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: LindyBill who wrote (35148)	7/29/2002 9:37:29 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My point about Powell was that I did not believe in leaving it to the Generals to make this decision, and this was an example where following the Generals advice led to a bad decision, IMO. Was the decision based entirely, or even primarily, on Powell's advice? I don't think so. A substantial part of the decision was certainly political. The political will supporting a campaign in Iraq and an extended occupation was highly questionable; the specter of Vietnam still close enough that nobody wanted to risk a war that voters would not think necessary. Desert Storm was totally dependent on Saudi basing, and an invasion of Iraq would have forced a confrontation with the Saudis, possibly an ugly one. The State Department and the oil lobby (which always has a voice in Middle East affairs) would have been dead set against that. There would have been a substantial chorus of voices speaking against invasion, not just Powell. Steve, as I have said in other posts, what would you have us do? You admit that Saddam wants Atomic Weapons, and will not stop until he has them. Do you want to do nothing based on the assessment that he will never be able to get them? Do you want to do nothing because you don't care if he sets one off in Israel, and you think he will never figure out a way to set on off in, say, New York Harbor? One word: deterrence. It has always worked before. Saddam is not an Islamist nut case, and he's not interested in Martyrdom. Why would he take an action that would guarantee his own destruction? The likelihood of Saddam turning a nuke or other WMD over to Al Qaeda is, I think, wildly overstated. Saddam is a control freak. He trusts nobody outside his immediate circle. He has certainly had contact with the Islamists, but there is no natural trust and considerable natural antipathy there. Why would he turn over his hole card to a loose cannon, putting it outside his control? Unless, of course, he knew he was going to be eliminated in any event.... The comparison to Hitler is wildly strained. There has been no appeasement. Hitler was allowed to swallow his neighbors one by one. Saddam took one bite and got smacked silly. He can't move aircraft over much of his country. His anti-aircraft capacity is being continually degraded; he can't turn on radar without having a missile shot at it. He doesn't have control over large portions of his country. He no longer has any realistic ability to threaten his neighbors. He is not being appeased. I would like to see very aggressive containment, along with commando raids aimed at temporarily seizing key installations and/or collecting key people that would allow better assessment of capabilities. If targets of opportunity are presented for air attack, by all means attack them. I have not said that I would not support an invasion in any circumstances. On the basis of the case that's been made for it so far, I can't support it. If someone in the administration made a really convincing public analysis of the threat, along with a realistic, achievable post-Saddam plan, I could imagine changing my mind. That hasn't been done yet. I think we're going to see more and more people, and not just leftie peaceniks, asking for it. As I've said before, I think this one really does call for a full debate and a Congressinal declaration of war. That's the only way that the country can really get behind it. War, especially in a case where we have not been attacked by the people we're fighting, is too large an issue to be left to the executive.