Wolfowitz Whispers "War" in Dim Son's Ear Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit [Paul Wolfowitz, another draft-avoider from the late 1960s, is pushing the brain-damaged President Select into Acting Macho. But the Testosterone Cowboys hadn't counted on opposition from the house Arabs of Saudi Arabaia, Mexico, Indonesia, or -- especially -- the traumatized citizens of the USA. Herewith a roundup of news stories on all of the above. An additional, surprising, report tonight on CBS-TV news: Members of the US MILITARY are expressing extreme reservations to their military chaplains about bombing civilians, and saying that they have serious conflicts between their "duty" and their religious and ethical beliefs. Well, those reservations will last till the shooting starts, of course. Good god, on the home front, even some of the Congress has found its spine and starting to remember that their country has a Constitution, and a Bill of Rights! Imagine what the Cowboy Carpet Bombers must be hearing these days in the White House. Dim Son has stepped in Deep Doo-Doo and no one is sure how to pull the poor boy out. Maybe they'll just let him sink.] source - Paul Wolf AP via NY Times - September 25, 2001 Wolfowitz Takes Hard Line WASHINGTON (AP) -- Paul Wolfowitz, the man whispering "broader war" into President Bush's ear, is a mathematician who factors worst-case scenarios into his policy equations. The deputy defense secretary, on his way to Brussels on Tuesday to consult with the United States' NATO allies on post-Sept. 11 strategies, raised eyebrows when he said that "ending states who sponsor terrorism" should be one goal and suggested an Iraqi front was likely. It shouldn't have been a surprise: Wolfowitz has long argued that preparing for war is safer than relying on peace. The administration has since softened its tone considerably, and those advocating a narrower offense against terror -- chief among them, Secretary of State Colin Powell -- are winning the argument for now. Overcoming resistance, however, is not usually a problem for Wolfowitz, described by friends and colleagues as a workaholic salesman who pitches his ideas with a soft-spoken, insistent logic. "He's earned the confidence of the president by virtue of the depth of the sophistication of the advice he's given the president," said Richard Perle, who was a Wolfowitz colleague in the Reagan administration. He's not humorless: Criticizing American complacency, Wolfowitz has sometimes quoted Alfred E. Neuman -- "What, me worry?" -- a reference all the more striking for his resemblance to Mad Magazine's youthful, jug-eared icon. Wolfowitz is the only deputy who attends top level meetings on the crisis, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld thinks enough of him to have him speak for America at NATO. Even Powell calls him "tough-minded" in his autobiography, recalling their debates under the previous President Bush. On another page, Powell ribs Wolfowitz as a "right-wing nut." Indeed, Wolfowitz has described himself as a "conservative ideologue" but insists his preference for assuming the worst will happen is based on hard evidence, not ideology. As a junior Pentagon official in 1977, he outlined a scenario in which Saddam Hussein would invade Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia. That outline, which became a reality 13 years later, sharply alienated other Carter administration officials who saw Saddam as a moderating influence. Wolfowitz now describes Saddam as a "leopard who won't change" and advocates overthrowing his government -- the goal he was apparently referring to when he spoke of "ending states." In 1998, testifying before Congress as a military analyst, he advised the United States to set up an opposition government in southern Iraq. Laurie Mylroie, an Iraq analyst and friend of Wolfowitz, says he made up his mind on Iraq when she shared with him circumstantial evidence linking Iraqi intelligence to Ramzi Yousef, the planner of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. "Wolfowitz takes the long view of Saddam," she said. In a 1996 interview with "Studies in Intelligence," a CIA journal, Wolfowitz described "managing uncertainty," his policymaking manifesto. "In his view ... the serious policy-maker cannot ignore a 10-percent likelihood that could have a major impact on U.S. security, much less a 40 percent likelihood," CIA analyst Jack Davis wrote. Worrying about unlikely threats also has made him one of this administration's most outspoken advocates of missile defense. Not taking into account the worst that could happen is a "gamble with our children's future," he told Congress in July. "We can't know who may challenge us in the future, or where, or when." Wedding mathematical probabilities to political analysis is natural for Wolfowitz, whose first degree was in mathematics. His father, a noted mathematician, was less than approving when his son chose political science for his doctorate. Wolfowitz sometimes argues political beliefs as if they were scientific certainties; he still derides Clinton's peacekeeping policy in Bosnia as overblown, although its success has defied his dire 1995 prediction of a "catastrophe." Still, his intellectual prowess is such that Clinton in 1995 appointed his most withering foreign policy critic to a commission on intelligence gathering. His Senate confirmation this year was unanimous and swift. In person, Wolfowitz is a gentleman who hears everyone out, no matter how low they may be in the hierarchy, said Eliot Cohen, who worked under Wolfowitz during his recent leadership of the School of Advanced International Studies. Cohen also cited Wolfowitz's integrity, saying he doubled the school's endowment even as he resisted some donor-demanded appointments. "He knows how to resist pressure to do things that don't make sense," Cohen said. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Wolfowitz.html NAME -- Paul Wolfowitz AGE-BIRTH DATE -- 57; Dec. 22, 1943. EDUCATION -- Bachelor's degree in mathematics, Cornell University, 1965; Doctorate, political science, University of Chicago, 1972. EXPERIENCE -- Taught at Yale University, 1970-73; worked on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks from 1973-77; deputy assistant secretary of defense for regional programs, 1977-80; Headed State Department's policy planning staff, 1981-82; assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, 1982-1986; ambassador to Indonesia, 1986-1989; undersecretary of defense for policy, 1989-93; taught at the National Defense University, 1993; dean, School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, 1994-2001; deputy secretary of defense, 2001-present. FAMILY -- Three children. QUOTES -- "Uncertainty about the meaning of events and especially about prospective threats and opportunities complicates every policy decision. On a good day, you deal with 60-40 odds. Most of the time, it is much less clear-cut than that." "One has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism." Speaking Sept. 13 in a Pentagon briefing room that still smelled of smoke and soot from the terror attack two days before. "The time has come to lift our heads from the sand and deal with some unpleasant but indisputable facts: the short-range missile threat to our friends, allies and deployed forces arrived a decade ago; the intermediate-range missile threat is now here; and the long-range threat to American cities is just over the horizon -- a matter of years, not decades, away -- and our people and territory are defenseless. Why? The answer has four letters: ABMT." Referring to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, in Senate testimony July 12. "It is reckless to press our luck or gamble with our children's future. To think we can't afford an insurance policy of roughly 3.5 percent of GDP today to deter the adversaries of tomorrow and underpin our prosperity, and by extension, peace and stability around the globe, is simply wrong. When compared with the cost in dollars and human lives if we fail to do so, it is cheap at that price." Testifying on the defense budget in Congress, July 11. "If this administration could muster the necessary strength of purpose, it would be possible to liberate ourselves, our friends and allies in the region, and the Iraqi people themselves, from the menace of Saddam Hussein." Backing the overthrow of Saddam, in congressional testimony as an expert witness in 1998. "No one was predicting in May of 1990 that there would be an Iraqi military move against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in three months' time. The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded from this that we need better intelligence. I concluded from this that it is dangerous to rely too much on intelligence." September 1990 speech. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Drugs.html September 26, 2001 Afghan Opium Production May Rise WASHINGTON (AP) -- Afghanistan's dramatic drop in opium production could be reversed as a result of the war on terrorism, U.S. and U.N. officials said Wednesday. The officials said they are concerned that the ruling Taliban militia will end a ban that led to a 97 percent drop in Afghanistan's production of opium, the raw material for heroin. Afghanistan had been the world's leading producer of opium before the Taliban, citing Islamic religious principles, banned it in July 2000. Opium had been an important source of revenue for the Taliban as they fought an opposition coalition in the northern part of the country. With Afghanistan bracing for possible reprisals for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington, the Taliban could lift the ban to raise cash, the officials said. The United States has accused Afghanistan of harboring the terrorists responsible for the attacks. Neither U.S. officials, three of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, nor U.N. officials said they have evidence that the ban has been lifted. "After the 11th of September, our line of communication and information of Afghanistan has been drastically reduced," said Pino Arlacchi, executive director of the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. Opium production could rise in Afghanistan even if the Taliban do not lift the ban. The chaos caused by U.S. attacks or gains by the opposition alliance could allow farmers to shift back to opium. "Hundreds of thousands of farmers are asking themselves what to plant this year: wheat or opium," Arlacchi said. "If they plant now, they will get a harvest around April or May next year. Will the Taliban be there April or May next year?" Arlacchi said opium is a good crop for bad times because it requires little water and can be sold easily. In 2000, Afghanistan produced about 4,000 tons of opium, accounting for about 75 percent of the world market. Most of that heroin was sold in Europe. Most heroin sold in the United States comes from Latin America. In July 2000, the Taliban banned opium production, citing Islamic principles. The State Department says 2001 production has fallen to 81 tons, including 76 tons in areas controlled by the opposition. The drop in supply caused the wholesale price per kilogram to soar from $30 to as high as $700, according to U.N. officials. The ban earned rare praise for a militia repeatedly denounced for links to terrorists, suppression of women and destruction of relics of other religions. U.S. and international officials have remained skeptical of the Taliban's commitment to drug eradication. Some suspected the Taliban were trying to cut supply to raise prices and control the market. They also said the Taliban hadn't wiped out existing stockpiles, which the United Nations said could total 100 tons. This week, wholesale prices fell, according to U.N. figures, leading to speculation that Afghan traffickers may already be selling their stock. But Arlacchi said that doesn't mean the Taliban would be involved in the sales. "Criminal groups, who are as powerful as the Taliban and as powerful as anyone else in Afghanistan, have full control of those stockpiles," he said. Before Sept. 11, the United States had planned to provide about $2 million in aid for Afghan farmers to help compensate them for losses resulting from opium eradication. Additional aid was considered for farmers in areas controlled by the opposition northern alliance. State Department and U.N. officials said alliance leaders have agreed to help eradicate opium. In March, the State Department said in its annual narcotics report that the "northern alliance has taken no action of which we are aware against cultivation and trafficking in its area." http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-attack-islam.html September 26, 2001 War on Terrorism, or War on Islam? JAKARTA (Reuters) - The U.S. vow that war against terrorism is not war against Islam may have fallen on deaf ears as cries of jihad, or holy war, resound across the Muslim world. The accompanying threat to strike Afghanistan in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the chief suspect in the devastating September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, risks triggering a violent backlash among the world's billion Muslims. "If they act without clear evidence and outside the U.N., then the danger is that this will be seen as a war against Islam," said Emad Gad, a political analyst at the Cairo-based al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies. "It's a kind of arrogance of power. They say you are either with us or against us..." Some Islamic leaders say the planned U.S. retaliation over the attacks which may have killed about 7,000 people is nothing more than an undisguised crusade against Muslims. President Bush's call for a crusade against evildoers revived for some images of Christian crusades against Islam. "They've created an atmosphere of hatred toward Muslims because they need to search for a victim, any victim...," said Lebanon-based Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. "We find that the Muslims are exposed to an American attack in the name of a coalition 'war on terrorism' that has no credible basis," said the former Hizbollah spiritual adviser, regarded as an authority for Shi'ite Muslims around the world and who has forbidden Muslims from joining any U.S. reprisals. ISLAMIC SUPPORT CRUCIAL Islamic support is important to American success for several reasons: Afghanistan is surrounded mainly by Islamic countries; it broadens the coalition behind the United States and it brings with it some of the world's biggest countries. "The United States should know that without Islamic support, the obstacles will be dangerous," said Saudi Arabia's Arabic language al-Riyadh newspaper in an editorial. "The United States should be aware of how entwined its position and interests are with the Islamic world in times of war and peace." As moderates seek to reassure their followers Washington is not on an anti-Muslim crusade, hard-liners from Europe to the Middle East to Asia are readying for a fight. "There have been attacks and violence for years in the Arab and Muslim world as a result of the U.S., so there was a reason that this happened," said an angry young Sudanese at the central mosque in Paris. "If there is a war, I'm ready." In the world's largest Muslim nation, Indonesia, young men denouncing U.S. aggression are signing up to go to Afghanistan to fight a jihad while others hunt for American citizens. The country's main Muslim clerics' organization, the Council of Ulemas (MUI), has condemned both the attacks on the United States and any retaliation against a Muslim country. "So, we call on Muslims in the world for a jihad fie sabilillah (holy war for truth) should aggression by the U.S. and its allies against Afghanistan and the Islamic world occur," said MUI secretary-general Din Syamsuddin. Calls for jihad if the United States strikes are echoing around the Islamic world, including the Middle East, Malaysia and Pakistan, where four people died in weekend anti-U.S. protests. Bin Laden has described the dead Pakistani protesters as "the first martyrs in the battle of Islam of this age." MODERATES MAY JOIN RADICALS However, Indian Islamic scholar and head of the powerful Muslim Personal Law Board Kalbe Sadiq said Muslims could not support Afghanistan's ruling Taliban if they were proved guilty. "But we can't support the United States because their previous record isn't good, either," he told Reuters. "So this is a battle between two thugs." India's Muslim minority of about 120 million approaches the population of Pakistan. Analysts say while extremists are a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, a long and bloody U.S. campaign with heavy civilian casualties, and any failure by Washington to reassess its own foreign policies, may swing some moderates behind them. "If there is a war in Afghanistan and the powers of the West are pitted against the Taliban, and if that war goes on for a few years, the Taliban would be seen by a lot of Muslims as defenders of Islam," said Malaysian opposition politician Chandra Muzaffar. Saudi social anthropologist Mai Yamani said she was worried about the fallout from any American military reprisals. "That could strengthen the radical trend that we have here in the Arab Muslim world and crush the moderate trend," she said. German-born Indonesian Catholic priest Franz Magnis-Suseno said: "It's safe for us now here... but these small groups can change everything." Resentment at U.S. actions in the Middle East, especially its support for Israel and the sanctions against Iraq, is the common thread linking the most moderate Muslims to the most radical. "America helps Israel in attacking Palestinians," said Ubaid-ul-Haq, a 32-year-old painter in the Indian capital, New Delhi. "America must understand why people want to attack it." Professor Amin Saikal, from the Australian National University's Arab and Islamic studies center, told Reuters a military campaign with clear objectives and a marked foreign policy shift were vital to easing Islamic suspicions. But he also believes ethnic, cultural and political divisions mean the Islamic world cannot sustain a united opposition. "If they could, they would have done so by now over Israel," he said. "But there are groups in the Muslim world that in the short term may act against the U.S." Islam varies dramatically in geography and teaching, from its softer face in the vast Southeast Asian archipelago of Indonesia, built on animist and even Hindu beginnings, to the Taliban's own ultra-strict interpretation in Afghanistan. But as the world waits for any U.S. strike, Afghani-American writer Mir Tamim Ansary warns a devastating conflict between Islam and the West is, in fact, bin Laden's ultimate aim. "We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West," he wrote in a widely-circulated email. "And guess what: that's bin Laden's program. That's why he did this. "Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?" http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-attack-mexico.html September 25, 2001 Mexico in Quandary as Debate Rages Over U.S. Stance MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico, which rushed to support the United States after suicide hijack attacks two weeks ago, now seems paralyzed by a wave of domestic opposition. Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda said immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, which left nearly 7,000 people reported missing or dead, that the United States had every right to respond and that "Now is not the time to stint on support." The remarks stirred furious reaction in the opposition, particularly among left-wingers who said Castaneda's comments amounted to openly pandering to the United States, a posture Mexicans call "entreguismo" or selling out. "We are seeing the consequences of 150 years of extreme isolationism," said Sergio Aguayo, a Mexican civil rights activist and academic. "The government is paralyzed because the reaction against Castaneda has been so strong." Opinion polls carried by radio stations suggest many Mexicans have misgivings about giving unqualified backing and a majority oppose lending any military support to the United States. The United States has embarked on what its officials call a "war on terrorism" after attackers hijacked four passenger airliners, crashed two into the World Trade Center in New York and one into the Pentagon near Washington. The fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania. Mexican President Vicente Fox, who only three weeks ago paid a triumphant state visit to Washington, broke several days of silence on Tuesday. Although he offered wholehearted support to the United States, his words appeared to be hedged with caveats. "Respecting our laws, respecting human rights, respecting legality, respecting the pacifist will of our country, we committed this -- I would say -- unconditional support to the government of the United States, to the governments of the world who are fighting terrorism." Mexican writer Homero Aridjis said he was appalled by his government's failure to join other nations, which held ceremonies of mourning for those who died in the attacks. "I would have expected a moment's silence. I am indignant at this lack of compassion and of solidarity," said Aridjiz. "All the press is doing is attack the United States." MEXICO'S FAULT-LINE Fox now faces a stern challenge. Mexico, which is seeking amnesty for some three million Mexicans living illegally in the United States, could pay a high price if Washington deems Fox a fair weather friend. "I think Mexico is shooting itself in both legs ... by failing to cooperate. From the point of view of realpolitik they need to stand up and be counted," said George Grayson, a specialist in Mexico at William and Mary College in Virginia. The storm of protest has brought to a head what many see as a fault- line in Mexican public life. On the one hand Mexico, since it joined the United States and Canada in the 1994 North American Free trade Agreement, has become locked in close embrace with its northern neighbor, almost entirely dependent on U.S. trade and investment. "Mexico's interests are more intertwined with the United States than any country in the world," said Grayson. On the other, a history of deep suspicion toward the United States -- which seized half of Mexico's territory in the mid 19th century -- weighs heavily on many Mexicans, especially writers, intellectuals and politicians. "Since 1846, Mexico has followed a policy of isolation and the United States has been seen as a threat to sovereignty," said Aguayo. Mexico sided with the United States in World War II but later reverted to a neutral stance. ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytcamer-09.27.01-02:02:40-4212