Keith,
As I said, Bush gave a commanding major speech in the place where Charles
was beheaded. He did it with the aid of a teleprompter and didn't stumble at
all.
Blair I see at Question Time (Churchill's "Daily Press Conference").
Seems to me he does very well. The new Tory leader gives as good as he gets,
which makes Question Time great fun.
As they said goodbye before a crowd of Press, they seemed almost jolly -
probably relieved because everything had gone so well.
The arms cache were found everywhere during the advance to Baghdad - one
of the reasons that led me to conclude Iraq under Saddam was a basket case. My
favorite was the hospital (you'll recall that schools and hospitals were
favorite repositories) which not only hid arms, but a tank.
The problem with guerrillas is that they merge into the population, so
that's where the fighting may take place. So, who is to blame for civilian
casualties?
Harry
********************************************
Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ed Weick; Ray Evans Harrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Hamer is not an Ambassador (was Re: [Futurework] Has Saddam won?
Hi Lawry,Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ed Weick; Ray Evans Harrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Hamer is not an Ambassador (was Re: [Futurework] Has Saddam won?
At 00:30 18/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Paul Bremer III it is. His rank is Ambassador, though he is not accredited to an Iraqi government. The rank gives him access to certain perquisites and general credibility.
Bremer is known as Jerry among those who know him, and among those who know him there at least one who has characterized him as 'shallow and self-seeking' -- but that was some years ago and Bremer, like all of us, may have grown and changed since then. I hope so: he has a near-impossible task.
He has an impossible task I would have thought. The present American attacks on "terrorists" are sheer PR jobs. Some terrible act of savagery is almost certain any day now if the Americans troops continue to be pushed as they are now. I think probably they're being accelerated now while Bush is in England to give the impression of heightened terrorism in Iraq. My reading of Blair's (facial) behaviour is that he is close to psychological breakdown. I may be totally wrong, of course, but I don't recall seeing any politician quite as stressed as I am interpreting Blair at this present time. Bravado for some speeches and some unsual decisions he's taken recently, and then followed on another occasion by extremely stressful symptoms. He's gaunt with worry. I think he's probably in a drugged state a lot of the time now. I also think that Bush is very heavily stressed and could also break down -- but this is written with much less confidence because I haven't seen enough of him on TV. But if either of them suddenly fall ill with some sort of 'diplomatic illness' I wouldn't be at all surprised. I also think (I've said this before but I feel it's worth repeating) that there must be a group at the top of the US administration who are watching events in the White House very closely and with very great unease indeed -- as they did with Nixon (and in his case, when the papers are released in due course, I think a group close to Nixon will be seen to have been very close to de-throning him on grounds of mental imbalance). Bush could easily start drinking again, I imagine, and go on a bender that will be witnessed by someone.
The US position in Iraq is collapsing, and the best thing the US can now do is declare victory and pull out. If it was done smartly (in both senses of the word) it might undo a substantial portion of the damage that our invasion of Iraq has created.
I think they're going to have to go -- and a lot earlier than their declared intentions by means of having elections in June. There is no way that Ayatollah Sistani is going to agree to anything less than a democratic election for a Constitution committee (which would be Shia dominated). Any sort of pro-American Provisional Government is quite impossible to concoct I would have thought without control breaking down immediately. I can't see any way out now except via a civil war and the emergence of some elite and perhaps even Saddam himself -- except possibly an imminent and complete transfer of all responsibility to the UN and a large enough international occupying force under an Arab or Third World general acceptable to the Shias.
This has got to be one of the most complex situations ever, with the greatest potential for a terrifying civil war, considering the number of weapon dumps that were apparently left when the Americans came in (and not gathered in by them). I think it will very much depends on what types of weapons were left, and in what numbers, and who laid hands on them. (I guess most of the dumps will have been in the Sunni triangle/Tikrit area.) Also, how many weapons will be sent over by the Iranians to help the Shias?
Let us hope that good sense will prevail.
There's little chance of that, I think. The whole situation is too taut. Almost any decision will be misinterpreted by one group or another.
Keith
Cheers,
Lawry
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
