WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- The UPI Think Tank Wrap-Up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events, and position statements released by various think tanks.
The Cato Institute
WASHINGTON -- Overthrow Saddam? Be Careful What You Wish For
By Ted Galen Carpenter
Advocates of making the ouster of Saddam Hussein the next stage in America's war against terrorism are becoming increasingly vocal. The United States has the military power to achieve that goal. Yet no matter how emotionally satisfying removing a thug like Saddam may seem, Americans would be wise to consider whether that step is worth the price.
The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems.
True, some optimists argue that the Iraqi opposition in exile -- especially the largest umbrella group, the Iraqi National Congress -- can not only defeat Saddam but can set up a stable successor government with only modest assistance from Washington. But as Gen. Anthony Zinni, former commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, notes, the INC is a motley assortment of groups running the gamut from Marxist revolutionaries to Islamic fundamentalists. That hardly seems the basis for a stable, democratic system.
The reality is that American troops would be needed to install a new government. They also would have to stay on to protect it from authoritarian elements and create democratic institutions strong enough to survive the eventual departure of U.S. occupation forces. Otherwise, another military dictator -- a "new Saddam" -- would likely emerge.
Installing and preserving a democratic Iraqi government would entail a nation-building mission of indefinite duration that would dwarf the ongoing efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo. The unpromising prospects for a stable democratic system in Iraq should be sufficient to dissuade those who want the U.S. military to march to Baghdad. But there are other, equally daunting problems.
Most notably there is the issue posed by two persistent regional secession movements: the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south. Washington would have to decide whether to commit itself to preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq or to give its blessing to the secessionists. Either option has a serious downside.
Holding Iraq together might take some doing. Attempting to force the Kurds and Shiites to remain under Baghdad's jurisdiction would probably provoke ferocious resistance. Washington would then face the task of explaining to the American people why U.S. troops were dying in military campaigns to suppress the aspirations of populations that merely want to throw off the shackles of Iraq's Sunni Muslim elite.
Yet endorsing the creation of independent Kurdish and Shiite states also has drawbacks. U.S. officials would be presiding over the dismemberment of Iraq -- an action that the Sunnis (and others throughout the Islamic world) would certainly resent. Dismemberment would also eliminate the only significant regional military counterweight to Iran.
Furthermore, the establishment of an independent Kurdistan would create a thorny problem for Washington's ally, Turkey. A Kurdish republic would be an irresistible political magnet for Turkey's Kurdish population -- more than half of all Kurds living in the region. Ankara has waged a bloody war for more than 17 years to suppress a Kurdish insurgency in southeastern Turkey. Turkish forces have repeatedly entered northern Iraq since the Gulf War, taking advantage of the fact that Saddam's regime does not exercise effective control of the area. Turkey would find its difficulties multiplied if rebel forces could find sanctuary in a neighboring Kurdish state.
If credible evidence emerges that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States would have no alternative but to remove Saddam from power despite the potential risks and problems. But absent such a justification, a decision to oust Saddam and become responsible for Iraq's political future is ill advised.
(Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and the author or editor of 13 books on international affairs.)
WASHINGTON -- Social Security reform proposals unrelated to Enron pension scandal, expert says.
By The Cato Institute
As skeptics try to draw parallels between Social Security reform through personal retirement accounts and the case-specific failure of Enron's private pension accounts, reform experts advise otherwise. An examination of how personal retirement accounts would run under the recommendations of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security clarifies the difference between the two approaches to increasing wealth accumulation for America's workers.
Simply, Enron pension accounts and private Social Security accounts are not the same.
In response to attempts by anti-reformers to forge an erroneous Enron link, Michael Tanner, co-chair of the Cato Institute Project on Social Security Privatization, said:
"The Enron situation has no relevance to Social Security privatization. No serious plan to allow workers to privately invest a portion of their payroll tax would allow the workers to invest so heavily in a single stock. Indeed, the plans suggested by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, those legislative proposals currently in Congress, and the plans discussed by various think tanks, all envision broadly diversified portfolios.
"If opponents of privatization truly believe that Enron means that private investing is just too risky, they should be advising Americans to abandon their 401-k's and other investments. Of course, they are doing nothing so foolish. In fact, Sen. Daschle recently endorsed private investment accounts as an 'add-on' to the current Social Security system. This is because even opponents of privatization understand that private capital markets are extremely safe long-term investments.
"Trying to drag Enron into the Social Security debate shows just how few arguments opponents of privatization really have."
(Michael Tanner is available to comment on the relevance of the Enron pension failure to proposals to reform Social Security.)
National Center for Public Policy Research
(NCPPR is a communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems, based on the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility. NCPPR was founded to provide the conservative movement with a versatile and energetic organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to late-breaking issues, based on thorough research.)
CHICAGO -- Ten-Second Response: Federal Government Unsure about Appealing Bitterroot Decision
By Gretchen Randall
Background: A federal judge in Montana has barred the U.S. Forest Service from opening 46,000 acres of the Bitterroot National Forest to salvage logging, saying the USFS decision did not allow for public comment and thus violated the Forest Service's own rules. The Forest Service said that the logging is necessary to remove dead trees remaining from the 2000 forest fires in that burned 307,000 acres in the Bitterroot. No decision has been made by the Bush administration whether to appeal the decision or open a public comment period.
Ten Second Response: Instead of applauding the efforts to speed up restoration of the Bitterroot National Forest, so-called environmental groups have sued to delay the clean up.
Thirty Second Response: It would be wiser if environmental groups spent the donations they've received from hard working Americans on actually saving and restoring the forests rather than obstructing and delaying the work needed to keep our forests healthy. The fires that burned the Bitterroot National Forest were in the summer of 2000-over a year and a half ago--and still no restoration has been done.
Discussion: The timber industry says the dead trees remaining after the massive forest fires in the summer of 2000 should be removed before they decay and become diseased. Most of the private and state forests have had restoration work done, which includes planting seedlings and restoring stream beds. The Forest Service estimates 4,000 new jobs would be created if its plan were put in place.
The lawsuit was brought by several environmental groups after Mark Rey, undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources, who oversees the USFS, decided to forego the formal appeals process. According to reports, Rey said the timber needed logging soon and he figured a lawsuit would follow any comment period anyway.
(Gretchen Randall is the director of the John P. McGovern, M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at the The National Center for Public Policy Research.)
