Foreign Affairs - No Political Rants 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 - No Political Rants

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: didjuneau who wrote (384)	3/8/2003 8:35:33 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) of 504

> Maybe you could explain why you seem to think it needs yardsticks spelled out? Because, IMO, the administration has been intentionally vague on what it is they are after. There is a lot of suggestions and implications, but it is very very light in specifics. Take the case of regime change in Iraq. The question is a change to what? There are those who believe the objective is to establish a democratic regime in Iraq that respects its people's rights and wishes. 2/3 of Iraq's population is Shia. Therefore you must assume that they will become a very strong voice in a democratic government in Iraq. Kurds make up another 20% of Iraq's population. In Kurdish areas they make over 90% of the population. Since the Kurds are ethnically and culturally radically different from the rest of Iraqi population, democracy in Iraq should also mean some form of federation with Kurds that respects their right to their heritage. What is the administration's position on these specific issues and on regime change in general? Yesterday the CNBC panel of experts stated that a "strong" leadership in Iraq may be what is needed because the people who have helped us there are General Musharef of Pakistan and Emir of Kuwait (not really democratic figures). It went on to point out that the only democratic regime in the region, Turkey, has had a hard time towing the line and joining the US coalition (and implicitly suggested full democracy in the middle east is not a desired outcome). The panel concluded that *"Our policy has always* favored stability over democracy"*. Clearly there is a disconnect between these two views on what the next regime in Iraq should be. So I think it is important to hold the administrations feet to fire and ask what they are after, before* they get a chance to pat themselves on the back and declare a victory no matter what they do. Without having clearly stated objectives, judging the war will not be easy. Sun Tzu

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next