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: Ilaine who wrote (43558)	9/12/2002 6:40:13 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "So why do the nay-sayers gloom and doom about Iraq, which will be far less challenging than Afghanistan?" (1) My own position is not that Iraq will necessarily involve "gloom and doom", but instead my point is the more subtle one that Iraq has severe risks. My prediction that the US will not invade is not due to the inability of the US to overcome Saddam, but instead is due to the lack of a reason to fight, combined with the risks of fighting. (2) Afghanistan was surrounded by countries that supported US intervention, Iraq apparently has none. (3) The US had UN, NATO, and EU support in Afghanistan, not Iraq. (4) Public opinion was far more in favor of action in Afghanistan than action in Iraq. Small nations fight their wars in US opinion polls (ala Vietnam) as much as in the field. (5) Afghanistan was (mostly) controlled by an outside group (Taliban) whose leaders were thought of as foreigners (arabs) by the majority of the locals. Iraq, on the other hand, is (mostly) controlled by Saddam Hussein, a local boy. (All politics is local.) (6) Iraq is more advanced, both militarily and economically, than Afghanistan. (7) Iraq is bigger than Afghanistan. (8) Iraq has more people than Afghanistan. (9) Saddam's group in Iraq is composed of Arabs, and the Arab nation is quite large and contiguous. (10) Iraq has longer borders than Afghanistan. (11) In Afghanistan, it was impossible for the replacement government to be less hospitable towards US interests. So no matter what we did, we were in a "no lose" situation. Iraq, on the other hand, could become an Islamic Fundamentalist nation that would give us more trouble than Saddam. (12) On the other hand, Iraq is more accessible to the ocean than Afghanistan, but this advantage is obviated by our lack of allies in the area. (13) Afghanistan had the power of religion on its side, while the Iraqi government is secular. But it's unclear what advantage or disadvantage this gives. There are very few examples of modern religious governments to compare to. (14) The Iraqis have already fought against the US, and they're no doubt aware of the pitfalls of their previous effort. Countries that are defeated usually fight harder in their next wars. Similarly, countries that are victors usually fight less hard. History abounds with examples of this. By the way, I noted that Afghanistan would not be a challenge, and did it publicly on SI as early as September 15, 2001. For example, see: #reply-17950169 So these are my thoughts on the issue. Now why don't you give your thoughts behind: "... Iraq, which will be far less challenging than Afghanistan?" I don't see it. Hell, we didn't even have to use a single armored vehicle to kick over Afghanistan, but even to push Saddam out of Kuwait required massive tank forces. -- Carl