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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (43846)	3/24/2003 7:14:20 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

One of many thoughts on Iraq:American troops seem to be within 20 miles of Republican Guard forces defending Baghdad. Medina division has taken a very heavy pounding... Zachary Latif I know I said I won't be posting on the weblog but I thought that I just add on a few more thoughts about Iraq. I think that the invasion hasn't stalled and rather it's merely media hype. Casualities were inevitable and resistance at certain cities like Al-Nusyria and Basra does not imply that the Allies effort has waned or that the Iraqi forces are fighting on with renewed vigour. The elite irregular forces of the Republican desperate at their forthcoming eviction from the power structure of the post-Saddam Iraq are causing hassles for the Allied troops but at any rate such resistance will eventually subside within a week after the battle of Baghdad. Despite the importance of Al-Nusyria as a supply route for the north, since it leads to Baghdad, I think it imperative that the Allies keep their primary objective, the capture of Baghdad. In a chess game the shortest way to is to check mate the king rather than eliminating every enemy and in this instance the allies shoudl remember that in teh same token the loss of the central city of Baghdad would fundamentally negate any remaining resistance. Fundamentally the war returns to finance and the optimisation of risk & return. I would suggest that the greater risk of leaving the supply lines more exposed is offset by the fact that the surrender of Baghdad will imply the cessation of serious hostilites. The risk may be greater casualities on both sides nevertheless the return is end of war and return to stability for 20mn Iraqis and indeed the world at large. It is a risk worth taking! Saddam power apparatus has been fostered over years of totalitarianism and therefore is not suited to wage a guerrilla war. LTT and the Palestinians were desperate people, dispossessed and without sizable assets, whereas the Republican Guard have been accustomed to decent sized villas (and bungalow for the lower ranks). How could the officers in any way, shape or form be able to carry out a sustained conflict with an overwhelming superior force. Saddam is a feared leader and his perceived demise will strike a blow at those Iraqi forces still under his banner, I would advise that the present "stagnation" of the conflict is illusory. Short oil, the price of crude oil dropped to 24$ a barrel (rallied 59 cents yesterday) but as the markets realise that Iraq's production capacity is relatively entact there is going to be a sure glut in the market and oil might drop another ten dollars. Aziz highlighted the glaring question, "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" As I stated before the war was never over chemical weapons rather it was to ensure the stability of the Middle East. However the existence of chemical weapons is immaterial to the Allied raison d'etre for attacking Iraq. Simple logic holds that if there were no WMD's, why didn't Saddam adopt a far more receptive and forthcoming attitude to UN weapon inspectors? Why all the secrecy since it only implied to the rest of the world that he had something to hide! I would strongly recommend visiting Suman Palit’s website, since it makes for excellent reading, with sharp and witty analyses of the war on Iraq. latif.blogspot.com