This first clip is a News Analysis



This first clip is a News Analysis. It sets out the issues objectively, giving both sides. Readers could agree with everything it says and nevertheless reach opposite conclusions on the issue for various reasons:

1. People's values and ideologies differ even though they agree on facts. Some oppose war under all circumstances, others support Saddam Hussein (very few in the US, but more elsewhere), some oppose U.S. dominance in the world.

2. People's propensity to take risks varies. Some seek to minimize possible losses, other to maximize possible gains.

3. People's estimates of which of the two outcomes in the article is likely to prevail varies. But this is very difficult to estimate objectively, and many people do not make a serious effort to do so. They may simply assume that the outcome most consistent with their values or their risk taking propensity is the most likely.

Bush risks all in Iraq stance

The President's strategy may be the mother of all gambles.

Inquirer Washington Bureau

Philadelphia Inquirer March 9, 2003.

WASHINGTON - Standing at the brink of war with Iraq, President Bush is preparing to roll the dice on a gamble that could remake the Middle East in America's image - or trigger an explosion of violence and chaos that shakes the world, shocks the economy, and destroys his presidency.

His goals are breathtaking: A friendly Iraq, the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East, and creation of a Palestinian state that lives in harmony with Israel. To win them, he risks stoking the anti-American anger of 1.2 billion Muslims, discarding the United Nations as an instrument of global order, and igniting a series of conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere that could imperil the world's oil-driven economy.

It is a typically bold stroke for a President whose willingness to think big and act aggressively is frequently unrecognized. Bush often seeks far-reaching changes - huge tax cuts in a time of soaring deficits; a homeland-security state that tests the limits of basic American liberties; a massive defense buildup that spends far more than other nations do on their militaries.

But no other initiative is as risky as this likely war with Iraq.

"This is the biggest gamble any president has taken in my lifetime. This is about so much more than Iraq. It's about America's place in the world," said John C. Hulsman, a foreign-policy specialist at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The ordering of the world is up for grabs."

The struggling U.S. economy and Bush's domestic agenda and reelection hopes also hang in the balance.

A quick, successful war would send Bush's popularity surging. That would help him roll through Congress his plans for another round of tax cuts and a prescription-drug subsidy for seniors. It also would tee-up his next big policy change: Letting younger workers shift some of their Social Security taxes into the stock market, a fundamental change to the foundation of financial security for America's elderly.

But a costly, protracted war, accompanied by a wave of terrorist attacks, a spike in oil prices, and increased instability in the Middle East could doom both Bush's domestic agenda and his political future……[for the rest of this analysis, go to the original WEB site at: ]

The next essay is an editorial from the New York Times. Its argument should be organized to include the following elements:

• Title

• Introduction

• Thesis Statement

• Body Paragraphs

• Topic Sentences

• Building Points

• Countering the Opposition

• Conclusion

Let's see if we can find them:

Saying No to War

New York Times editorial March 9, 2003.

Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United Nations opposition. We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections. But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing. If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no.

Even though Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said that Saddam Hussein was not in complete compliance with United Nations orders to disarm, the report of the inspectors on Friday was generally devastating to the American position. They not only argued that progress was being made, they also discounted the idea that Iraq was actively attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons. History shows that inspectors can be misled, and that Mr. Hussein can never be trusted to disarm and stay disarmed on his own accord. But a far larger and more aggressive inspection program, backed by a firm and united Security Council, could keep a permanent lid on Iraq's weapons program.

By adding hundreds of additional inspectors, using the threat of force to give them a free hand and maintaining the option of attacking Iraq if it tries to shake free of a smothering inspection program, the United States could obtain much of what it was originally hoping to achieve. Mr. Hussein would now be likely to accept such an intrusive U.N. operation. Had Mr. Bush managed the showdown with Iraq in a more measured manner, he would now be in a position to rally the U.N. behind that bigger, tougher inspection program, declare victory and take most of the troops home.

Unfortunately, by demanding regime change, Mr. Bush has made it much harder for Washington to embrace this kind of long-term strategy. He has talked himself into a corner where war or an unthinkable American retreat seem to be the only alternatives visible to the administration. Every signal from the White House is that the diplomatic negotiations will be over in days, not weeks. Every signal from the United Nations is that when that day arrives, the United States will not have Security Council sanction to attack.

There are circumstances under which the president would have to act militarily no matter what the Security Council said. If America was attacked, we would have to respond swiftly and fiercely. But despite endless efforts by the Bush administration to connect Iraq to Sept. 11, the evidence simply isn't there. The administration has demonstrated that Iraq had members of Al Qaeda living within its borders, but that same accusation could be lodged against any number of American allies in the region. It is natural to suspect that one of America's enemies might be actively aiding another, but nations are not supposed to launch military invasions based on hunches and fragmentary intelligence.

The second argument the Bush administration cites for invading Iraq is its refusal to obey U.N. orders that it disarm. That's a good reason, but not when the U.N. itself believes disarmament is occurring and the weapons inspections can be made to work. If the United States ignores the Security Council and attacks on its own, the first victim in the conflict will be the United Nations itself. The whole scenario calls to mind that Vietnam-era catch phrase about how we had to destroy a village in order to save it.

President Bush has switched his own rationale for the invasion several times. Right now, the underlying theory seems to be that the United States can transform the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq into a showplace democracy and inspiring the rest of the region to follow suit. That's another fine goal that seems impossible to accomplish outside the context of broad international agreement. The idea that the resolution to all the longstanding, complicated problems of that area begins with a quick military action is both seductive and extremely dangerous. The Bush administration has not been willing to risk any political capital in attempting to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but now the president is theorizing that invading Iraq will do the trick.

Given the corner Mr. Bush has painted himself in, withdrawing troops — even if a considerable slice remains behind — would be an admission of failure. He obviously intends to go ahead, and bet on the very good chance that the Iraqi army will fall quickly. The fact that the United Nations might be irreparably weakened would not much bother his conservative political base at home, nor would the outcry abroad. But in the long run, this country needs a strong international body to keep the peace and defuse tension in a dozen different potential crisis points around the world. It needs the support of its allies, particularly embattled states like Pakistan, to fight the war on terror. And it needs to demonstrate by example that there are certain rules that everybody has to follow, one of the most important of which is that you do not invade another country for any but the most compelling of reasons. When the purpose is fuzzy, or based on questionable propositions, it's time to stop and look for other, less extreme means to achieve your goals.

The next essay is an op-ed column, also from the March 9, 2003, New York Times, supporting the war. Can we find the same elements?

Give Freedom a Chance

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

NEW ORLEANS

How should free people feel — in our hearts, brains and guts — about launching a pre-emptive strike?

Note that we are not "starting a war" with Iraq. That was begun by Saddam more than a decade ago. We won the first battle, but he has since been secretly violating the terms of surrender. Either we will allow him to become capable of inflicting horrendous casualties in our cities tomorrow — or we must inflict and accept far fewer casualties in his cities today.

That's a Hobson's choice, which is no choice at all. We will now get on with it. We will not whip ourselves into jingoism, or become fascinated by our exercise of ultra-tech superpower or suppress our sadness at the pictures of Iraqi civilians Saddam will thrust into the line of fire as human shields.

But we should by no means feel guilty about doing our duty. War cannot be waged apologetically. Rather than wring our hands, Americans and our allies are required to gird our loins — that is, to fight to win with the conviction that our cause is just. We have ample reason to believe that Saddam's gangster government is an evil to be destroyed before it gains the power to destroy us.

It is futile to try to reason with passionate marchers waving signs proclaiming that America's motives are to conquer the world and expend blood for oil.

Nor should we waste more precious time trying to beg or buy moral approval from France or Russia, their U.N. veto threats largely driven by economic interests in Saddam's continuance in power. Nor should we indulge in placing second thoughts first: How much will it cost? How many will be killed? How long will it take? Will it kill the snake of terror or only poke it? Will everybody thank us afterward? Where's the guarantee of total success? Too cautious to oppose, these questioners delay action by demanding to know what they know is unknowable.

Our task now, as citizens of nations burdened with the dirtiest work of mankind — a pre-emptive attack to finish a suspended war — is to call up the national spirit and determined attitude needed to sustain a great effort. Skepticism is a fine American trait and many find patriotic fervor uncool, but the eve of hostilities is the moment for opening the mind to exhortation.

We are launching this attack, already too long delayed, primarily to defend ourselves. This is a response to reasonable fear. We know Saddam is developing terror weapons and is bound on vengeance; we know he has ties to terror organizations eager to use those weapons for more mass murder; we know he can bamboozle the U.N. inspectors again; we know Americans are terror's prime targets. That's plenty of reason to take him out.

But this reasonable fear should be accompanied by a strong dash of hope. Wilsonian idealists have found a soulmate in President Bush, who surprised us all with his challenging vision — not merely a "vision thing" — for the coming generation.

The defeat of Saddam may just send a clear message to Kim Jong Il and other tyrants that we will respond with more action than ransom to nuclear blackmailers, thereby making the world a safer place. But safety is not all.

The liberation of 23 million Arabs and Kurds now ruled by a bloody-handed dictator, followed by a transition to a confederation (aided by an Arab-American general like John Abizaid, now Gen. Tommy Franks's deputy), may just make it possible for a rudimentary democracy to take root in this major Muslim nation.

Such a birth of freedom in Iraq, a land of oil wealth and a literate population, may just spread to its neighbors and co-religionists. This would counter the cancerous growth of repression and rancor that has roiled the Middle East and impoverished the people of 20 nations.

If Bush's vision of a transformed region fails, it will fail while daring greatly — a nobler course than that weakly advocated, in Teddy Roosevelt's words, by "those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

This campaign near the Ides of March will make us safer, allaying our fears; it has the potential of making the world freer, justifying our hopes.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download