EHSAN AHRARI & JOHN J. SCHULZ: Toppling Saddam will lead to unintended strategic and economic consequences. The president needs to think again. THE GLOBAL BEAT'S INTERACTIVE REPORTS Nuclear Bunker busters AND Post-Moscow Disarmament

New York University

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,

The Journalists' Essential Field Guide to Afghanistan
by Edward Girardet

click here

REPORTING ETHNICITY AND
OTHER DIVERSITY
ISSUES
by The European
Center for War,
Peace &
The News Media
click here

PRESIDENT BUSH OUTLINES IRAQ THREAT
In a plea for a greenlight from Congress, President George W. Bush fires his best shot at painting Saddam as an immediate threat. Bush, delivered the message to a carefully selected group of supporters in Cincinnati, Ohio. Although cable TV carried the speech, the TV networks preferred to broadcast entertainment and sports programs instead. The president said that war was not inevitable, but he went on to argue that Saddam could strike at the US at any time without leaving fingerprints behind. “The US did not ask for this present challenge," said Bush, "but we accept it.” He added that the "smoking gun could come as a mushroom cloud."
George Bush, the White House, October 7, 2002
The New York Times’ assessment
NY Times-CBS Poll indicates most Americans feel that Bush is spending too much time on Iraq and too little on the Economy.

JULIUS CAESAR ON THE POTOMAC?
Jay Bookman, deputy editorial page editor of the Atlanta Constitution speculates that Saddam is not the only reason for plunging the US into war. The destruction of Saddam is actually the first step in a coordinated plan to transform the US into a defacto empire. Take over Iraq, and Washington will have control over both the Middle East and the oil that the rest of the world depends on. It’s all part of a 10-year strategy by former Reagan acolytes, who used to be on the fringe of policy thinking, but have now won over the president.

USING ISRAEL AS A BASE TO ATTACK IRAQ: THE EGYPTIAN VIEW
The Israeli newspaper, Mariv, reports that the US is creating massive stockpiles of weapons in Israel prior to launching a strike against Iraq. But by involving Israel in its campaign against Iraq, Arab commentators argue that Washington may be setting the stage for something bigger than the removal of Saddam.
By Hassan Abu Taleb in Al Ahram. October 7, 2002

OVER CONFIDENT?
George W. Bush, never managed to see active military service so he may have missed the old GI expression for the fog of war, SNAFU (“situation normal--all f---d up”). Michael Klare, notes in the Nation, that the most noticeable element missing in the White House’s rhetoric these days is a real sense of how profoundly wrong things can go in a real combat situation.
By Michael Klare in the Nation, October 7, 2002

THE FORCES BEHIND SADDAM
If the US goes ahead and conquers Iraq, it will need to pacify fractious groups it barely understands. The International Crisis Group provides a brief survey of the key players, and the scenarios we can expect to see.
ICG October 7, 2002

DISORIENTATION
George Bush’s Axis of Evil was an obvious attempt at a replay of Ronald Reagan’s Evil Empire. The phrase didn’t work for Bush and he has let it slide for the moment, but it would be a mistake to ignore the policy vacuum that led to Bush’s choice in the first place. By Mark Lilla in the New York Review of Books, October 24, 2002

PUTIN GUARANTEES THAT RUSSIAN OIL INTERESTS IN IRAQ WILL BE PROTECTED, EVEN IF THERE IS WAR
Putin reveals that his understanding with Washington calls for the Iraqi state to remain even if Saddam is not part of it.
By the Moscow Times, October 6, 2002

ROBERT KAGAN ELABORATES “POWER AND WEAKNESS" ON LINE
Robert Kagan kicked off the debate on the changing nature of the US role in the world with his essay, “Power and Weakness,” which argues that the US projects power because it can, while Europe takes a more conciliatory stance because it lacks the capacity to do anything else. Kagan will conduct a live on-line discussion on reactions to his essay this Tuesday. To connect to the discussion and the essay, click here.
By Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 7, 2002

SPY SATELLITES PICK UP BIN LADEN PHONE CALL
Intercepts of satellite phone calls seem to show Osama Bin Laden recently talking with Afghanistan's Sheik Omar.
The Guardian, October 6, 2002

AL JAZEERA BROADCASTS BIN LADEN TAPE THREATENING MORE ATTACKS
Bin Laden, or a voice purporting to be Bin Laden, refers to the White House as Jewish agents preparing to attack the Muslim world, and promises to respond in kind.
By Ha’aretz Sunday October 6, 2002

NEW YORKER: OUR MAN IN LATIN AMERICA
Otto Reich has had a special interest in Castro for a long time. Now he is a key architect of US policy towards Cuba.
By William Finnegan in the new Yorker, October 7, 2002

INDICATIONS RUSSIA MAY SHIFT COURSE ON CHECHNYA
Russia appears to be increasingly bogged down in its attempts to dominate Chechnya. There are signs now that Moscow may be looking for a way out. One sign is a call by Primakov for discussions with Chechen leaders.
The Moscow Times, October 6, 2002

RUSSIA APPEARS TO BACK DOWN ON REFUGEE RETURN
Last May, Russian authorities said they would have all Chechen refugees home by this fall. With Russian troops obviously unable to control the situation in Chechnya, refugees were understandably reluctant to go along with the plan. In fact, hardly any did, and now the president of Ingushetia says that there was never any intention of forcing anyone to leave.
By Thomas de Waal, the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, October 4, 2002

HOW LIBERAL IS ISRAEL'S HA'ARETZ
Ran Ha-Cohen notes that Israel's popular website in English often omits nationalistic articles that appear in the newspaper's Hebrew edition. Is Ha'aretz biased, or simply trying to cover all its bases?

SUDDENLY THE US MILITARY SEEMS TO BE EVERYWHERE
William Hartung, Michelle Ciarrocca and Frida Berrigan look at the suddenly expanded US military presence in the world:
"...the preparations for 'Gulf War II' are part of a larger plan to promote the most significant expansion of US global military presence since the end of the cold war. The Pentagon is determined to maintain access to the rapidly growing network of military facilities it has built or refurbished in the Caucasus, South Asia and the Persian Gulf for decades to come, long after George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein have passed from the global stage.
In the fall of 1999, in his first major campaign speech on foreign policy, Bush criticized the Clinton Administration for sending US troops off on "aimless and endless deployments" that allegedly detracted from their core mission of fighting and winning wars. Bush was primarily referring to US peacekeeping missions in places like Kosovo, but he gave the impression that he was planning to reduce the overall US military presence overseas as well. Three years later, Bush's pledge to seek a more streamlined US global military presence has been cast aside under the guise of fighting "terrorists and tyrants" of Washington's choosing.
Since September 2001 US forces have built, upgraded or expanded military facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkey, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan; authorized extended training missions or open-ended troop deployments in Djibouti, the Philippines and the former Soviet republic of Georgia; negotiated access to airfields in Kazakhstan; and engaged in major military exercises, involving thousands of US personnel, in Jordan, Kuwait and India. Thousands of tons of military equipment have been added to stockpiles already pre-positioned in Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf states, including Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and Qatar. And discussions are still under way with Yemen about increasing American access to facilities there and establishing an intelligence-gathering installation aimed at monitoring activities in Sudan and Somalia.
These forward bases, many of which have been arranged through secretive, ad hoc arrangements, currently house an estimated 60,000 US military personnel. This includes 20,000-25,000 troops in the Persian Gulf, poised to serve as the opening wave of a US invasion of Iraq..."
By William Hartung, Michelle Ciarrocca and Frida Berrigan in The Nation.

Check out Zoned for Debate
NYU's Webforum on current issues in journalism

Click here, or on the image of the Zoned for Debate web page

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

NYU FIRST
09/11 8:48AM: Documenting America's Greatest Tragedy
click here