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 (64589)	1/9/2003 3:23:10 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We are obviously going to have most of our overseas Military deployment in the ME from now on. One item that was very noticeably absent from the leaked plan was any provision for permanent or long-term military basing in Iraq. I’m not sure that it will be practical to keep significant forces there for the long term, and I’m not sure they would serve much useful purpose. Once the Iraq operation is complete, we will have done most of the work that can be done by military force. We will still face very significant challenges, particularly in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran, but they are not challenges that will be dealt with effectively by armies. Once Saddam is removed from the equation, we might well find that large military forces in the area are as much liability as asset. Who else are we planning to conquer? Various Muslim groups declared war on us from there over the last twenty years, and we ignored that fact. Not any longer. This is true, but again, for the most part it isn’t a war that we can win with conventional military action. The terrorists made a bad mistake in Afghanistan: they settled in, built infrastructure, took over a state. This is always an error in a guerilla war: it gives the enemy a target against which superior military force can be used. Our enemies are not stupid, and I don’t expect the mistake to be repeated. I expect them to act as effective terrorists and guerillas have always acted: to disperse their forces among larger populations, to remain clandestine, to avoid concentration and exposure that will create viable military targets. This will make them a lot harder to hit. It will not make them any less effective; it might in fact make them more effective. We have to understand that the campaign against Iraq is only peripherally related to the war on terror. Removing Saddam will remove one possible source from which terrorists might acquire WMD. It will remove one sponsor of terrorism, out of many. It will not be a significant blow against the terrorist networks. They used Saddam, and he used them, but they certainly don’t need him. The campaign against Saddam is actually very likely to strengthen the hand of the terrorists, at least in the short run: the campaign will be perceived in the region as US aggression against an Arab state, and that is a prime recruiting issue. It will also provide an occupation force and a massive civilian presence, all excellent and highly exposed targets. We are probably in as good a shape as we can get to participate in "After Action" Nation Building as we are going to get. About the best we can expect in Iraq is some sort of a consensus Government that allows each of the three regions to have local control, with a weak central Government. This will reflect the tribalism in the country. Afghanistan has to go the same way. I don’t expect any such consensus to last very long. That may sound pessimistic; I think it’s just a matter of realism. Too many people here expect us to build an identical political structure to ours, and it just won't work. Amen One of Bush's personal problems with Foreign Policy is his devout Christianity. He allows it to color his policy making. I have just read too much about Foreign leaders who wave a cross at him and become buddies. According to Friedman, part of our problem in Lebanon was that we got too wrapped up in the Christians there who fed our vanity. Israel was so desperate for a friendly gesture in the ME that they made the same mistake. We have to tone down the "Crusader" rhetoric. This is a major problem, and it’s been a major problem with American foreign policy for years. Christianity is not always the issue, either. Our officials have been suckered on way too many occasions by people who told them what they wanted to hear. Remember the days when all all a 3rd world despot had to do to get American support was to declare that his enemies were communists, and to recite the anti-communist creed? That could easily happen again. One thing we have to understand in Iraq, and elsewhere in the region, is that there will be dozens of local leaders and factions competing for our support. A few of them may be honestly seeking a democratic government. Most will be after power for themselves and their factions. All of them will tell us whatever they think we want to hear. Sorting them out will require a lot of effort and a good deal of cynicism.