20050822

Bush tries to sell Iraq to highly skeptical US public

FLAGGING SUPPORT: Most Americans now think that the president's rationale for the invasion of Iraq doesn't hold water, but Bush said everything is going smoothly

AFP , CRAWFORD, TEXAS

US President George W. Bush, besieged at his ranch by relatives of US soldiers killed in Iraq, launched a five-day campaign on Saturday to defend the war to an increasingly skeptical US public.

In his weekly radio address from his Prairie Chapel property, Bush said that the war would help avert another attack like the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes and that the best way to honor fallen US troops was to defeat global terrorism.

"We must finish the task that our troops have given their lives for and honor their sacrifice by completing their mission," said Bush, whose approval ratings have slipped to some of the lowest levels of his presidency.

More than 1,800 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq and thousands more wounded in a conflict with a price tag in the tens of billions of dollars.

A recent poll found that a majority of Americans -- 57 percent -- believe that the war has made the US more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, despite Bush's frequent arguments that the conflict has made them safer.

US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan "know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail," he said.

Bush's five-week stay at the ranch has been marked by a high-profile protest against the war in Iraq, led by Cindy Sheehan, who says she wants a face-to-face meeting with the president.

Sheehan, who met with Bush shortly after her son Casey was killed in Iraq last year, left the camp outside the ranch late last week to tend to her sick mother, but promised to return soon.

Bush was to travel to Utah on Monday to address a major veterans group, and head to Idaho Wednesday to speak with members of the Idaho National Guard, as well as praise forces who played a key role in the Afghanistan campaign.

The president said he would commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of fighting in the Pacific theater of World War II -- a conflict he frequently compares to the war on terrorism.

In his radio remarks, Bush noted that the four-year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes was coming up and said he would be marking that event and thanking US soldiers he said were "on the front lines."

He did not mention efforts by Iraqi leaders to craft a constitution, or their failure to nail down a charter by last Monday's deadline.

"Like previous wars we have waged to protect our freedom, the war on terror requires great sacrifice from Americans," especially those serving in the armed forces, Bush said.

Iraqi official attacks Jordan over `terror' role

AP , BAGHDAD

"We don't want Jordan to harm a quarter of a million Iraqis because of one Iraqi."－ Laitha Kubba, Iraqi government spokesman

The Iraqi government yesterday criticized Jordan for allegedly allowing former president Saddam Hussein's family to fund a network seeking to destabilize Iraq.

"It is regrettable to say that until now there are big numbers of elements, not only former regime elements, but supervisors of some terrorist groups who are in Jordan," government spokesman Laith Kubba told reporters.

Kubba cited Saddam's relatives who live in Jordan, where they have "huge amounts of money" to "support ... efforts to revive Baath Party organizations." Kubba did not specify individual family members, but Saddam's two oldest daughters live in the Jordanian capital Amman.

Relations between Jordan and Iraq have been strained since the collapse of Saddam's regime in 2003 over various issues. However, it appeared Kubba's statements were aimed in part at deflecting criticism from Jordan about the possible involvement of Iraqis in subversive operations in Jordan.

Jordanian police have detained an undetermined number of Iraqis as well as other foreign Arab suspects in the Friday rocket attack that missed a US warship in Aqaba.

"We don't want Jordan to harm a quarter of a million Iraqis [living in Jordan] because of one Iraqi" involved in the Friday attack, Kubba said.

There was no immediate comment from the Jordanian government, which has been seeking to improve relations with its eastern neighbor -- once its closest trading partner and only supplier of oil.

Kubba also said a major electricity line between the northern town of Beiji and Baghdad was attacked two days ago, "and this will, of course, affect the power supply in Baghdad." He added that repairs have already begun.

Kubba expressed hope that political leaders would complete the draft of the new constitution in time for the Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. He suggested that if the factions cannot agree, parliament may have to amend the interim constitution yet again to extend the deadline and prevent the disolution of parliament.

"What happens if the draft is not presented on time, they have two options," Kubba said. "According to the interim constitution, they can extend it one more week as they did before. Otherwise this would be admitting failure and the National Assembly would be dissolved."

Most of the latest agreements have been reached between Shiite and Kurdish negotiators, prompting Sunni Arabs to complain of being sidelined. Sunnis object to several proposals, including federalism, distribution of oil wealth and a special status for the Shiite clerical hierarchy in Najaf.

Sunni Arabs warned they will reject the new constitution if Shiites and Kurds push it through parliament without Sunni consent.

Taiwan needs Irish pride

By William Paton

Your editorial "Hen Tai is a badge of pride" (Aug. 20, page 8) ends with a remark to the effect that Irish are prepared to use violence to stand up for their own country and culture -- surely this is the correct interpretation of your editorialist's talk of a "robust" response -- and laments the Taiwanese inability to follow suit.

Probably you have been deluged with mail saying how irresponsible the advocacy of violence is. But I will not say that; there are indeed causes for which it is worth taking up arms, there is oppression so burdensome that it has to be fought. But one of the most interesting things about Taiwan's experience is that Taiwanese have never seemed to think so.

It is true that they resisted the Japanese takeover in a half-hearted way, but this was more out of a determination to protect the land their ancestors had won for them, not because of any nationalist sentiment. Indeed modern scholarship sees "Taiwanese" itself as a constructed identity that did not emerge until the 1920s.

By the time of "retrocession" and the 228 Massacre this identity might have been well developed. But after 228 it is amazing that the KMT's despotism could continue for 40 years with the absolute minimum of trouble. Your reference to Ireland brings this to mind. The "troubles" in Northern Ireland are not of course a recent invention. Ireland has a history not just of outright rebellion against England but of an endless and violent harassment of the agents of the English system -- the magistrate shot from behind a hedge, the bailiff cudgelled on the highway. The same thing never happened here in Taiwan. No KMT official ever lived in fear of the shadow of a gunman, yet given the extent of the KMT organization, even down to the village level, there were innumerable inviting targets.

That this kind of sub-civil war violence never occurred is regarded as a great thing for Taiwan. But, to me at least, the Irish reaction seems utterly predictable (note that I did not say ethical). Somebody steals your country and oppresses you, what are you going to do? Complain about it, seems to be about as far as the Taiwanese have been prepared to go.

I remember going to see the film Michael Collins with some Taiwanese friends a decade ago and saying to them "that is how you get a free country." Their reaction was to say that this was unthinkable in Taiwan. And this made me think, if you don't see your country as something worth fighting for, what real sense of it do you have?

Taiwanese have often criticized Mainlanders for treating the country as a foxhole, a place to shelter during a battle and of no more worth than that. But Taiwanese themselves seem to have no more loyalty to the place than short-term tenants. Your editorialist is right, if someone were sneer at me because of my origin I would punch them in the mouth. And I have, during a long residency here, never seen the same feeling among Taiwanese. People use the phrase "hen Tai" because they can get away with it. The simple answer is: don't let them.

William Paton

Taipei

China's nukes grow up

Beijing is upgrading its nuclear arsenal, and although its ability to menace the US with these weapons remains limited, some analysts say there is now a lot more to worry about

By Jonathan Adams

True enough -- but such assessments are rapidly becoming obsolete. After some two decades of testing and development, China is on the verge of a major upgrade to its nuclear arsenal, a key part of its overall military modernization.

It's now believed to be deploying its next-generation ICBM, the Dong Feng 31 (DF-31), a mobile, solid-fueled missile with an estimated range of at least 7,250km -- capable of hitting Alaska. Within the next few years, China is expected to deploy the DF-31A, which will be able to strike Washington and New York. Within the next 10 years, it's expected to field new submarine-launched nuclear missiles. And while predictions of the size of China's new arsenal are at this point only wild guesses, experts believe it will boast easily double or triple the warheads of today's known force.

"This particular upgrade from silo-based missiles to mobile ICBMs is the most significant nuclear-force development in more than 20 years," says James Mulvenon of the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis in Washington.

That doesn't necessarily mean the US needs to go back to the days of "duck and cover" drills. China's new arsenal does not represent an aggressive threat to the US, analysts say. Rather, it reflects China's effort to keep pace with US military advances and protect its small force. But it's a coming of age for Beijing's nuclear program that will give it a far more credible deterrent against the US' advanced weaponry, and against the US intent to raise a missile-defense shield over North America. Where before China had a force of clunky ICBMs stuck in silos that made them sitting ducks for a lightning-quick preemptive strike, now it will have a sleek new arsenal on wheels and rail -- and later, hidden underwater.

This force, like China's current one, will be targeted primarily at US population centers as a powerful deterrent to any rash US action, or if that fails, as desperate retaliation in a devastating nuclear showdown.

To be sure, based on how little is publicly known about China's nuclear program -- which Beijing shrouds in the utmost secrecy -- a healthy skepticism about its arsenal is in order.

"All of us are guessing, and the people who know aren't talking," says Jeffrey Lewis, a research fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland in College Park.

In the past, reports of China's nuclear deployments have been greatly exaggerated. And even when it is fully deployed, the might of China's new arsenal shouldn't be overstated. While a major advance in the context of China's missile program, it still pales next to the arsenals mounted during the Cold War.

Says Evan Medeiros of the RAND Corp, a US think tank: "China finally deploying the DF-31 is kind of like China finally putting a man into space. It's like, `Congratulations, China, welcome to the 1960s.'"

Even if China keeps expanding its arsenal, it's not likely to match any time soon those of Russia or the US, which still bristle with thousands of warheads ready to lob at potential enemies.

So are concerns about China's new nukes alarmist? Not entirely, security experts say. No one would be paying much mind to China's buildup were it not for the possibility of a showdown over Taiwan. The island nation has been drifting slowly but steadily away from China, while Beijing has vowed to prevent a permanent break, by force if need be. The US is committed to sending its aircraft carriers to help defend Taiwan against an unprovoked attack. That adds up to a real, if remote, possibility for a three-way crisis that could play out in highly unpredictable ways.

Most ominously, such a conflict could lead to a Chinese nuclear threat. General Zhu's comments were made in the context of just such a nightmare scenario.

"Both China and the US are fully aware that Taiwan could be a trigger to escalate nuclear tension between the two powers," says Andrew Yang (楊念祖), secretary-general of the Chinese Council for Advanced Policy Studies in Taipei.

Moreover, while China publicly has a `no first use' nuclear policy, neither Chinese nor US analysts truly believe Beijing would honor that promise if push came to shove.

"No US military planner in their right mind would operate under the assumption that China in a time of warfare would hold to its `no first use' pledge," Medeiros says. "It's not irrational to expect China, in the dark days of a nasty conflict, to redefine the conditions under which its `no first use' pledge applies."

One Chinese security expert who did not wish to be identified said Beijing should drop its `no first use' pledge because it simply isn't credible. Like General Zhu, the analyst thought that China should make clear that it would "retaliate with whatever means we have" if it felt its core national interests were threatened.

"There are a lot of people who are worried about this," Mulvenon says. "We don't know nearly enough as we should about how this would play out in a crisis."

To be sure, such contemplations belong to the bleakest of doomsday scenarios. And analysts have pointed out that comments like Zhu's serve a useful psychological purpose: trying to make US planners believe China just might be crazy enough to nuke a US city.

In a crisis over Taiwan, most believe cool heads would prevail -- at least enough to keep a conflict conventional.

"Both the US and China would take very cautious steps, and be careful not to escalate the confrontation to a nuclear level," says Arthur Ding, a research fellow at National Chengchi University's Institute of International Relations in Taipei.

For that reason, security analysts tend to be more concerned about China's conventional buildup: its arsenal of short-range missiles on the coast across from Taiwan (now above 700 and counting), its growing submarine force and its mounting ability to wage asymmetrical warfare through cyberattacks and other means. In one line of thinking, China's new nuclear arsenal may even be a good thing, insofar as it makes Beijing feel more secure in its deterrent capabilities.

But for people paid to be pessimists, the possibility of tragic miscalculation, however slim, suggests a need for high-level, official US-China nuclear discussions and confidence-building measures, akin to those between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Too bad such talks don't appear to be happening. While defense officials from both sides meet regularly, nuclear issues aren't on the agenda, analysts say.

"There's no channel of dialogue on these issues between the US and China," Medeiros says. "And there needs to be."

According to Mulvenon, the Pentagon has on numerous occasions tried to engage Beijing in nuclear talks, but to no avail. That he chalks up to China's insecurity: For a country so outgunned by the US, Beijing sees little strategic interest in becoming more transparent. But with China putting the finishing touches on its new nuclear toys, and no solution to the Taiwan question in sight, a little more daylight could potentially go a long way.