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: greenspirit who wrote (72652)	2/9/2003 5:05:19 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Exist strategy: When Saddam's rule has ended and a new Iraqi government is operating within the dictates of U.N. resolutions. Preferably some sort of coalition government representing most of the people of Iraq. Michael, I can find no UN resolutions pertaining to a new Iraqi government. Are you referring to possible future resolutions? There is a strategy ShilohCat, you may not agree with it, and you may not agree with the process. But the strategy certainly exist. This is the murky part. Where is this strategy defined? I have found it nowhere. I am not referring to military strategy, I mean endgame goals. Of course, having a strategy doesn't mean you cinch yourself to it as if in a straight-jacket. Playing the game changes the game, and our strategy should be flexible enough to deal with the unknown and unknowables of war. No argument here. Therefore, analyzing every aspect of our exit strategy such as the time line, personnel involved, precise type of government etc, would be an exercise in futility. It also falls right into the mental model of what I see a lot of the anti-war people doing, which is, "Analysis to Paralysis". Here is where we have serious disagreement. Without knowing what we would like to see happen post-invasion, we are putting ourselves in a position where we will have made matters worse, plus killed innocents to do so. Can you recall a war when this has not been the case? Forget precedence, a preemptive strike is a whole new world for us. Below is the Weinburger-Powell Docrtrine. Please show me which point is being violated? 1. The United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest. 2. The commitment should only be made with the clear intention of winning. 3. It should be carried out with clearly defined political and military objectives. 4. Success and failure must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. 5. It should have the support of the American People and their elected representatives in congress. 6. It should be a last resort. That is the Weinberger Doctrine. But to answer,IMHO, #1 is shaky, #3 is doubtful, #5 is too vague to argue and #6 is highly debatable.

To: greenspirit who wrote (72652)	2/9/2003 5:12:17 PM
From: KonKilo	Respond to of 281500

Michael, Here's the Powell Doctrine: * Is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined and understood? * Have all other nonviolent policy means failed? * Will military force achieve the objective? At what cost? * Have the gains and risks been analyzed? * How might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences? I do not believe these questions have been answered to the satisfaction of either the US citizens nor the majority of our allies. Also, here is the Lake Doctrine, which is the more current of the doctrines in question: * Credible threats of force can be as effective as force itself; * The "selective but substantial use of force is sometimes more appropriate than its massive use"; * Carefully defined exit strategies should accompany every foreign intervention. All are germane to the Iraq situation, but particularly #3, IMHO.

To: greenspirit who wrote (72652)	2/9/2003 7:39:34 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Of course, having a strategy doesn't mean you cinch yourself to it as if in a straight-jacket. Playing the game changes the game, and our strategy should be flexible enough to deal with the unknown and unknowables of war. Therefore, analyzing every aspect of our exit strategy such as the time line, personnel involved, precise type of government etc, would be an exercise in futility. It also falls right into the mental model of what I see a lot of the anti-war people doing, which is, "Analysis to Paralysis". Nice summation Michael.. Geo-politics does not lend itself well to Clairvoyance. Hawk