Anouar Boukhars: The real battle is the civil war that is now being fought within Islam Conn Hallinan: Is Europe really the enemy? Or is George Bush merely afraid of the competition? William Dowell: Anyone remember Beirut or Vietnam?The mistake wasn't leaving. It was in getting involved inthe first place. Stephen Gottlieb: Mr. Bush's war can be expected to accomplish one thing: terrorism will get worse

New York University

ANTI-AMERICANISM IS BACK IN STYLE
Boston University professors Margaret and Melvin DeFleur have updated their study of attitudes about America in different countries of the world. Click here to see the an interactive guide.

Click here for the full report as a pdf file

David Isenberg's critique of Homeland Security and recommendations for improvements
[click on image to go to the executive summary]

PRESIDENT BUSH STARTS THE WAR
At 10:16 p.m. Wednesday night, President Bush went on television to announce that hostilities against Iraq had begun. "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder," said the president. "We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities. ...Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures..."
For full text of the speech, click here.

FIRST ATTACK AIMS AT KILLING 5 LEADING IRAQI OFFICIALS INCLUDING SADDAM
Operating on intelligence information, the attack misses Saddam who responds with a defiant speech on Iraqi television. Most observers who had been expecting "shock and awe" were surprised by the mildness of the strike. (BBC, March 19, 2003)

SADDAM APPEARS ON IRAQI TELEVISION SOON AFTER MISSILESTRIKE AIMED AT KILLING HIM
"The criminal little Bush has committed a crime against humanity," the beleaguered Iraqi president told the camera. "We pledge to you in our name and in the name of our leadership and in the name of the Iraqi people and its heroic army, in the name of Iraq, its civilization and history, that we will fight the invaders. God willing, we will take them to the limit where they lose their patience and any hope to achieve what they have planned and what the Zionist criminals have pushed them to do. They will be defeated." (Reuters, march 20, 2003)

GEORGE BUSH ORDERS SADDAM TO LEAVE IRAQ
"...All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately..."
(Full text of speech and on-line video, the White House, march 17, 2003)

BRITAIN AND THE U.S. BLAME FRANCE FOR U.N. DEBACLE
Abandoning its last efforts to get the U.N. Security council's authorization for a war, Britain's ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, left no doubt about who he holds responsible."Having held further discussions with council members over the weekend and in the last few hours," Greenstock said curtly,"we have had to conclude that council consensus will not be possible in line with Resolution 1441. One country in particular has underlined its intention to veto any ultimatum "no matter what the circumstances." That country rejected our proposed compromise before even the Iraqi Government itself and has put forward suggestions that would row back on the unanimous agreement of the council in resolution 1441 and those suggestions would amount to no ultimatum, no pressure and no disarmament.
Given this situation the co-sponsors have agreed that we will not pursue a vote on the draft UK-US-Spanish resolution in blue... The co-sponsors reserve their right to take their own steps to secure the disarmament of Iraq..."
Full text of Greenstock's U.N. Statement
Full text of joint news conference in the Azores(From the White House)

U.S. AND BRITISH FORCES MOVING INTO IRAQ WITH MUCH LESS FORCE THAN DESERT STORM
Rumsfeld's strategy relies on massive bombardment, new technology and the hope that Iraq's population will immediately turn against Saddam. Although 225,000 troops are in the region, most will be used for logistics. Only 120,000 will actually take part in the invasion force. Despite the fact that Iraq is roughly the size of France, the invasion force will have a third less tanks than the force used to liberate Kuwait. The Defense Department decided to disregard the classic formula that an invasion force needs to be three times larger than the defending army.(Michael Evans, Defense Editor(The Times of London, March 17, 2003)

HOW THE DIPLOMACY WENT WRONG
The New York Times gives the administration’s version of why diplomacy didn't work. While pushing for a compromise U.N. resolution in September, the administration thought it had France’s support to follow up with a declaration of war. As it turned out, Washington miscalculated. Not only was France against war, but it managed to convince the rest of the Security Council to vote against armed conflict as well. That left the Bush administration isolated, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s awkward comments about Europe further exacerbated the situation.
(The New York Times, March 17, 2003)

THE COST OF RECONSTRUCTION
The U.S. could find itself obliged to pay the salaries of some 2 million Iraqi civil servants, in addition to footing the grocery bills for up to 60% of Iraq's 23 million population, not to mention up to 70,000 U.S. troops who may have to be stationed in the country on a semi-permanent basis. The cost has been projected at up to $20 billion or more a year. The Pentagon has been understandably nervous about talking about the war's projected costs. The man in charge of reconstruction, retired Lieutenant General Jay Garner, ducked a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in which he would have been forced to respond to tough questions, and opted instead to field softer questions in a more controlled setting at a Pentagon news conference. The director of USAID also sidestepped a request to answer the Senate's questions.
The Washington Post reports currently circulating details of the plan
The Pentagon briefing on reconstructing Iraq (March 11, 2003)

THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE LOOKS AT THE COST
Former NSC aide, Eric P. Schwartz, estimates costs at $20 billion a year (using congressional Budget Office's estimate at $1.4 billion a month). Schwartz warns that it's unrealistic to expect to pay costs with Iraq's oil..

James Schlessinger and Thomas Pickering discuss the 'Day After' victory at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Adding it all up, Paul Krugman predicts a fiscal "train wreck"

HOW THE ARABS SEE IT
"The number one priority is the imminent foreign occupation of an Arab state," says Walid Khadduri, editor-in-chief of the Middle East Economic Survey."This is a catastrophe on a scale no less than the one that occurred in Palestine in 1948. And the tragedy is that the occupation this time is being carried out by the most powerful state in the world, partnered in the operation by other foreign states with a variety of claims and aspirations in the Arab world. Despite the welter of explanations and pretexts relating to the nature of the forthcoming foreign military rule in Iraq, there will be only one outcome. From that moment on, the operative words will be: resistance to foreign occupation, with all that this implies…"
(MEES Editor-in-Chief Walid Khadduri In al-Nahur, March 7, 2003)

ANGER AT U.S. THREATS AGAINST IRAQ IS TURNING INTO A BONANZA FOR AL QAEDA'S ACCELERATING RECRUITMENT DRIVE
Resentment against U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm provided Osama Bin Laden with a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Intelligence officials fear that the U.S. invasion of Iraq may inspire a new generation of terrorist activists.
(Don van Natta and Desmond Butler in the New York Times, March 15, 2003)

A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THE DIRTY BOMB THREAT
Not technically a weapon of mass destruction, the so-called dirty bomb uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material around a specific area. It won't kill masses of people instantly, but it can terrorize and urban population, prove economically disruptive and it can make large tracts of a city temporarily uninhabitable. David Isenberg examines one of the more unsettling weapons in the new terrorist arsenal. (David isenberg, Basic, 2003)

POSTWAR GEOSTRATEGY, OIL MARKETS AND TERRORISM
Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman, former chief of the CIA's Near East and South Asia Division, Fareed Mohamedi, Chief Economist of the Petroleum Finance Company, Ltd., and Leon Hadar of the Cato institute, discuss the ramifications of a U.S. takeover in Iraq (The Middle East Policy Council, January 10, 2003)

WINNERS AND LOSERS
Vice-president Dick Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, is likely to win $3-5 billion in contracts to refurbish Iraq’s petroleum industry. Halliburton was on the verge of landing a contract with Saddam in 1998, but was blocked from proceeding at the time by U.S. sanctions. A Halliburton subsidiary has already won the contract to put out oil fires expected from Saddam. The losers in the war are likely to be France’s TotalFinaElf, which had $7 billion in contracts, and Moscow, which is still owed more than $8 billion by Saddam’s regime.
(LA Times March 12, 2003)

OTHER U.S. COMPANIES ENJOY AN INSIDE TRACK
Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp., Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, Louis Berger Group Inc., and Parsons Corp have all been invited by the USAID to give advanced bids to play a role in reconstructing Iraq. The prize: a cool $900 million.(CapitalEye.org--The Center for Responsive politics-- March 12, 2003)
(*Contributions by these companies to last two election campaigns total $2.8 million: Click here for a breakdown on who gave what to candidates)

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT:SIGNIFICANTLY ALTERING AMERICA'S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE
In a nuanced profile, the New York Times notes that Ashcroft has proven himself to be a wily political infighter while making radical changes in the legal rights and liberties which many Americans have previously taken for granted. In the process, Ashcroft has deftly sidestepped Senate oversight and run roughshod over his own prosecutors whom he deemed too liberal. Friendly to the NRA, Ashcroft has balked at renewing a ban against civilians owning military assault rifles and he has argued that the right to bear arms should apply to individuals as well as groups like the National Guard. While he has tried to limit the kind of information law enforcement agencies can have access to about gun ownership, Ashcroft has argued forcefully in favor of giving police agencies the right to invade the privacy of individuals with reduced judicial oversight.
(Eric Lichtblau and Adam Liptak in The New York Times, March 15, 2003)

The ACLU analyzes Ashcroft's proposed "Domestic Security Enhancement Act" Among other things, the act shelters federal agents who practice illegal surveillance on orders from higher ranking officers in the Executive Branch. It gives the government secret access to credit reports without judicial process and it allows the cataloguing of genetic information without permission of the subject. It also permits wiretaps, searches and surveillance of U.S. citizens on behalf of foreign governments and authorizes secret arrests without criminal charges. It allows the Executive branch to strip the citizenship of a native-born American if he is accused of providing support to an organization the Justice Department deems to be aiding terrorism. The accused can then be imprisoned indefinitely as an "undocumented alien."
To read the ACLU's memorandum, click here
To read a draft of the proposed law, click here (The Center for Public Integrity)

SARS-SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME HAS HEALTH AUTHORITIES WORRIED
The mysterious disease is not only potentially lethal, but it also demonstrates how quickly a biological agent can spread with modern air travel. For BBC's account with a map of recent cases, click here.

For a background briefing at the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, click here.

AMERICAN PEACE ACTIVIST KILLED BY ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCES
Rachel Corrie, 23, tried to stop an Israeli bulldozer from demolishing a Palestinian home by standing in front of it. The tactic did not work. A bulldozer covered her with sand and then drove over her as other peace activists shouted to the driver to stop. The driver then backed up, driving over her body a second time. She died from chest and skull fractures. The Israeli Defense force said it was a regrettable incident, but that the peace demonstrators were engaging in a dangerous activity. Corrie's death followed another incident in which an Israeli helicopter mistakenly opened fire on an Israeli security guard and killed him as he ran across an empty field.
Rachel Corrie reported by the BBC, March 17, 2003-click here
The report in Ha'aretz, March 16, 2003-click here
Israeli security guard shot by IDF helicopter(Ha'aretz, March 16, 2003)
Analysis (Ha'aretz, March 16, 2003)

AFTER IRAQ, IS IRAN NEXT?
London's International Institute of Strategic Studies points out that Iran may be more of a nuclear threat than Iraq, but the U.S. is not positioned to do much about it.
(IISS, March 2003)

DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S WARNING, SADDAM MAY TARGET HIS OWN OIL FIELDS
With explosives already installed near Kirkuk, oil fires expected to be set by Saddam could be twice as environmentally dangerous as the Kuwait fires that followed Desert Storm.
(Environment News Service, March 10, 2003)

U.S. CONSIDERED USING TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN VIETNAM WAR
The Nautilus Institute releases a previously classified Pentagon document discussing the arguments for and against using tactical nuclear weapons during the Vietnam War. The study concluded that the weapons were not necessary, and that using them would increase the risk that similar weapons might be used against American troops. The document was obtained by the Freedom of Information Act.
Nautilus Institute, March 2003.

A STORMY AND VIOLENT PAST
With much of Baghdad understandably on edge these days, the New Yorker's Jon Lee Anderson spends the city's last hours in search of a relic from Iraq's turbulent history. Anderson writes: "...At the Triumph Leader Museum, which houses a collection of gifts given to Saddam Hussein over the years, curators had removed things from the display cases and squirreled them away for safekeeping, although it was doubtful how safe anything would be anywhere in Baghdad once the bombs began to fall. I went to the museum to take another look at the gun that had been used in 1920 to assassinate Colonel Gerard Leachman, a British officer who spent the First World War in the deserts of what was then Mesopotamia, leading Bedouins in skirmishes against the Ottoman Turks. By 1920, after the League of Nations gave the British a “mandate” to govern what was now referred to as Iraq, Leachman was trying to subdue restive Arab tribesmen. He advocated “wholesale slaughter” as the only really effective method, and in present-day Iraq his assassin, Sheikh Dhari, is remembered as a hero and a patriot. The Sheikh’s descendants gave his gun to Saddam as a birthday present a few years ago..."
(Jon Lee Anderson, The New Yorker, March 24, 2003)
To read Anderson's complete report, click here.

BRINGING OUT THE ANIMAL IN US
Despite the current trend favoring embarrassingly brainless anti-French jokes on TV talk shows--not to mention Congress' courageous decision to offer "Freedom Fries"--a surprising number of Americans suspect the French might be right. France’s Mission to the United Nations has been overwhelmed by a flood of emails expressing support for its opposition to the war. (The French mission received a record 12,000 positive emails in one week, including 5,000 the day Colin Powell addressed the Security Council).
While Washington insists that the French are duplicitous, Paris sees it differently. The U.N.’s equivocally-worded Resolution 1441 was sold largely on the argument that a united front in the Security council would bluff Saddam into letting arms inspectors do their job. When it became clear that the bluff had failed and that the administration really did not care about inspections, and would accept nothing less than Saddam’s ouster, the French and Russians decided to make their opposition to the war unequivocal. What started as a difference in opinion over geostrategy has since degenerated into an unprecedented wave of unseemly name calling and ethnic slurs that have little to do with the situation in Iraq. Justin Vaisse, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution describes the difficulties of being typecast if you happen to be a Frenchman in Washington during a period of heightened jingoism.
(Justin Vaisse, The Financial Times, March 16, 2003)
To read Vaisse's essay, click here

Need information, but having trouble with a broken link? Send an e-mail to wtd2@nyu.edu
or click here
We may be able to help

For quick access to the Global Beat, set your bookmark to:
http://globalbeat.org

THE SEARCH FOR A NUCLEAR WEAPON FOR LIMITED CONFLICTS
Mark Bromley and David Grahame report on the Pentagon's search for a nuclear "bunker buster"

THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL

Rose Gottmoeller:
an interactive assessment of nuclear disarmament after the Moscow Summit,