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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35855)	8/3/2002 8:59:12 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Somehow, I don't entirely trust your summary. As far as lame goes, as opposed to what? The nearly nine months of "War Now!" blather that's dominated this group? The local warbloggers will almost certainly get their way, all I can hope for is that somehow, the US involvement doesn't follow the way of most foreign occupations in the Mideast.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (35855)	8/8/2002 11:08:23 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

re whether containment is still a viable option, I think it's necessary to distinguish between old-fashioned containment--using the term as we did during the Cold War--and the super-sized version we've been using against Iraq. It does seem that the super-sized version is coming unglued, but what it is degrading into is the old-fashioned version, which may or may not work. There really are three different approaches, in other words, that policymakers are weighing now, as I see it. The first is maintaining the post-Gulf War Iraq policy, which has been called "containment" but would really be better described as "quarantine." The second is falling back to a less intrusive, more threat-based version of the same thing, which we called "containment" during the Cold War but is now being termed "deterrence." And the third approach is some kind of direct intervention to bring about regime change. Few reputable experts disagree that the "quarantine" policy is in trouble (although there is some disagreement about just how fast it's crumbling and how long its effective life can be prolonged). But there is indeed disagreement about what should come next. Some favor settling for "deterrence," and some favor invasion. My own feeling is that since invasion represents a radical change in American policy--not just toward Iraq but toward international relations and war in general--there should be a strong presumption against it. Preventive war, which is what we're talking about, is not something to be taken lightly, and it's not something we have ever done before. The question for me, in other words, is whether the particular case of Saddam's Iraq today (given everything we know about him, his intentions and likely future capabilities, the feasibility of alternative courses of action, etc.), the radical, costly, and unprecedented approach of preventive war is appropriate or not. As I've said, my answer to that question depends on what time of day you ask me. tb@he'sbaaaack.com