Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (28596)	9/20/2001 2:20:40 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Why would I? Of course I realize he isn't the only player, but when I see his statements after the Palestinian escalation, I am concerned. And intervening events may have changed his stated view. And what is good for the Israeli's is not necessarily good for Americans. Snip from the Apr. 20 Krauthammer editioral previously referenced... washingtonpost.com The Powell Doctrine found its ultimate expression in the Gulf War. The idea was not to match Iraqi power but to entirely overwhelm it in planes, tanks, technology, manpower and will. That would make the war short and make victory certain. It did. Today, the Powell Doctrine seems obvious, but it was not at the time. For decades the United States had followed a policy of proportionality: restraint because of fear of escalation. It was under this theory that Maj. Powell watched his men bleed and die purposelessly in Vietnam. Powell understood the problem. If you respond proportionately, you allow the enemy to set the limits and level of fighting. You grant him the initiative. In Vietnam, proportionality brought us endless losses and painful retreat. Powell learned a lesson for his generation. There would be no more self-restraining, self-defeating proportionality. "First we're going to cut it off," said Powell memorably of the Iraqi army. "Then we're going to kill it." That was then. A decade later, Powell seems to have carved out an exception to his rule. In the past few weeks, the Palestinians have ominously escalated their six-month guerrilla war of riots, shootings and terrorist bombings. Their new tactic is launching mortar rounds from Palestinian territory into Israel. We're not talking about attacks on settlers, or settlements, or soldiers, or outposts, or crossroads. We're talking about attacks on towns within Israel proper, such as the peaceful desert town of Sederot, attacked this week. Israel responded to this alarming escalation not with a proportional tit for tat, which would only regularize and institutionalize -- and legitimize -- such cross-border Palestinian aggression. Instead Israel delivered a sharper deterrent blow: occupying a piece of Gaza from which the attacks were launched. In other words, Israel applied the Powell Doctrine. And what did it get? The sharpest rebuke from an American secretary of state in years. On Tuesday, Powell denounced the attack as "excessive and disproportionate" and demanded Israel's retreat. Israel docilely complied. It will regret that decision, as will the United States<<