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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (3251)	3/17/2002 3:59:08 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I think this is an interesting enough theory on this subject that i'm posting it. And you said this, er, theory was original? I'd be a little worried about being married to someone who could come up with stories like that. <g> I think it's really clever and a great fit for the scenario, but surely a retrofit. It's hard to imagine something that, er, creative and complex coming out of the powers that be. It's also very sneaky, and we all know that sneaky shows a lack of character. Karen

To: E who wrote (3251)	3/17/2002 4:29:18 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

it would allow us to create a de facto protectorate in Iraq run by handpicked political compradors OF COURSE that's what we would do. Do we have to spell everything out for you liberals? That's the PLAN. Why else would we do it? And, pray tell, when has a victor that actually occupied its foe NOT done so? You think the Romans didn't set up puppets in Palestine 2000 years ago? You think the British let maharajahs who wouldn't do their bidding run India? You think this is necessarily bad? Then explain current Europe. <i.(This scenario also would explain the manifest lack of interest on the part of the US in acquiring significant allied support in Europe for a war and occupation effort. If we do it alone, we get it all.) The Europeans love to play holier-than-thou vis-a-vis the US. Except when THEIR ox is being gored. Then they rediscover self-interest. It's easy to sit back and carp when you don't have to do the dirty work.

To: E who wrote (3251)	3/17/2002 5:10:24 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I think N should spend an afternoon with our President and relay the plan.

To: E who wrote (3251)	3/17/2002 5:44:32 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

This assumes that we have either the capacity to install a government capable of sustaining itself without our continuous support or the political will to maintain an army of occupation in Iraq for an extended period of time, meaning not months, but years and possibly decades. "Getting it all" might prove less than advantageous if what we get turns out to be a major headache, as long term commitments in unstable countries often prove to be. If we were running Iraq, the problem of what to do with those annoying Kurds would be our problem. The problem of what to do with those annoying Shiites (more than half the population, for the democratically minded) becomes ours. These problems will not be resolved in days or years. Do we want to deal with them? Those devoted to the study of military tactics and hardware often overlook the fact that wars are not fought to win battles or to destroy opposing forces. They are fought to attain political objectives. It is possible, if one selects a political objective that is sufficiently difficult to achieve, to win every battle and still lose the war. We should know this; it is what we did in Vietnam. In this scenario our objective would be the installation of a stable, self-sustaining, pro-western government in Iraq. This is probably not the easiest objective to attain. If we do invade - and I am in no way convinced that we should - I think it would be more reasonable to take the much more limited objective of removing or greatly reducing Iraq's ability to threaten us or anyone else. This could be achieved by simply destroying all weapons and weapons-production technology, then getting out and letting the place descend into chaos on its own. It would certainly become a mess, and whatever government arises will probably hate us, but this is likely to be the case in any event. I am not convinced that a major military base in the region would necessarily be a huge asset. To the extent that it would commit us to the continuing sustenance of an unstable government, it might be a liability. If we do invade Iraq, we will have to do it without land bases or with very limited use of them: our allies in the area are understandably reluctant to provide bases for an operation that they see as not in accordance with their interests. If we succeed, it will demonstrate that we do not need a major military base to perform such operations. If we fail, we won't have the base in any case.