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: michael97123 who wrote (146069)	9/21/2004 10:41:40 AM
From: Bilow	of 281500

Hi michael97123; Re: "There may be one more shot to stabilize the situation before we leave but that may involve more troops which would be highly risky business. You cant just bomb fallujah and expect to win. At some point troops will have to fight street to street with possibly large casualties." It's quite possible for the US to briefly occupy those parts of Iraq that are currently outside the control of the interim government, but it's impossible for us to permanently occupy those areas. And yes, there would be a lot of casualties. But the real point is the observation that there is maybe only one more shot to stabilize the situation before we leave. There's a lot of military people who will give the opinion that the situation will simply immediately return to the the pre shot position afterwards. In short, we have no ability to sustain our "spikes" of control in Iraq. This is what the Novak article was about. As far as the fact that Novak was opposed to the war beforehand, this may be true, but he never wrote an article predicting that we were soon to leave. -- Carl

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next