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: Sun Tzu who wrote (81147)	3/11/2003 9:55:59 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Sun Tzu, In 1991 we were constrained by a multi-lateral alliance. Our commitment to keep our European and Arab allies happy did not permit us to enact regime change or create safe havens. After the alliance disbanded, the horror of watching what happened to the Shia's and Kurds led to the UK/US led no fly zones to protect these people - no specific UN resolution or UNSC cover - we just flew between the lines in the resolutions. As to our support of Iraq vs Iran - yes we provided some credits, but as has been discussed - we were far outsold and out moneyed by the French and Russians. His troops use Russian armor and weapons and fly French aircraft. There was a great quote from the Rwandan President this week concerning the ineptitude an hypocrisy of the UNSC in general and the French in particular. Millions dead, but peace is preserved. John

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (81147)	3/11/2003 11:29:25 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

So long as we do not acknowledge that short sighted policies of the past do not work, we are doomed to be in a self-perpetuating crisis management mode. Amen. On this point, we agree 100%. I think you are not quite factually correct about the US and Iraq in the 1980's but there is no doubt that the US turned a blind eye to Saddam's atrocities because they thought it was in their short-term narrow self interest. Encouraging the Shiites in the South to rise up against Saddam and then doing nothing to support them was the Middle East equivalent of the Bay of Pigs. I understand why the mistake was made but it was incumbant on the President Bush to back up his promise. I am afraid that this old debt will be repaid soon though. I expect Baghdad to welcome US troops as liberators but southern Iraq will be a swamp for the US troops. There is still a deep resentment over the post-Gulf War betrayal. I have no use for the 'Realist School' where military objectives and strategies are set by the State Department. The people who I have found who come closest to your point of view are the Wolfowitz group. Although far from a full 'Truth and Reconciliation' commission, they understand very well the mistakes and limitations of the gas pump dictator strategy of the past. Many of them (though not all) are also aware of their mistakes in the past. The end of the Gulf War is a matter of personal shame for some. Just as the FBI and CIA bureaucracy is proving to be a massive impediment to effectively dealing with Homeland Security, the State department bureaucracy is an impediment to the radical change you and I would like to see. Some of the gas station dictators situations are going to be difficult to handle. Saudi Arabia is a prime sponsor of AQ and ME terrorism. However, the House of Saud is at some risk and the possibility of a fundamentalist government in SA is truly frightening. So, the US needs to increase it's leverage on the House of Saud and then use carrots and sticks to cause reforms. (I still think this is the primary strategic goal for regime change in Iraq). I see enough change in thinking from the Bush administration to be warily confident. A successful campaign in Iraq coupled with the UNSC fiasco would shift to balance of power in the administration further from the State Deptartment 'realists' to the Wolfowitz gang and further away from short term narrow self-interest toward long-term broad self-interest. The Wolfowitz gang fully understands that the US won't be secure until the Middle East region is headed in the direction of being successful. 'Democracy in Iraq' is no pie-in-the-sky bumper sticker slogan for the W-gang, it is a centrepiece of their strategy. Paul

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (81147)	3/11/2003 3:22:14 PM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Yes but what was not brought to surface was that we were willing to do anything to keep Saddam in power so as to stop Iran. I think it was more a case of seeing payback in it for the Iranians after the embassy episode. Also the spectacle of a fascist religious regime and a fascist secular regime - both Moscow clients - duking it out and staying out of the US's hair was a little too tempting. Probably should have stayed out of it but there it is - what's done is done. That article I read back in the 80's was interesting to me because it came from a conservative quarter. I was careless in my description. It was very critical of US foreign policy with respect to Iraq but if memory serves me right, it was definitely a minority view. The same reasoning went for letting Saddam kill thousands upon thousands of civilians after the Gulf war. I'm not so sure that was the reasoning. Kenneth Pollack who is mightily informed said in an interview, The problem for the Bush administration at that point in time is that their whole policy toward Iraq was predicated on a false assumption, on the assumption Saddam wouldn't be in power. And so in that point in time, people within the administration have to start picking up the pieces of the failed policy, the assumption that Saddam would fall automatically to try to find some other way to deal with this. And the policy that they effectively come up with is one of containment. It's basically decided that well, we're going to try to keep Saddam Hussein pinned down, prevent him in particular from rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction, and the rest of his military power, keep him from being able to threaten of his neighbors, and also try to put as much pressure on him as we possibly can in hopes that that might cause his regime to fall. But, it is very much, early on, an ad hoc policy. And, unfortunately, one of the problems that manifests itself throughout the 1990s is that the United States is trying to keep in place, hold together a containment policy that was mostly just an ad hoc response to the failure of the going-in policy, which was Saddam Hussein can't possibly survive in power, and all we need to do is hold on for a little while until he gets removed. Message 18609617 I know at the time I was furious with Bush Sr for letting the Kurds and Shiites twist in the wind. It's cerainly the case the last six months that the US has had to continually reassure them they're not going to let them drop this time. Now here we are a dozen years later complaining that he has weapons we sold him and that he killed civilians that we let him. I don't think the US has been selling Hussein much in the way of weapons the last 15 years and previously it was other's who sold him most of his weapons but there is no question the US gave hhim support in the Iranian adventure and gave his bio warfare people materials and info. Seems perverse. So long as we do not acknowledge that short sighted policies of the past do not work, we are doomed to be in a self-perpetuating crisis management mode. pting. In hindsight it certainly doesn't look like good policy. I think you're right about the US having to put aside and disavow those policies. To a degree, it seems it is doing so. It is distancing itself from the authoritarian regimes of the area. Bush's avowed determination to bring democracy to the ME certainly is getting their attention. The invasion of Iraq is a clear sign the US is no longer "always siding with the dictators." It definitely is supporting the regimes that are moving in a democratic direction. In the process of reevaluating policy the US government has made its job more difficult by giving its opponents material in the policy of preemption. Nonetheless, the ME policy is going in a better direction than it was prior to 9/11.