Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines From: GROSS@BCVMS.BITNET (Rob Gross) Newsgroups: soc.politics.arms-d Subject: Arms-Discussion Digest V9 #15 Message-ID: <9106290528.AA19448@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Date: 29 Jun 91 06:27:00 GMT Sender: Arms-L Mailing List Reply-To: Arms-L Mailing List Organization: The Internet Lines: 275 Approved: arms-d@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Arms Discussion Digest V9 #15 From: Rob Gross (moderator) Saturday, June 29, 1991, 01:24 EDT Arms Discussion Digest Volume 9 : Issue 15 All submissions to ARMS-L@BUACCA.BU.EDU (ARMS-L@BUACCA.BITNET) Please do not post articles, as they have a high probability of being lost. Today's topics: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V9 #14 (zrra07) Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V9 #13 Request for information on how one becomes a defense analyst (Michael D'Alessandro) submission to arms-l (Partha S. Banerjee) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 10:14:48 CDT From: zrra07@trc.amoco.com Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V9 #14 About a letter on the Philippines from Jay Sultan who suggested abondoning our bases in the Philippines, and "blowing up the runways as we leave" ... Why "blow up the runways"? Why not leave them, and not loose even more goodwill than we have? After all, we cannot exactly take them with us. Also, there are no "nearby bases". We have been offered minor port rights by Singapore, but Singapore is so small that is not room for a base anywhere near the size of either Clark or Subic Bay. So no joy. We could relocate to parts of Japan, or Okinowa (owned by Japan). But I personally wonder how long Japan will accept our bases, escecially if we continue our current non-discolure about nuclear weapons locations. It's also not very close. Finally, there is Guam. It's rather far from the region, and doesn't have the infrastructure that one might want, but at least we own it. If it were up to me, I'd relocate to there. -Randy -------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 18:27:07 PDT From: Elizabeth_Plowman.parc@xerox.com Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V9 #13 Rob, in response to your question of whether U.S. interests would have been better served by letting the sanctions last for a year, there is no question but that yes we would have been far, far better off. You mention in your note that obviously the great loss of life in Iraq can be used to attack the war on moral grounds, but that you are asking for the argument to be based purely on selfish US interests, not morality. My first response is that it is *always* in the best interest of the US, and any country, to act in a moral manner. That is basic. Governments are no different that individuals -- you know yourself the difference in dealing with someone who is fair and someone who is out to get what s/he wants regardless of how you feel. Storing up of good will, whether as a nation or an individual, makes all the difference in transactions. The deaths that we caused and are still causing is Issue No. 1. Although we have stopped bombing, the war is not over. Our media keep as far away from the topic as possible, but are you aware of what is still occurring in Iraq? The war still goes on against the Shia and the Kurds. The projection of deaths among children in Iraq over the next few months because of terrible diseases due to the bombing is around 180,000. This is in addition to the estimated 150,000-200,000 military and civilian deaths already, not counting the many Kurds who have died in the Turkish camps and the mountains in their attempt to flee Iraq. (Strange how our media avoid this topic.) Add to that the deaths occurring in Kuwait due to the upheaval of the government and due to the air pollution caused by oil fires (these were started in retaliation to the bombing). Add to that the projected total disarray of lives farther away -- the oil fires will affect the monsoons, which helps the crops of Southeast Asia, which feed the people of that region. Everything on this planet is interconnected, and the destruction we caused will have rippling effects far beyond the immediate geographical area. My second response is that sanctions were definitely in the best interests of the US. Sanctions were an international response and they were *very* effective in those four months. Sanctions would not have affected our economy the way the war has. The tremendous amounts of money that have gone into deathly machinery and weapons could have almost instantly solved our national problems of mass transit and education, and would have helped poor women and children live in dignity. The massive amounts of money spent could have helped a lot of the economic problems within the US, which in turn would have helped us on the road to becoming a healthy nation. The interests of a relatively small number of people in the US were served by the bombing: The interests of arms merchants and their shareholders, a US president who needed to divert attention from a list of national problems, and probably a few other people or interests were served by the bombing. But these few people have been able to manipulate the media so that thinking and responding on a deeper level on a national level are bypassed. This is definitely *NOT* in the best interests of the US. Regards, Elizabeth -------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 00:01:34 EDT From: sandro@nlm.nih.gov (Michael D'Alessandro) Subject: Request for information on how one becomes a defense analyst My brother is interested in becoming a defense analyst of one sort or another - ultimately working perhaps for one of the well known defense think tanks. Unfortunately, there is no well identified educational pathway for future defense analysts. For now he is pursuing an undergrad degree in political science, and now he is trying to decide on what sort of graduate degree to obtain, and where to obtain it. Basically he is looking for a program that will give him a strong background in defense and international affairs that integrates military simulations (wargaming) into its curriculum. What I wonder if is anyone can recommend graduate programs for him to apply to. So far he has applied to the following: Georgetown University - Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service Tufts University - Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy George Washington University - Elliott School of International Affairs Johns Hopkins University - School of Advanced International Studies Can anyone comment on these programs or recommend others or comment on how to go about becoming a defense analyst? Thanks! Michael DAlessandro -------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 10:13:40 PDT From: psb@stat.Berkeley.EDU (Partha S. Banerjee) Subject: submission to arms-l arms-d> arms-d> All submissions to ARMS-L@BUACCA.BU.EDU (ARMS-L@BUACCA.BITNET) arms-d> Please do not post articles, as they have a high probability arms-d> of being lost. arms-d> arms-d> Today's topics: arms-d> arms-d> Let's get started again! (Rob Gross) arms-d> Ah, summer ... when a young man's fancy turns to ARMS ... arms-d> arms-d> 3) It is possible that the short Iraqi war makes a good case for a arms-d> higher level of military preparedness than I am comfortable with. Can arms-d> anyone make the case that US interests would have been better served arms-d> by letting sanctions last for a year before starting military arms-d> action? Note: Obviously, the great loss of life in Iraq can be used arms-d> to attack the war on moral grounds. However, I am asking for an arms-d> argument based purely on selfish US interests, and not morality. arms-d> I think this is going to be an enduring debate ... perhaps not quite on the scale of Truman's decision on the A-bomb but ... Anyway, let me make a skeleton-of-a-case for sanctions: (this is largely motivated by a discussion with Kenneth Waltz, Professor of Political Science and generally brilliant guy here at Berkeley) 1. Iraq is a nation of roughly 19 million persons. 2. There are Three Groups we can differentiate between in terms of Domestic Agenda if not Foreign Policy Goals: Sunnis(~20%+Saddam); Shiite (~80%); Kurds. Conflict between them is likely if the "Center loses control" ... this will add pressure on Saddam. (this has become readily apparent in 1991 but was not covered much through the Fall ... any ideas on how/if this was factored into early policy calculations?) 3. Iraq derives +95% of it's Foreign Currency earning from oil and the rest from dates. Perhaps sanctions were somewhat leaky in terms of goods flowing in, but we sure know nothing was flowing out ... 4. Iraqs foreign assets had been frozen. 5. Now even if some good were being smuggled in, smugglers want to be paid in cash and usually dont take credit ... Iraq's post-war credit record wasn't expected to b very good and they were totally illiquid while the sanctions were in effect. (Kiren Chaudry, another Berkeley PS prof, who was in Iraq "around Xmas" talked about tires being sold for $3000) The effect on the military (spare parts) and short and long term economy would be devastating by this sudden shift to "autarky". Perhaps the Iraqis could do with out TV for longer than we could but I'm claiming that they would have buckled. The anti-sanctions camp claims that if they could take the privations and immense casualties of the Iran-Iraq war, they certainly could take this stalemate. Whereas I dont reject that out of hand, I think the comparison is tenuous. In the I-I War there were reversals and victories and though some clever media manipulation the citizens could be made to rally against a surmountable foe. In this case, Iraq had no friends ... the enemy was "infinite" (ok, perhaps not infinite as in the rest of the world wanted to slaughter the population and salt the earth, but the ultimatum was clear about withdrawal ... from the US ... the possible willingness to compromise in some Adam nations (Algeria etc) didn't really matter). If the coalition began to fray at the fringes, so what? If India or Pakistan decided things had gone on for too long, I could see some grumbling, but no passionate condemnations in the UN or media or even back-channel diplomacy. Certainly they weren't going to run the blocade. As for the central coalition [US/UK/ France/Germany/Japan], nobody would have broken in a significant way there. As for the Soviet Union, once they resigned themselves to letting the US deal with the problem, they would have preferred sanctions. As for Israel, it was very clear that they shouldn't have done anything. Presumably, they're not totally stupid. We were not only doing more than they could, but were taking the "humanitarian rap". Now you really cant base policy on the possibility Israel would do something unimaginably dumb. The initial question asked why sanctions would have been in the US interest; I have more focussed on efficacy in terms of the stated goal of getting them out of Kuwait. I would claim that secondary goals (Removing Saddam, Destroying the Iraqi Military Superiority etc.) would not have been accomplished. To discuss these goals would take us from the Procedureal pale back to the Subjec- tive ... which I'm not prepared to touch right now. Anyway, comments, rebuttals or requests-for-clarification welcome. I wonder how many people are now saying "I told you we shouldn't have retired *all* the SR-71s ..." Let me follow our "fearless leader's" example and throw out another couple of "hot topics" ... Future of NATO ... NATO will doubtless stick around for a couple of years, perhaps merely as "stationary", perhaps reorganized. Will it/should it be changed in structure or phased out and replaced by WEU (what France wants) or some new Institution emerging out of CSCE? anyway, lots of topics here: German Nukes; EC relations; role of France in NATO future; security in Eastern Europe; NATO extra-European activities. Cuba? Should we ignore Cuba? Is any reform possible as long as the Our Friend Fidel walks the Earth? Should the US passively maintain the Cold War with Cuba or actively engage in low-level destabilizing activities (TV Marti) etc. Should Guantanamo be added to the list of bases-to-be-closed ... no Congressional Constituency to be offended! Economic effects of shrinking defense-budget ... effect of military-civilian contractors; strictly military contractors; base-closing effects; shrinking armed service rosters. Why do otherwise bright people *still* believe in SDI? What does the current vision of SDI look like (nobody accepted Reagan "Shield in Space" vision, but at least it was a clear objective)? SDI Retrospective ... it was touted for spin-off ... is this a reasonable claim? It was touted as being a Arms Control bargaining-chip ... was it? --Partha S. Banerjee -------------------------- End of Arms-Discussion Digest **************************