SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: stockman_scott who wrote (108308)7/27/2003 4:44:47 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Hi stockman_scott; That was an incredible article. Some comments:

Re: "Bolstered by control of both houses of Congress, the moment was ripe for a clear public declaration of how an expensive and prolonged occupation of Iraq was but the first step in promoting world peace through global hegemony. Instead, the administration chose to create in the public mind the more appealing expectation that there would be no major American occupation, simply an invasion to liberate Iraqis. That the Bush people must now suffer the fallout from a bewildered and disillusioned public that still doesn't understand the endgame is due to how they chose to handle this issue.
...
Ironically, Kristol and Kagan wrote in a 1996 Foreign Affairs piece that one of the major conditions for the success of the neocons' plan for "Benevolent Global Hegemony" was that the public have a clear understanding of it in order to gain popular support."

I think that most of the neocons really believed their own BS. Certainly the administration did little, even secretly, to prepare for an extended war in Iraq. They didn't even have plans for which units to leave in country, if pacification was not immediate. The juggling of leaders and the back and forth over Iraq elections is more evidence of their complete surprise.

My guess is that their opinions were informed solely by a few Iraqi expatriates that were basically too distant from the country to have a clue what would happen. This is the only explanation that is consistent with the facts of this fiasco.

Also, the theory of hegemonic control ignores the basic fact of 3000 years of military history on this planet: Even badly armed locals almost always have the advantage over a foreign occupier. The reason for this is that the locals are more willing to accept casualties. I don't think the article pointed out this fairly well known bit of military lore.

-- Carl
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News