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: Mary Cluney who wrote (174390)	11/7/2005 4:35:14 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (6) of 281500

Hi Mary. Re: "I dismissed it two weeks back when they asked Condaleeza Rice what the time table was for pulling out of Iraq." Rice has at least been consistent on that point. When we first invaded and occupied Iraq she stated that it would be a "generational" involvement on the part of America. In doing so she used words creating the impression that the Iraqis would be our "children" for many decades. That message sent chills down my spine. Although others in the Administration have alleged that we'll leave "as soon as we can" our actions indicate that Rice's statements of our intent are still valid. Note that there's never been an Administration denial of the claim that we're building more than a score of permanent military bases for our use in Iraq. Those words and actions indicate that we always had more in mind than helping the Iraqis make their own political choices. It's a safe bet that we're there to project our military power in that region and that we're working hard to make sure that in the next decades our military DOESN'T leave. One way to make sure we don't leave is to prop up a puppet government that continually requires our military support. Can that be done where the government is democratically elected? Yes, it can if the votes are "counted" by the puppet government so that the popular will of the people is actually thwarted, or if a well-armed and determined minority supported insurgency continues to rage. The real architects behind the occupation of Iraq never said much about "helping" the Iraqis, it was all about protecting what they viewed as vital "American interests." It still is and even with the current tragic level of human and economic costs I don't think we'd be hearing one word about pulling troops out if the American public wasn't beginning to ask hard questions about the "whys" and "whens" of the occupation. Regardless of the motives of the architects of our occupation policy, however, one thing is clear; they greatly underestimated the ability and willingness of everyday Iraqis to make us pay a high cost. That cost is continually rising and to keep the support of a majority of Americans they'll either have to articulate another rationale that temporarily appears to justify the cost of occupation, or disengage. Even if they disengage, however, I don't expect we'll abandon those permanent military bases we're building. I suspect our military presence in Iraq will continue and remain a festering sore generating more terrorism and hatred for years to come. But there is light at the top of the deep hole we've dug for ourselves. Ideologically motivated and dim thinking people don't quickly become smarter or more rational when faced with reality. But when reality gets really tough on them...they have to. It's getting to be that time. Ed

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next