Manfred Elfstrom: Compassion in a war economy Jeffrey Fields: Small arms are becoming the other weapon of mass destruction Ronald Bruce StJohn: What comes next for the U.S. in Libya Ralph A. Cossa: The talks in North Korea Emira Woods and Carl Patrick Burrowes: Getting beyond the troop debate in Liberia Ehsan Ahrari: the Baathist danger in Iraq

New York University

U.S. State Department's
Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism for 2002

The US State Department's Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism for 2001

PRESIDENT BUSH: WE WON'T BACK DOWN IN IRAQ, BUT IT IS GOING TO COST
President Bush all but admitted that the administration's campaign to use Iraq as a vehicle to pacify the Middle East has run into serious problems. The cost to American taxpayers is going to be much heavier than even administration's harshest critics had expected--at least $87 billion up front, and the final cost is open ended. Getting our former allies to shoulder part of the financial cost and shifting part of the military burden to other countries will entail mending the diplomatic damage caused by hundreds of careless administration remarks and press coverage like that in the New York Post which involved superimposing weasels over the heads of the president of France and the chancellor of Germany in a cover spread while the administration was busy twisting arms to obtain a pro-war resolution at the U.N. Failing outside helpo, expect major cuts in U.S. domestic social programs. What Bush's speech lacked was any explanation of how the burgeoning war costs will tally with his massive tax cuts for the wealthy earlier this year. And what the speech really lacked was any clear idea of an exit plan from the worsening Iraqi quagmire in the foreseeable future.
(President Bush's speech, in text, streaming video and streaming audio from the White House website(click in right hand box for video and audio), September 7, 2003)

TOM SHALES LOOKS AT THE SPEECH IN THE WASHINGTON POST
"A worried-looking George W. Bush had bad news and good news about Iraq for the American people in an 17-minute speech televised on all the networks last night. The good news, in his words: "We're rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization." The bad news: He's asking Congress for $87 billion to continue the rolling. Consistently throughout the speech, Bush's eyes were glued to the prompting device attached to the camera -- though he still kept turning the typed pages of text in front of him -- and at first he seemed to be reciting rather than talking. He was stiff and listless, as he sometimes is without an audience present. The expression on his face suggested anxiety as much as it did resolve. But as he continued, Bush relaxed a little in his delivery and seemed less frozen before the camera...."
(Tom Shales, Washington Post, September 8, 2003)

THE ECONOMIST: $87 BILLION WON'T DO THE JOB
The $87 billion requested by President Bush comes on top of $80 billion already spent, and it won't get the job done, according to the Economist. At least another $20 billion or more will have to be spent on development costs, and don't count on outside aid unless the White House goes through a major rethink. (The Economist, September 8, 2003)

DAVID CORN COMMENTS IN THE NATION
"There's nothing like dropping to a 52-percent approval rating to send a president--especially a wartime president--rushing to the Cabinet room ( sans table) to deliver a prime time speech declaring "great progress." Bush both reiterated that Iraq was a crucial battle in the war against terrorism and asserted it now is "the central front." On the first point, he had nothing to say--literally--to back up his prewar assertions. He did not address the where-are-the-weapons criticism he has received over the past few months. Instead, he hailed his invasion for having overturned a regime that "sponsored terror" and "possessed and used weapons of mass destruction." Possessed and used, that is, if one looks back to the Iraq of the 1980s (when Saddam Hussein was being courted by the Reagan and Bush I administrations)... "
(David Corn, The Nation, September 8, 2003)

THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE: IRAQ IS UNSUSTAINABLE AT CURRENT TROOP LEVELS AFTER NEXT MARCH
The Congressional Budget Office's detailed analysis of the extent to which U.S. troop strength is being stretched by deployment in Iraq. The U.S. Army lacks the manpower to rotate troops in Iraq beyond next March. It could sustain a force of 67,000 to 105,000 troops indefinitely after that, but at a cost of $14 to $19 billion a year. Training and equipping two additional divisions to meet the demands of Iraq would cost up to $19 billion and take 5 years to accomplish. Operating cost of running the divisions would come to another $6 billion a year, plus another $3-4 billion annually to deploy them in Iraq. A more realistic force of 85,000 to 129,000 personnel would cost the U.S. $23 billion to $29 billion a year.
(Congressional Budget Office, September 3, 2003 (in html and pdf))

GENERAL ZINNI SPEAKS TO MARINE AND NAVAL OFFICERS ON IRAQ
The former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East warns that the lack of a coherent strategy and sufficient resources in Iraq risks failure and ultimately threatens to break the U.S. armed forces. Zinni's speech to the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Marine Corps Association, drew thunderous applause from the audience, and a rush to buy compact disks of the text.
(General Anthony Zinni, The Washington Post, September 4, 2003)

RUMSFELD: CRITICS MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE TERRORISTS
Under increasing attack, Donald Rumsfeld gave a smoothly-executed photo-op oriented performance on his latest whirl-wind tour of Iraq. Glossing over difficulties that many see as as the first stages leading to a quagmire, the secretary emphasized the humanitarian disaster that might have been and the growing number of satellite dish antennas--a sign of burgeoning westernization. Rumsfeld announced that the responsibility for finding the elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction has now been transferred to former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay and the CIA's George Tenet (these remarks were made on board Rumsfeld's plane in Ireland, and reported by the New York Times), effectively taking Rumsfeld out of the loop on one of the administration's most embarrassing issues. As for the ongoing security problems, Rumsfeld argued that no one at the Pentagon could have foreseen that Saddam's supporters might sidestep combat and simply blend into the countryside, saving their forces for guerrilla-style hit-and-run attacks. On the plane back to the U.S., Rumsfeld accused his critics of aiding terrorists and slowing the pacification of Iraq (Washington Post, September 8, 2003). Although perennially optimistic, Rumsfeld gave no insight on how the U.S. might eventually extricate itself from Iraq. Instead he emphasized a determination to stay the course despite the burgeoning costs of the Bush administration's Middle East campaign. (Rumsfeld on-site briefing to the press in Iraq (Saturday, September 6, 2003)
Briefing to Press in Iraq
The Washington Post coverage
New York Times

WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ (and Afghanistan, and Liberia)
Michael Ignatieff, writing in the New York Times Magazine, explores the reasons that led George W. Bush to use force as a first resort, and traces the history of American interventionism to the early days of the Republic. The basic rules: always pick on someone who is smaller, or at least someone who doesn't have functional nuclear weapons, and don't pick fights with a place like Vietnam, where ordinary citizens are prepared to die. Ignatieff traces conservative fears of appeasement to the Clinton administrations hasty withdrawal of Somalia after Black Hawk Down. He neglects to mention that it was really Reagan's ignominious withdrawal from Beirut after more than 200 Marines were killed by a truck bomb that kindled a belief among Middle Eastern extremists that the U.S. isn't prepared to go the course.
(Michael Ignatieff in the New York Times Magazine, September 4, 2003)

THE PENTAGON OFFERS AN EXPENSIVE WINDFALL TO BOEING
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Air Force is preparing to pay Boeing an extra $1.5 billion to $2 billion in a plan to lease 100 or more K-767-A in flight refueling tankers rather than buying the planes outright. The Pentagon's leasing scheme will cost roughly $161 million per plane over the entire leasing period rather than the $131 million that the plane would cost to purchase outright. The CBO reports that as structured now, the leasing scheme violates Congressional Scorecard and Office of Management and Budget guidelines, and is consequently not in compliance with the Defense Department Appropriations Act of 2002.
Congressional Budget Office, September 4, 2003 (pdf format)

CRISIS WATCH
The International Crisis Group has launched a monthly list of the world's major trouble spots. Potential hot zones include Ivory Coast, Iraq, India, Indonesia and others. looking better: Burundi, Congo, and Sierra Leone.(ICG, September 8, 2003)

Ahmed Qureia makes a point

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY GETS A NEW P.M.
Ahmed Qureia, who has just become Prime Minister after serving as speaker of the legislature, has as little public support in Israel as his predecessor Mahmoud Abbas, but Qureia is considered a more wily politician, and he has been campaigning for the spot for some time. Although considered a moderate, and a supporter of the peace process, his appointment is primarily an indication that Arafat is still calling the shots.(Arnon Regular in Ha'aretz, September 8, 2003)

ABU ALA'S DIFFICULT JOB
To meet American and Israeli expectations, Ahmed Qureia, a.k.a. Abu Ala will have to suppress the Tanzim, the armed militia of his own political movement. To do that he will need unfettered control of the Palestinian Authority's security forces. Until now, that is a point on which Yassir Arafat has refused to yield. (Ha'aretz, September 9, 2003)

DID THE U.S. DECIDE AGAINST A PALESTINIAN STATE BEFORE CAMP DAVID?
Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery writes in Counter Punch that recently declassified secret documents show that the U.S. had already made up its mind before launching Camp David 25 years ago. Says Avnery:"Before the meeting even started, the Americans had, without consulting the parties, prepared the full text of an agreement. This text is very similar to the agreement that eventually emerged. The main victim of Camp David was, of course, the Palestinian people. The Americans had decided beforehand that there was no place for a sovereign Palestinian state, but only for some kind of "autonomy" that would allow the Israeli occupation to continue..." (Uri Avnery in Counterpunch, September 8, 2003)

GOOD BYE TO SAUDI ARABIA
The Bush administration seems set on severing the longstanding relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. A likely casualty of the divorce: low oil prices that previous administrations had considered vital to American security.
(Paul Michael Wihbey in The Spectator, September 6, 2003)

MURDOCH GETS READY TO TAKE ON THE BBC
Tony Blair isn't the only one trying to scuttle the BBC these days. Rupert Murdoch, who promotes the bombastically slanted Fox News channel and the embarrassingly sleaze-prone New York Post, is reportedly now maneuvering behind the scenes to undercut the pride of British broadcasting when the BBC comes up for charter renewal shortly. New York Magazine's Michael Wolf reports on the right wing tycoon's latest maneuvers.
(Michael Wolf in the New York Post, September 8, 2003)

MURDOCH RESHAPES AMERICAN MEDIA
Rupert Murdoch's politics may lean to the right, but James Fallows argues in the Atlantic Monthly that his real interest lies in making money. By espousing a conservative line, Murdoch has managed to resonate with a public that is already reacting against the downside of globalization, and is understandably nervous about an ominously unpredictable future.
(James Fallows, The Atlantic Monthly, September 2003)

US GI's detain an Iraqi suspect

The Security Policy Working Group

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