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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BigBull who wrote (21648)	3/18/2002 8:22:20 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, interesting, though far from conclusive. As the article pointed out, the groups supplying the information have a strong vested interest in influencing the US course of action. Information from any such source should not be ignored, but it does have to be verified to ensure that we are not simply being manipulated. I should point out that my objection to full-scale invasion of Iraq is not based on the difficulty of invading Iraq and removing Saddam. I think we could probably do this fairly expeditiously (assuming that we have the use of forward bases in the region), though I think it would be more costly than the Afghan campaign by a fair margin. What disturbs me is the problem of managing the aftermath. Any government we install is likely to be widely opposed as a puppet, and will probably need continuing military support in order to stay in power. Our alternative leadership options are very thin; the exiles that are sometimes discussed have little or no support base. We are looking at the possibility of an extended occupation. Occupying armies are much harder to secure than invasion forces, being necessarily more static and more dispersed. They are vulnerable to guerilla attack and intifadeh-style confrontation with mobs. I would hate to see us bog down in Iraq with a choice between interminable support for a Government that cannot rule and abandoning the country, very likely to fundamentalist groups that would probably be as close to the terror networks - or closer - than Saddam. If there was a plan that would allow us to do what we want to do - remove Saddam, destroy all WMD and WMD manufacturing capability - and get out quickly and without creating a problem as large as the one we solved, it would look much better, to me at least. I've seen people on SI dismiss the "what comes after" problem with comments like "if we keep an army in Baghdad for a couple of years, we'll think of something". I hope that sort of thinking is not going on in DC.