on him.

Riverman writes:

Powell knows war and terror, personally, inside out. So do a lot of other people in US foreign policy, from Langley to Foggy Bottom to Pentagon City. Their caution is about horror and winning, not weak fear or political point scoring.

I don't know what you base this broad sweeping statement upon, but if Powell knows terror so well, how come he is so willing to appease it.

Do you think that terrorists can be negotiated with? Are Israel's actions self-defense or "not helpful"? Is Arafat a leader with whom the US and Israel should work?

Powell has answered in the affiirmative to all of the above. Yes Powell knows terror because he tries to negotiate with it all the time.

As for the heroic state department employees who detain journalists and offer engraved invitiations to 15 of the 19, they are not on the street simply because they have been good at protecting their turf. It has nothing to do with their ability to look out for America's interests. They have been caught red-handed in their sinsister pandering to their Arab masters in the form of the Visa Express program and their outright hostility to victims of Saudi kidnappings. They have a long history of anti-semitism and of supporting our enemies. Perhaps you find this legacy of the state department heroic, but I find it sickening.

I read your statements as if you are agreeing that these statements come from Powell, but that you simply agree with him.

One did not have to wade through rice-patties in vietnam to know the difference between right and wrong, and to know when the use of miliatary action is warranted. Are all generals created equally? Simply Was Omar Bradley the tactical equal of your Montgomery? I am tired of the argument that just because Powell fought in Vietnam and Bush didn't he is somehow annointed with prescience to know the right way. Saddam has fought in a war, does that mean he knows what is best for the world? One must have more than experience on the front lines.

I am not saying that Powell was not a good soldier. I don't think he was a good general, but regardless, I judge him by what he says now. History will judge him as it will Bush. So far of the two only one has spoken an acted with any sort of moral clarity.

If I want to storm a bunker, I will consult Powell on how to do it. If I want to save the free world, I will turn to someone who has the stomach to do it.

J Lichty asks:

"I don't know what you base this broad sweeping statement upon"

Powell knows war and terror, personally, inside out. So do a lot of other people in US foreign policy, from Langley to Foggy Bottom to Pentagon City. Their caution is about horror and winning, not weak fear or political point scoring.

Let me answer that first. Personal experience, maybe?

Yeah, another Metro rider.

River:

That is not an answer, it is just another broad meaninless statement. What personal experience? Riding the metro into Dupont circle?

If your personal experience is that you worked for my country's state department, well that says it all right there. You do not criticize them because you are one of them.

You did not answer some of my other questions regarding Powell's statements in which he appeases of terrorists, nor regarding the sterling record of the State Department in championing the rights of Americans, nor your cheap attack on Bush for not having served in vietnam.

Ha ha, J, (#40) you asked about my statement and I answered. Am I an evil "one of them"? Who cares? Uncle Sam is Uncle Sam. Those who have served him know him and love him as one people should.

Seriously, take it easy. You don't even give a man time to answer!

Now, on Cheney overseas: it doesn't matter if his argument sounds good at home (and in some ears abroad) but doesn't move opinion enough. If another person can do a better job, with the same facts, that person should.

On negotiating with terrorists: my view is no to al Qaeda, no to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and no to any close allies from other factions. This includes Arafat. But I will not second guess the administration, which gives Powell his assignments.

Supposedly marginal off-the-record meetings are another matter. Both Israel and the US engage in them, which makes me hopeful about the long term.

On State "detaining journalists": I assume you are referring to the pathetic NRO episode. Give me a break. It was just sad whining.

On the families and anti-Semitism: frankly, your suggestion that I find family rights failures and anti-Semitism "heroic" is so deeply offensive that I do not know what to say.

On what Vietnam service meant and means (when others ran away) and moral clarity: let's hope we're both here to judge at the last act.

J Lichty, I am no enemy of yours. Just someone - among so many - who has worked to make you free. You needn't agree with me about everything, nor I with you, if there is room for agreement on the fight. Which I think there is. Why combat so many people in the world? That's something America really should think harder about if it wants to win.

J Lichty - pretty sure Riverman was responsing about the Metro crack I made in #37.

I also think he is talking about more people populating the beltway vicinity than just Colin P.

A lot of the actions you're pinning directly on Powell as a result of his official capacity duties (yeah, like it just pops into his head in the morning...hmm, think I'll wing off and get in a good game of 'rocks, paper, scissors' with my buddy yas-man) aren't his call - which is what I think both Riverman and I are saying. Riverman isn't saying exactly what it is he likes about him, and I haven't really launched off into why I personally don't care for him, but I think both of us are able to distinguish what he's doing for the Boss, and what he does for Colin.

Yeah, there is a lot of idiocy going on at Foggy bottom these days - and most of the darts you've winged at Powell about it are the result of who was in charge of hiring and promoting and creating the atmosphere that defined the internal civil service machinery of the place for the previous eight years. Colin is a good organizer and projects leadership pretty well, but its kinda tough to lead a pack of free range chickens, now isn't it. Start digging into the background of the outrageousness thats come to light lately, and a lot of them have Clintonian groomed aparatchiks fingerprints all over them. Ms. Visa office is a prime example. The cubicle drones are the biggest 'status quo' inertia in the place.

Its one of the reasons that, and let me reiterate, despite the fact I don't care for the man personally, I do think he is a good man for the position he currently fills. I absolutely do not envy him his position one iota. The job he has right now sucks canal water through a straw. Riding herd on the truly unruly bunch populating State right now, and acting as the firewall between them and their new Boss, a guy that a lot of them probably believe is just short of the anti Christ - but he's got to get them to actually do the things that the Prez wants. Aaaaaaaand he gets to fit in the photo ops with the 'greasy out of town slimeball' of the day!

Damn it!

I can't believe I let this get me so worked up that I just spewed three paragraphs defending Colin Powell......aaaaargh!!!!!!!!!

I think my corned beef is ready...dinner break.

Wind Rider - dare I say it, my kindred spirit over the pond, no matter how different we are.

Thanks Wind, you always read my mind.

J Lichty (message #28),

Saddam's the Hitler of the Middle East. He wants nuclear weapons. So the never-served-in-the-military social workers in Washington proclaim.

Fact: None of the hijackers on 9-11 came from Iraq.

Fact: Iraq didn't finance the Taliban nor pay Al-Qaeda to attack elsewhere.

Fact: Saddam is an apostate to the Islamic fundamentalists. For that reason. the Islamic fundamentalists want him dead.

Fact: Removing Saddam moves Iraq closer to the ideological orbit of the Islamic fundamentalists.

And Strategy Page reports on Saudi efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. Quite frankly, having an Islamic fundamentalist state like Saudi Arabia in possession of nuclear weapons is less comforting than having a secular Islamic state in possession of nuclear weapons.

Why haven't I read any mention of the never-served-in-the-military social workers in Washington making any statements about the nuclear ambitions of a nation whose ideological aims are a lot more anti-Western than the aims of Iraq?

Refighting the Gulf War of 1990-1991 in the year 2002 rather than fighting the Islamic fundamentalists waging active war against the West in the year 2002 is major Idiotarianism.

Powel was a staff officer to Gen Hank Emerson,
in April 1968; when he came upon an incident in the village of My Son; in the province of Quang Ngai; for those in Rio Linda I'm talking
about the Mylai massacre, that was uncovered
a year later. Some time later, he was involved
in a finding, that rationalized the diversion of TOW missiles to the Iranian, yet he was able to
skate free of that situation. Of course, we are
in this mess, because 11 years ago, he recommended that Allied forces, not move
further into Iraq, which provoked Saddamm's
stay in power, the troop deployment in Saudi
which aggravated Bin Laden's anti-american
stand. He did not sustantially object to the Somalia operation. He opposed early air strikes
in Bosnia, but supported them later on. He seems not to have actually stood for any principle, other than affirmative action, and
a generally tepid opinion of the Republican
party; and to top it all off; He along with Carlucci (future CIA Director), Baker & Gray,
a charter member of the saudi-backed Carlyle
Group

Hokay...where to begin.

1) In the military, right now.
2) Visited DC, didn't like it, don't live there.

Lets dance Django...

Fact: Saddam came to power by taking it, not having it given to him.

Fact: He has initiated two wars of agression against his neighbors during his tenure, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Fact: He has actively pursued the development of chemical, biological, and nuclear devices, and systems to deliver same.

Fact: He has actively employed some of the chemical devices he developed, against Iranian troops, and against Kurdish civilian populations.

Fact: He has routinely renigged, recanted, obstructed, delayed, or ignored numerous United Nations resolutions calling for specific actions from his regime designed to eliminate his WMD capacitiy

Fact: He orchestrated an assasination attempt against a retired President of the United States

Fact: His armed forces routinely attempt to engage and destroy US and British aircraft

Fact: His manipulation of finances within the country has caused untold suffering and death amongst the Iraqi people

Fact: His regime openly sends funding encouraging Palestinian suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians in Israel

Question: Given his track record, exactly what is it that needs to be spelled out about the case to lance this boil on humanities' backside?

Observation: The supposition that a follow on government in Iraq would be fundamentalist in nature is base speculation, and a low probability event providing that a democratic secular establishment (perhaps formed by participants of the Iraqi National Congress), appreciative (initially) to the allies that rid Iraq of its nightmare was formed.

Prediction: Establishment of such a state (and possibly even the establishment of a seperate Kurdish nation) would undoubtedly destabalize the region - particularly the surrounding autocratic governments. Most likely sites of Turmoil - Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the peripheral gulf States, with the exception of Iran. Iran is a seperate case unto itself - with a surprisingly psuedo-democratic framewoirk already in place, but dominated by a theocratic overstructure with virtually unlimited veto power. The changes in Iran are approaching as well, but will not be triggered (and in fact could be delayed, if the interference were direct) by outside forces.
Either way - the invasion of Iraq will ignite the secular/theocratic/moderate/fundamentalist powderkeg in the region. Might it spill out - possibly, but this is a storm that is coming, wether we like it or not.

Fact: we can do something to shape the events, or we can sit and wait for them to happen to us.

Wind Rider (message 46),

The Iraqi National Congress has no power in Iraq. The INC can put together dinner parties in London, but that's about the extent of its capabilities. The INC can only be put in power at the point of someone else's bayonet.

What happens when the bayonet leaves? Regimes imposed from the outside traditionally find a destiny hanging from lampposts when the bayonet is withdrawn.

Iraq has no equivalent of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance on the ground to provide the language expertise needed to administer the country.

In Germany and Japan after World War II, the United States had a sufficient number of military personnel who could understand German and Japanese to monitor what was happening. There's no similar expertise in Arabic, much less the Iraqi dialect.

Immediately south of Iraq is, well, what? The theocratic fundamentalist state that created the Taliban, financed (and perhaps still finances) Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, finances extremist imams in Europe and elsewhere, refuses to allow U.S. law enforcement to have access to whatever terrorists it detains, and preaches hatred against the West.

Taking Saddam down means the Saudis have a large sandbox to expand their activities to.

It's not taking down Saddam that bothers me. It's the then what that bothers me. It's the then what that's being waved away by the never-served-in-the-military social workers in Washington.

Well said, Wind Rider! I simply cannot believe the multitudes of people who don't see the case for deposing Saddam, despite the facts, which, if they had teeth, would jump out and bite the likes of 'em.

Also, it may be a "fact" that the Islamists want Saddam dead, but he's more valuable to them alive. He's the posterboy of the anti-West Islamic block, having actually gone to battle and survived The Great Satan. Furthermore, he contributes (as Wind Rider noticed) to the general destabilization of Israel, which is responsible for no small amount of anti-Western feelings on the proverbial Arab street. Finally, there is a very likely Al Qaeda connection right now in the Al Ansar (sp?) movement that is destabilizing the Iraqi Kurds right now.

Django,

The "what's next?" worries me too, so point well taken, but I disagree with some of your statements. First, there are plenty of people and language materials around which cover Iraqi Arabic. There are people in the US military that have training in Arabic (I knew one such person, believe it or not). Second, there are the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North. These are groups that have no great love for Saddam, and have, in fact, a history of military confrontation with him. I agree about the INC, but in a power vaccuum, somebody is bound to emerge, and that person doesn't have to be Uday or Qusay.

If Saddam goes, I fail to see how the Saudis must necessarily be allowed to expand their activity by the new rulers. After a regime change, sanctions would presumably be lifted, and Iraq would be rolling in the dough. The US could lessen its dependence on the Saudis, and afford to be a little more straightforward with them. The bayonet would stay as long as it has to, just like in Afganistan, Japan, and Germany.

Nathanincanada,

You've not answered a single one of my points.

The United States can install an Iraqi National Congress government in Iraq at the point of a bayonet. The United States could install a government of blue cheese in Iraq at the point of a bayonet.

Neither the INC government nor the blue cheese government would have the slightest legitimacy without U.S. bayonets in place.

Giving the people who loved an anarchic Afghanistan because they could create the Taliban and finance Al-Qaeda there a second opportunity to do the same in Iraq is Idiotarian.

My commnent #50 was in response to #48. Now a response to #49.

The last time I looked at information on language graduates in the United States, less than 10 people were achieving competence in Arabic each year. That's Classical Arabic.
It's great if you want to read texts pre-AD 1000. It's not so great if you want to read and fully understand a modern newspaper or poorly written message from one Al-Qaeda operative to another.

It took years to train the Occupation staff who could operate competently in Japanese. The time isn't there since 9-11 to train people in Arabic to a competent level.

The Kurds and the Shiites? Neither group would have the legitimacy to be the equivalent of the Northern Alliance for the Sunni Arab population in central Iraq.

Except for that briefing by the refugee from Larouche Idiotarianism, the one so disowned so rapidly, I've yet to see any desire to face the problem of Saudi fundamentalism.

But Django, in the main, I did answer your points, and they are there for all to see. For example, you wrote: "Taking Saddam down means the Saudis have a large sandbox to expand their activities to." I responded with: "If Saddam goes, I fail to see how the Saudis must necessarily be allowed to expand their activity by the new rulers...."

Re: language training: First, the Shiites will be speaking Iraqi Arabic. Many of the Kurds will be fluently bilingual, and many of these will have a solid command of English. Afganistan was the most G-d-forsaken hell-hole before the US went in. Do you really think the US army was full of people speaking Pashtun and Uzbek? Look at the job they're doing now. The job isn't perfect, but it is getting done.

Second: Your point about distinguishing Classical Arabic from modern Iraqi Arabic is well taken. However, I don't know where you are getting your stats or what your criteria are. Are you including undergraduate, graduate, private, diplomatic, business, and military training programs in Arabic? What about those who have no need of language training in Iraqi Arabic because they already know it? That last group is probably very difficult to quantify. I personally know one ex-military man who used to be employed as part of a number of people in the transcribing of radioed Arabic military communications between operatives of an unspecified country (he refused to say). There have got to be others like him. There ought to be people left over from Desert Storm with knowledge of this area. Anyway, even if you do need an American army, (and you do), you don't need an American army of civil servants monitoring the phone lines with a friendly "Salaam!"

You wrote: "The United States could install a government of blue cheese in Iraq at the point of a bayonet. Neither the INC government nor the blue cheese government would have the slightest legitimacy without U.S. bayonets in place."

I responded with the examples of Japan, Germany, and present-day Afganistan. I don't exactly see Berlin or Tokyo as the capitals of anti-American countries actively harboring known terrorists of the calibre of bin Laden. It is true that the Karzai government is not universally accepted within Afganistan, but Afganistan was far more fragmented before the US invasion than Iraq is currently. Furthermore, the general acceptance of the Afganis for their government is likely to be paralleled by a similar development in Iraq, were Saddam ever to be toppled. Simply put, the people have no choice, and most of them would accept that. The Iraqis are impoverished, and want food and medical supplies, whether they are doled out from a puppet government or not. When they see their natural "friends" in the Islamic world recognize an American-sponsored government, that should take some of the wind out of their sails.

You are correct when you write that the Shiites and the Kurds would have no legitimacy with the Arabic Sunnis, and that is why you don't pick them, even as in Afganistan you didn't pick the President from a non-Pashtun tribe.

Like you, I do have concerns with what follows, but my biggest concern remains whatever damage Saddam could do with his remaining WMD in a war.

Finally, I am fundamentally in agreement with you about the lack of challenge to Saudi Wahabism. I just don't think it advisable when we've still got an Iraq which a) continually destabilizes Israel, and b) which does serve as a figurehead for Arab terrorists in a way that King Fahd & Co. do not, and c) where we have a known connection now to Al Qaeda in the form of the Al Ansar.

"that is why you don't pick them": i.e. to govern a unified Iraq. You DO allow them to facilitate action in war and stability afterwards.

Django's points only make sense if the scenario entails the U.S. rolling in, capturing/eliminating Saddam, taking some nice touristy photos, then completely leaving the place in a shambles, and everybody comes home.

Not exactly whats likely to happen.

When I mention the INC, it is only as a potential source for alternative personalities to serve in initial, interim leadership roles. Just as we aren't going to handpick who runs Afghanistan (the Afghans will themselves, in upcoming elections) a similar function would take place in Iraq. And the Iraqis would be the architects of the internal process - in the same manner the Afghans were with the Loya Jirga - which, although there is ample criticism that it was warlord dominated, and not a lot of 'progress' was made - it was their process. As the Iraqi process will be theirs, as well, with assistance from us to ensure that whatever they mark on their ballots is their actual choice - not the choice of someone holding their food ration in the one hand, and an AK-47 in the other.

As for not enough Arabic speakers to get the job done - I'll be the first to say that there are not nearly enough foriegn language proficient people available for all the jobs where they'd be useful in the U.S. Government. However, the actual situation (particularly with regards to Modern Arabic speakers)(and no, we don't train them to be proficient in the esoterics of ancient textual manuscripts) is not as dire or bleak as Django implies. His figure of less than 10 people per year for classic Arabic does make sense though - because very few people use it outside of acedemia. For real world, modern Arabic (which is useful in a much wider application than just 'speaking Iraqi') there have been hundreds of people over the last 10 years that have flowed through the language 'pipeline'.

Django, your concerns would be valid, if your backing assumptions were correct, but imho, they aren't.

Nathanincanada (message 52),

Language:

How many of the Shi'ite Arabs trust the United States? In 1991, the United States called on them to rebel, only to abruptly drop support in mid-rebellion. Round two, they're going to be much warier.

In Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance provided the on-the-ground language expertise. In Iraq, who? Possibly the Kurds, but there's already the potential of a conflict with the Turkmens over the main urban area. Somebody's going to walk away disappointed, and whoever does won't be cooperative/happy.

My figures for competence in Arabic are taken from informed sources in the Modern Language Association. The figures include undergraduate and graduate courses. Private and business students raise the total, but I'd demand proof of competence. Diplomatic and military training programs? DLI does what it can, but taking people off the job for six months (easier European languages) to two years or more (Japanese, Chinese, Arabic) means that the difficult languages get slighted. It's opportunity cost--length of overseas posting versus training duration.

The United States had approximately two-thousand people more or less competent in Japanese after World War II to handle communications, censorship, etc., in occupied Japan. That was with training in standard modern Japanese. The emigrants to the United States from Japan spoke dialects, with the more prevalent dialects being almost a separate language from standard modern Japanese. Even with two-thousand people and a seven-year occupation period, democracy in Japan is roughly equivalent to English democracy in the 1780-1830 rotten borough era.

Democracy in Iraq sounds like a nice idea. What duration of occupation do you think it will require? Israel has more than 34 years of engagement with the Palestinians (20 of that with civil Israeli administrators), and they're not even close. Do you believe that the United States would wait 34, 40, 50 years or more as part of a transition to democracy?

Afghanistan had the advantage of an organization that could act as a local government. In Iraq, you're at Year Zero, unless you rely on the Baath Party.

Sure, everything in Iraq could go flawlessly, and the country ends up as peaceful and democratic as 1952 Germany in the year 2009. I just don't see human nature being quite that malleable over that short a period of time.

Wind Rider (message 54),

I wish that I had a decent opinion of the Iraqi National Congress, as being something more than an organization that believes a revolution is a dinner party (in London). They aren't, I don't.

I just can't see any election in Iraq in the next decade or two throwing up a national leader devoted to democracy or peace with Israel.

So what happens then? Toodaloo and the United States applauds the will of the Iraqi people?

Django (#55),

I suggest that the difficulties you foresee in establishing democracy in Iraq are greatly exaggerated. If we were talking of Saudi Arabia, I would agree with you. But I think Iraq will be easier to democratise than any other country in the region, including Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein aside, Iraq is the Islamic country closest to Turkey in terms of its attitude to modernity.

Django,

I share some of your scepticism, but don't you think things can move faster these days, for the better as well as the worse? Globalisation works!

Look at Latin America and eastern Europe. Fifteen years or so ago they were nasty, brutal places with only distant memories - if even that - of freedom.

Today both regions are no paradises, but they are (Castro aside) democratic. Weak, corrupt, troubled - sure. But no serious threat to the West either, in and of themselves or as sources of instability.

I know adding Islam and some even darker history makes for a real challenge. Iraq, Saudi and others are hardly El Salvador or Romania. But I do hope that 2003 will turn out to be every bit as surprising - in a good way - as, say, 1989.

As for languages, that's a patriotic subject to study, for sure. My dad was an army spook in WW2 and postwar Europe, interrogating SS bastards when they were caught in uniform and hunting the fugitives after the war. His unit did a great job because it could draw on lots of American immigrants in a position to identify the very town a speaker was from, thus revealing the "I'm Hans from Duisburg and I was just with a tank unit in France" SS liars.

Now, in the current circumstances, who fancies doing a security clearance investigation on an immigrant in Dearborn and opting for "yes"? That's a real hard job with heavy responsibilities. Perhaps best avoided, for now, in all but a few clear-cut cases of loyalty.

I start Arabic classes in October.

Django #55, Thanks for the source on your figures. Just remember that you haven't caught everyone with you statistical net, because of its limitations. Re language again, you assume too much about the Kurds and the Shiites. If Israel can get collaborators (real, live ones) out of the Palestinians, so can the States in Iraq. Although there may competition and unhappiness, as you state, the fact is that everybody who could stand to make a buck is going to jump on the bandwagon.

"Even with two-thousand people and a seven-year occupation period, democracy in Japan is roughly equivalent to English democracy in the 1780-1830 rotten borough era."

I don't know if you meant democracy today or in the 1950's, but democracy today in Japan is far beyond the era you mention. All citizens voting, both sexes, and a very strong and vibrant democratic tradition.

I think you are right to be cautious (particularly in the Middle East), and I share many of your concerns, but I agree with Kolya and Riverman that you are a litte too pessimistic in your overall conclusions, and particularly as regards the two people groups discussed. In any case, the price of inaction may well be too high, but the potential gains for the region resulting from a regime change in Iraq are significant.

Way to go on the Arabic Riverman!

I was careful to separate Powell from the State Department culture and launch darts at each for their own problems.

I don't think Powell has played good soldier. Whenever he makes a statement in support of a Bush foreign policy he makes that muppett-like grimace and makes all sorts of qualifying statements. I do not consider that being a good soldier. One can use tone and body language to suggest something other than the actual words said, which Powell does loudly and clearly. He has been rebuked for some of his statements, I am thinking specifically of the "if Arafat is elected we will have to deal with him" vein of speech, which he later backpedalled from.

Regarding the state department. I don't think they are fighting for "my freedom," but if they are I wish they would stop. Their Arabism and anti-semitism (or anti-Zionism for those who like to make that distinction) is rotten to core, irrespective of Powell. While I don't blame Powell (even though it is his department now), it does not diminish the harm I believe the State Department does to our deterrent capabilities and harm to our sovereignty and security.

River, I do not consider you an enemy, but I do consider the State Department to be at best an enabler of my enemies. To the extent that you contribute to that please stop.

I don't know what you do to fight for "my freedom," but please don't assume to know what is best for me or our country without telling us what it is you do to fight for our freedom.

The last time I checked, we are supposed to have a government by the people for the people. Implicit in that charge is that the people have a say in how the government acts for the people, and I have had my say on the State Department. I do not think it is "for the people."

Another sign of Saudi cracking:

Here the Okaz writer uses the Amish as his prop - this is still Saudi and some things can't be said directly, even when you're just discussing learning English - to argue against the primitive-minded folk of his country:

"Most societies have such groups which refuse the blessings, ideas and achievements of modern civilization. The groups mistakenly believe that those things will undermine religious faith, corrupt social values and push the world closer to total moral degradation and chaos."

"A progressive society, however, cannot afford to listen to such people. Listening to them and their eccentric ideas means being left out of the modern world. The idea for students to learn English aims at helping them — and our society — keep abreast of technological progress and advances."

A small sign, very small. Not a word about peace and understanding, just “we need the technology”.

But still a good sign, because of the words the writer uses and the chance that (if he gets his way) more English speakers = less hatred. Or at least a sign that is a heckuva lot better than “shake the earth beneath their feet blah blah blah”. And, as far as I can tell, one of a growing number of positive signs.

Things really do seem to be shifting.

Riverman (message 58),

It would be nice if a revolution from the bottom could throw up decent political figures in the Middle East.

What, though, if there's free and fair election in Iraq and the devout 15-20 percent of the electorate votes for Osama Bin Laden over people running on tribal or community loyalties?

He could very well get the largest single number of votes.

What then?

Nathanincanada (message 59),

I know that my method has limitations. I also know that I've met people who were proud of their competence in a language, yet who couldn't even take a job interview in that language.

I most certainly do mean Japan today. Seats in parliament virtually inherited, bloc votes assured by payoffs.

The system is cracking from the bottom, but it's taken 55 years of elections for the people to truly begin to understand that it's their government, not the politicians' government.

As for the price of inaction, Saddam isn't worth the life of a single Israeli. I don't know what arsenal he has managed to retain despite the halted inspections, but it's safe to assume he'd fire off everything working at Israel in the event of a war. Gotterdammerung and all that. I'd much rather have the Israeli casualties of his last gasp remain alive.

Thanks Django. You evidenty know more about Japan than I do (I don't know that much, aside from the few but significant facts mentioned in the previous posting--don't forget that in the era you mentioned not only could English women not vote, but neither could most men). You want to talk about inherited seats?--come to Canada, where the Liberal power has reigned victoriously for most of the 20th and all of the 21st centuries. That being said, both Japan and Canada at least have high standards of living, and are peaceful places.

What you mentioned in your last line is my biggest fear about a war, too. But I also fear that the price of inaction is probably greater, longterm. I hope Saddam's means of sending his WMD to Israel is significantly reduced from his Gulf War days, and apparently it is. But obviously, someone more qualified than I should be making these judgment calls and doing the hard number crunching. We must perhaps agree to disagree about the necessity and viability of an attack on Iraq.

Django (#63),

You are right to be concerned about "votes for OBL". I'd never argue that this kind of concern is misplaced.

What I would say is that it is time to drag the fanatics right out into the sunlight. They might dazzle at first, but soon they will wither.

Darkness, instead, is just what they like. They hide in it. They use it to lead their peoples down all the wrong roads, without some of those people really understanding where they are being taken. Then they blame the darkness on the "imperialist" West and its support for "friendly" anti-democratic regimes. Operations, agendas, propaganda - all are easier to advance in darkness.

Sunlight, by contrast, works wonders. And if it doesn't, and everything goes wrong, it is certainly easier to find your targets in broad daylight, no matter how fancy your night vision equipment might be.

I know this is an optimistic view which can be shot down from all angles. But I still think this approach could work. It's also as hard-headed as it is altruistic - "divide the enemy from the people". And the darkness approach has plainly not worked. I mean, look where we are today!