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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (130872)	10/24/2001 5:09:48 PM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

1. I agree with you that it was Powell's desire to end the war when it did: As he said, "It was not our intention to go to Baghdad. And had we done that, we would have gotten ourselves into the biggest quagmire you can imagine trying to sort out 2,000 years of Mesopotamian history." He was speaking out of his Vietnam experience and, to be fair, one has to admit that he was acting from a desire to avoid the political-military disaster in Vietnam. But, I still maintain that he was speaking as the CJCS, and we still have civilian control over the military in this country. Where was Cheney, where was Scowcroft, where was Jim Baker, in crafting a political framework that would provide for a reconstruction of a democratic, or at least a non-hostile state when we marched into Baghdad? That is where I place the blame, not on Powell. Having said that, I realize that was then, and this is now, and he is Secretary of State. I share your concern with what his policies might be today, particularly in a post-Taliban Afghanistan. 2. We agree.