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 (65912)	1/16/2003 1:15:08 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It is kind of a "Boy Scout" situation Steven. We have to "Be Prepared." That is why we are going to need a long term "Boots on the Ground" Military presence in the ME. We need to make the leaders feel the presence of the "Gunboat over the Horizon," for quite a while. In many of these cases, I don’t think having an entire navy over the horizon – or military bases in neighboring countries – will have any major effect. We aren’t going to invade Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, and the leaders know it. More important, the terrorists operating there know it. I didn’t say we shouldn’t be keeping forces there: we need a presence that can deploy SF raids or precisely targeted ordnance on very short notice. But I’m not convinced that a massive long term military presence – the sort that one needs to invade countries – is either necessary or desirable, or that we should be counting on keeping major forces in Iraq on a long term basis. It is good to be prepared. I suspect, though, that we are spending a lot of effort preparing for what we won’t be doing, and not nearly enough preparing for what we need to do. When you take away the hype and rhetoric, what has Ashcroft done to merit the "Demonization" he has got? Anyone who, as a state governor, would try to ban the sale of alcohol on Sundays because such sales do not square up with his personal religious convictions is someone who cannot be trusted with the coercive power of the state. Anyone who would hold prayer meetings in a Government office in his charge should not be managing public employees (that may or may not have been illegal; it was certainly detrimental to the office and just plain stupid). Ideology and law enforcement make a very bad combination, in my view. I wouldn’t want a fundamentalist of any kind in that position; the issue of divided loyalty is just too obvious. I think he’s been held in check so far, but I also think he’s the type of person who, given half a chance, would gladly use his power to advance personal agendas that he personally believes would benefit the nation. In large part, I just don’t trust the guy. I can’t listen to him say 3 words without getting the gut feeling that this is not somebody I trust with power. I don’t expect anybody else to trust my gut feelings, but I’ve learned to have a good deal of faith in them. You expect an Attorney General to be aggressive about getting bad guys. We have the courts to curb him. In the type of effort we’re discussing, the courts would have little say. Much of the dirty work would be done overseas, and much of what would need to be done here would be blatantly illegal. That’s why the whole thing has to be handled with great restraint. It’s not a job for an ideologue. I think we will end up with what we always get when we are war. Several huge organizations that spin their wheels 99% of the time to get good results the other 1% of the time. But we have a history of being better at it, once we get going, than anybody else. That works when we are up against other huge organizations that spin their wheels 99.5% of the time. We’re not. We can’t win this fight by doing what worked before. It’s a different kind of fight, and it requires different tactics. Huge wheel-spinning organizations aren’t going to make it.