I would like the political will for a real international force with real power to intervene in war torn areas. I am afraid it would not recieve much support because all the little dictators of whom there are many would not support it. The west will not because it fears the imperialist label and the cost in lives and money. I wish it were not that way and it may change a la Nato intervention in former Yugoslavia. I am a shameless optimist.

It's not a matter of expanding "NATO". It's a matter of expanding NATO's military capacities. Not the same thing. France and Britain, along with some others, have gone through nearly two generations of speeches about how they were going to expand their militaries, while actually shrinking them. I no longer believe anything any European politician says on this issue. I'll believe it when and if I see it. Somalia is a pretty good example of some of the problems in "nationbuilding". The **original** deployment was during the elder Mr. Bush's administration, for the limited, defined purpose of moving some food into the starving areas. That deployment actually worked. Food got moved and there weren't many casualties. By the end of the Bush term, the deployment was begining to wrap up. Then, Mr. Clinton came into office. All of a sudden, a new mission was found. Help put some kind of Somalia back together. And, btw, the actual American force on the ground to accomplish this noble effort - some kind of noble effort; the details were always just a bit hazy, but the people in charge seemed firmly convinced that they were noble - were not only not increased, they were reduced. Amorphous mission, no real plans to try to accomplish it, a level of force in theater which the uniformed people were screaming, privately, was not just insufficient, but becoming unable to defend itself. And, btw, a civilian element back in Washington who not only had no military experience, but tended to either distrust or actively dislike the military. That the Blackhawk down disaster ensued was hardly unpredictable. SOMETHING bad was going to happen. Now, if this was a purely unique situation, I wouldn't be so worked up. But, I'm afraid, the general outlines are pretty familiar. A "military" deployment for purely political ends with no real willingness or preparations to use military force run by people who don't understand or trust the military. Even in the best light, this is the triumph of form over substance, and what happens when you let diplomats off their chains. But, apart from that, exactly HOW do you build a nation? In Somalia, the country was divided between the military control of various clans. THEY didn't see the kind of country we thought they should have. How were outsiders to get from there to here? Certainly, how were they to do so without defeating the clan militaries, then ruling the place as a colony till they trained the natives in doing what we thought they should do? It's not for nothing that some of the political science literature these days is talking about the possibility of new era of colonialism/imperialism. I understand how to do nothing. I understand how to conquer and rule. What I don't understand is how to use a mere demonstration of force with no ability or intention of more to convince people to change their way of life. The dirty little secret is that, to the best of my knowledge, no one *else* knows how to do that, either.

Transport, transport, transport. By all means. This is one of those areas which always seems to be the first to be cut, and the last on the list when the money gets divied up.

Israel certainly has a nuclear capacity. India and Pakistan. Iraq and Iran busy trying to develop. How close they are is subject to debate. Perhaps quite close. It's been pretty well conceded that Iraq would have one, already, but for the series of setbacks Hussein suffered, starting with the raid on Osirak. As far as any other regional country goes, only if they've managed to buy or steal one from someone else. The danger of escalation, either to a regional war OR the use of WMD (or both), is one of the main problems the planners are trying to address, right now. This is one of the reasons everyone looks so longingly at the chance that someone will blow up the Husseins before we begin to move forces. It would be **so** much neater. At the least, the job of identifying sites, installations, etc. is certainly at the top of the intelligence task list, right now. FWIW, I think it's highly likely that Hussein will attempt to use WMD if he thinks an invasion is certain and imminent. I suspect it's more likely to be an attempt to hit Israel in some hope of creating a set of events which would lead to a regional war. A secular version of the sort of great jihad that Bin Laden wants. This would certainly be a policy gambit born of desperation. But, it would be in desperate circumstances.

I agree with, the statement that the members within NATO should be maintaining a strong military force. Canada being one of the biggest problems, however if each nation provided a brigade size force, each under a simalar structure,with compareable equip,there should not be a problem of deploying serveral divisions if needed.. I know only the states has the equipment to move them, then that should be there contribution to provide sea and air power. command and control should be shared IE much like the UN assy it takes a majority to make a discision, on the military side the same so that one nation does not have the upper hand.... that being said an operation will and should only have one Military commander. Once military force is no longer needed it can be trimmed to fit the need, and in comes the civilian componet,to start the slow process of rebuilding... The Somolia example, where rule is by serveral clans, "now i'm stepping out of my league" as i'm a Soldier not a polition...but if there was ONE man that was thought to have the peoples will and blessing then install him as an interm leader until free elections are held, or divide the country into separate country's. there is one thing that these people understand besides war and it's money, pumping huge amounts into there country for rebuilding can often hold the gov't and peoples interest long enough to get the job done if not then keep the military force there until they do. but this takes resolve...and time to educate the people that there is more to life than war....And if that means staying until we train them into thinking as we do so be it...However the end result will be a country that can feed,run,and become independent itself. But for this to work Nato must have the resolve to carry out its threats to use military force to stop genicides,starvation,enthic cleansing,ETC. those guilty of such crimes will face justice...

CG, Actually, one of the very first problems *NATO* would have is overcoming almost three generations of European politicians screaming that NATO is limited to defensive operations inside Europe, which is how they answered nearly every American request over the years to help do something somewhere else (save for Korea and Vietnam, which, actually, were done under different auspices, rather than NATO). This ISN'T a minor issue. "Somolia example,where rule is by serveral clans ...but if there was ONE man that was thought to have the peoples will and blessing then install him as an interm leader until free elections are held, or divide the country into separate country's." Now you're really into Terra Incognita. Or, back in time. With respect, I don't think you realize just how much you're proposing, here. Some problems: 1)A huge majority of UN memember would spend the rest of their corporate lives trying to stop this. You've just found a policy which has the real potential to create the sort of reaction the UN has, for fifty years, reserved for Israel. Subtract ALL of NATO AND the EU, plus a few close American allies like Japan, South Korea and Israel, from the membership and you probably would have many more than 150 permanent votes in the General Assembly against anyone associated with this idea. Now, don't worry about ME. I'm not a fan of the UN, at all. But, I kinda thought you might be. 2)I'd divide opinion in the west between those who'd regard this policy as a return to the Bad Old Days of Imperialism and Colonialism and those who just didn't have a clue what this policy would entail, but would start to dislike it when they began to see what it meant. You can't invent a radical new basis for international relations in the West, one which would place major strains of several kinds on their societies, without some fair measure of popular support for the underlying policy. America support of Israel rests on the bedrock of solid, widespread goodwill among the American people. That's why the policy continues through Administrations of both parties, and of both ends of the ideological spectrum EVEN against several generations of hostility in the State Department, at least one President who genuinely disliked Israel (Carter), plus two who may have (Eisenhower and the elder Bush), plus the ill-will of most European governments. Your notion, otoh, would place the western leaders behind it in jeapordy of their careers, as their public got tired or angry. 3)I don't know many instances where there have been candidates for intervention where there were **obvious** candidate's for the People's Choice. If their were, they probably would be in charge, anyway. The typical problem is where there is NO one in charge, no one with real public support with the force to back it up, or where there IS a popular, powerful man in charge and HE'S the problem, in our eyes. Only in the second case does your proposal seem to be applicable. But, in that case, you'd better be ready for the Law of Unintended Consequences, because foreign troops arriving to install THEIR choice of local leader, at sword's point, has a way of making the locals angry. We're tap-dancing around that issue in Afghanistan, right now, and we've gone a LONG way to limit our military presence and activities for that very reason. 5)"...this takes resolve...and time to educate the people...." Which is one of the problems. This kind of intervention has a way of turning into commitments of decades or generations' length. I don't know any western leaders at present who have any desire for that. I don't know any western POPULACES who'd put up with that sort of thing. Now, the world may change over the coming years. Check some of the stories on the first page of this sight if you want to see how some folks forsee that the present war against terrorism may lead to some fundamental changes in the international system. Stratfor has written about they see a major change, too. I believe this line of analysis has some plausibility. I merely point out that to get there, from here WOULD involve a fundamental change in the world system. One of a level seen rarely, and the last time, with WW2.

I'm not saying it's going to be easy to convince everyone, however there are way's to get around this "phys ops" is one way, buying time on every national news net work and for 60 seconds every hour or so show them the death and starvation thats happening. Who cares what the NON- NATO countries think, your in or out....cut and dry...i know there is more to it than that but something has to be done... Are we really stepping back in time,perhaps but what are our options let them exterminate themselfs...while we pour billions into these countries....why not cut them off all together, i mean watching them kill each other with our aid monies or watching them starve while we turn our backs.... I"M not a fan of any UN program,or the concil it's a toothless organization ran by the third world...the ones we are having the problems with... One big waste of money and time... Perhaps your right that force it self will not work in all cases, however i think if we carfully choose a test case,and it is sucessful perhaps we'd have them coming to NATO instead of NATO going to them. Anyway we both know we can't help everyone,but carfully picking each case, and yes over a long period of time things could look alot better than they do at present. maybe it's all a dream....

The hottest topic is hitting Iraq..i know that he hasn't let U.N. inspectors in this year so far and has been struggling with the West and it's allies on this subject for 10 years. Our time is now to strike he shouldn't be an issue because he should have been shot during the Gulf War but Bush screwed up. The U.N. i don't think can do it's job..it's a liberal branch of world defence that is filled with tree huggers. They don't have the nerve to fight or put there men into battle and would run at the first sign of danger. Sure in the past the U.N. has stepped in but that is the past where there was really no major conflict exept mabe Israel or the former Yugoslavia, but that didn't last long. Enough about Canada i could care less about them since all the heat falls on the U.S. everytime something big happens..you never hear anything about Canada in the United States..exept when Quebec wanted to be it's own country. Canada...i have nothing to say..i don't know how your government is and i don't care the United States has just got a new set of problems thrown at them that they have to deal with. You would be better to work with us and not make our job harder to deal with terrorism. Lastly everyone needs to stop whining.

Your level of knowledge of the world situation is indeed amazing. Help you? In one brief post you have shown a level of arrogance and stupidity that is astounding. The fight against terrorism needs to be multinational as the threat is. Look the word up. There are whiners in most countries ours seem to live in Qubec. You have none? Get a grip. Five Canadian soldiers were recommended for the Bronze Star by your government in action in Afghanistan recently. Read a newspaper. Go to the section without the local hog calling contest winners before you start offerring opinions.

The last thing you should worry about is a piece of a missle falling in Canada. If the U.S. does get hit you are probably next! And as far as Saddam goes , if we let him go he WILL end up using weapons of mass destruction within the next ten years. Then the U.S. will have to save everyone's butt again. Let's appease everyone and make the liberals happy....so our children can live in even a worse fear. Seperate church and state in the Mid-east and things will slowly turn for the better.Wake-up or you will all be Muslim (or forced to follow it) before you know it! Keep your religion to yourselves (you radicals) and leave us alone, you women degrading freaks .......