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 (28866)	5/8/2002 2:12:55 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The proper way to judge a policy, IMHO, is on the basis of what the decisionmaker in question could have reasonably been expected to know at the time the decision was made Spoken like a diplomat. Whatever happened to l'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace?

To: tekboy who wrote (28866)	5/8/2002 4:07:09 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

but the whole Inchon thing is a fascinating question It sure is, Tek. Your analysis of it is correct, IMO. But remember Napoleon's guestion, "Are you lucky?" We mention that one a lot around here. It was a "Flank" move, which is usually a very good gamble. MacCarthur was good at this. The U.S. Army, since Grant, has been oriented to frontal attacks. "Hi Diddle Diddle, straight up the middle." That is why Grant, Pershing, Ike, and our Vietnam Generals were butchers. A very good fiction book on the tactical aspect of Inchon has just been published, called "Under Fire" by W E B Griffin. The taking of the islands in front of Inchon, as described in the book, actually happened.

To: tekboy who wrote (28866)	5/8/2002 5:25:15 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

So--going ahead with Inchon was like going to the craps table in a casino and dumping all your money on snake eyes. The only way it ever got approved was because MacArthur was dead set on it, and had such charisma, authority, and pig-headedness that he managed to get everybody to agree against their better judgment. Yes, McArthur was a BS artist but a brilliant one. So, was he fibbing when he said it had been done before and therefore was possible?. An assault by sea is absolutely the most difficult thing an army can do, I think. Always very risky. Mind boggles at the risks involved in the Normandy invasion. There will always be objections. Remember my point was does 'politically impossible' mean 'it hasn't been done lately'? (The stab about careerists was a cheap shot but my experience with them hasn't been all that satisfactory). There is some comfort in knowing someone may have successfully done a similar, or same thing, previously, if not very recently. In fact, if something has been done quite a while ago, successfully, then perhaps there is a chance at seeing things like unintended consequences and pitfalls the previous entrepreneur fell in. So, where has a peace settlement and perhaps even a government been imposed by outsiders? Successfully? Not necessarily at the same time. Maybe just a government or maybe only a livable arrangement. I ask because the Malley/Agha recommendations, in the light of what's been said just in Washington the last few days, appear to have some currency.... Kissenger's interview just posted here is relevent, I think: KISSINGER: You need some immediate relief. But what you too also need, you have to construct some kind of authority in the Palestinian territories with some kind of clear-cut executive functions and judicial functions for long-term aid, compared to short-term relief that may have to be given. And I think if these three things could be done simultaneously in subgroups, then you would avoid the danger of speaking for the record all the time. And probably you could distill some sort -- not a final agreement, but some sort of agreement that permits coexistence. ..... KISSINGER: Well, the bitterness isn't going to diminish just because you make an agreement. And I think both of them have to transcend some of the experiences. But I would blame Arafat more for that than Sharon. But that's not the point. They cannot do it by themselves. And on the political issues, the United States has to play the major role. On the economic reconstruction, some of our European allies and maybe the U.N. can make a contribution. And on vouching for Arafat, some countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan can play a role. This is the division of labor that I foresee in this. "They cannot do it by themselves." I think he's right and Malley/Agha are right also - gradualism in negotiation between the parties hasn't worked. What hasn't been mentioned are the proxy sponsors, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabian NGOs, etc and what is to be done about them. Are they going to back out just because the Saudi government, Egypt and Jordan, etc come onside? frank@didbushandshamirgetanythingdone.com

To: tekboy who wrote (28866)	5/8/2002 10:34:35 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

re Inchon: Caro has a fascinating section of his book on LBJ devoted to the aftermath of Truman firing MacArthur, in which despite M's almost nation wide adulation, the US Congress decided civilian authority over the military was at stake. And, in an intricate set of maneuvers, managed to support Truman while fending off constituents who worshipped M. P.S. A completely irrelevant tribute to the combination of the SI spell checker and Atomica. I misspelled "maneuvers", SI caught it, and Atomic gave me the correct spelling. Did not have to go find the dictionary.