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: tekboy who wrote (22451)	3/29/2002 12:17:03 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The piece by Ken Pollack in the March/April Foreign Affairs remains the best discussion to date of just why an Afghan-style campaign is inappropriate for Iraq- Yes If I had to guess, I suppose I'd say that if they do it, it will be via an invasion. How audacious do you think US is? Leave Saudi for Iraq. "So long, been good to know you...." Lots of planning already gone into invasion of Iraq from that direction. Furthermore, the Saudi government is actively blocking US access to people who directly attack US citizens - it's not an ally, it's an enemy. I can think of some downsides but they don't seem awful, except for the uncertainty at the Iraqi end play. But how difficult would that be? New regime there, if it wants to go secular, liberal direction, might like to negotiate some protection, given some of its neighbours won't be friendly. Sure like to know what US has in mind for endgame there. The status quo doesn't look healthy for long term western interests not only in Middle East but elsewhere. There has to be a move to start deflating the islamist line and the move has to have a big bang at the start and be followed by continuous PR programs some of which should have physical and social payoff. The exercise in Afghanistan had to be done because of the Pakistan islamist problem (see next post) but that only attacks half the proximate difficulty - it has no direct effect on Middle East actors involved in pushing and supporting islamist ideology - lots of folk supporting it in various ways but, so far, it hasn't cost them anything and it should cost lots, because not every one's dedication to it is strong. At the pressure of large costs many folks' support would wither and those opposed to islamist ideology strengthened. The criticism that Iraq with Saddam gone is no sure supporter of modernity has to be examined very carefully. The criticism that taking out Saddam won't necessarily cost Islamist supporters a lot should also be looked at. It certainly will cost them a lot if Iraq becomes completely modernist. But there is cost anyway even if that doesn't happen - it's claimed widely that the US (by extension the West generally) is spent, that its government and people are cowardly and won't fight directly, and over all is in a state of decay and ready to be superseded by islamism. This position has to be falsified by action - talking can't falsify it. It must be falsified, otherwise the boldness of the islamists will increase, and ultimately they will make overt demands on how we run our countries - the nature of some fatwas the last decade tells us this. Already there is a demand the west change its foreign policies to fit islamist requirements (as in 9/11 is US's responsibilty due to its policy and that should be changed). Not enough demands are made in the other direction and this is a huge mistake given the perniciousness of the ideology we face but unless there is some demonstration of resolute action the demands the west might make won't be taken seriously. frank@gotfedupwiththrowingstuffoutandpacking.com