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 (34243)	7/13/2002 12:18:27 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The whole issue of bases for the operation has been skipped over rather lightly in the current discussions, and I really wonder what the status of the negotiations is. It's very easy to talk about a ground force attacking from Turkey, but the reality is more complicated. We have air bases in Turkey, yes, but any ground force - and its supply line - would have to move completely across the country from north to south, and move through the remote southeast corner of Turkey, a mountainous area with a limited road net. It wouldn't surprise me if we had to send engineers in to spend time rehabilitating roads and bridges before it was possible to move armored forces through the area. The whole process would involve considerable disruption and inconvenience for the population of western Turkey. There is no real strategic imperative pushing Turkey to cooperate - Iraq has never been a real threat to Turkey - and a real possibility that the whole affair could have negative consequences, if the Iraqi Kurds end up with an independent state or a thoroughly autonomous area. Given these realities, I wonder how eager the Turks are to participate, and what quid pro quo they will demand. Jordan we have already discussed; their large Palestinian population puts them in a very delicate situation. The Jordanian government certainly wants Saddam out, but how much can they do without undermining themselves? Even in Kuwait, the will seems limited. It will be interesting to see how that plays out, since no real buildup can occur until these issues are resolved. All of this is of course a major element in the argument for an Afghanistan-style war using light forces with local allies and a heavy air component. This sort of campaign places a far lighter burden on regional allies. It also raises the possibility of a totally unacceptable failure....

To: BigBull who wrote (34243)	7/13/2002 6:31:16 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

My last quote will be from another exchange with Krauthammer: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The same arguments were made in September and early October. The Arab street will rise against us. America is acting, with the power without thinking of the consequences. We don't understand the cultures. All of these arguments that we heard, and then six weeks later there are Afghans dancing in the streets because they were liberated by the Americans. SEYLA BENHABIB: I was for intervention in Afghanistan ... CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: And that's why ... SEYLA BENHABIB: ... but not in Iraq. I was. CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, there were also the same ... voices who spoke 11 years ago and said that we were going to be in a quagmire in Iraq as well, and the Arab street would rise against us, et cetera, et cetera. Kanan I think has it exactly correctly. If you're looking for a way in which we can reinvent American foreign policy in the Middle East, Iraq is precisely the place, because we are being accused of always having supported dictators because of our fear of Islamism or other ... forms of populism in the Arab world. Here is an example where we can show that we are not for dictatorships, stagnation, oppression, autocracy.