Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (39356)	8/21/2002 11:16:06 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Yes, I do. Al Qaeda depends on sponsorship and recruitment. They do not need huge amounts of either to do their dirty work. I see no reason why they need any State support at all; if anything, an expanded US military presence in the region will make recruitment easier. Once we have Iraq, I do think a respectful quiet will descend on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, since nobody will want to volunteer to be next. I would guess that once we "have" Iraq - and, barring HIV or rabies, I can think of few things I'd want less - the Islamist priority will shift to destabilizing whatever regime we insert. That would force us to keep troops there, in static positions, ideal targets for terrorist attack and intifadeh-style resistance. The real danger here that I see is that we will find ourselves choosing between indefinite support for a shaky regime in Iraq and backing out, which would be tantamount to surrender. Regime change is the relatively easy part. What comes after is where it gets dicey.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next