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: Dayuhan who wrote (95695)	4/23/2003 12:59:17 AM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 281500

*I think you underestimate both the importance and the vulnerability of our position in Iraq.* Ahhhhh! Steven, an "estimation" fight! Lets see just how much importance I place on our position in Iraq. <g> *I think most of the Islamists know that the only way they can defeat America is in a war of attrition. These people are very familiar with this technique; they have used it before.* Apparently they've had some difficulty making their "expertise" in attrition warfare work in Afghanistan. But assuming they have both the skill and the will to use it in Iraq. Why would we play this "attrition" game with them? Neither the US nor the British are lacking in familiarity with the techniques of urban/rural attrition warfare. If the threat is relatively small, as it is now, I assume they will take care of it as they are now, with Iraqi police/forces and the maximum restraint allowed while maintaining the safety of US and British forces. There appear to be more than enough Iraqi willing to do this based on current events. If it expands and shows signs of an organized effort with arms or personnel supplied by outside groups and/or countries, I am fairly certain that you will see the application of a level of force at least as high as we saw when the 3rd ID and Marines initiated the invasion. Make no mistake. If I were running this show I am not at all sure that I would have gone into Iraq in the first place. But since we have, being "defeated" by attrition warfare or any other is no longer an option. As long as we don't do anything stupid like restrict the religious freedoms we have clearly unchained for the first time since Saddam took over, or try to force our version of government or policies on Iraq, I don't think the majority of Iraqi's will support a "war of attrition." But assuming they do, I don't see any alternative but to "attrit" as many Iraqi's as it takes to make them change their mind. And if GW and the guys in the 5 sided building aren't willing to do this they should all be lined up and ...well lets just say "impeached." <g> They cannot fight a war of attrition against us inside the US: they don’t have enough people that can operate in the US, and it is simply too difficult to stage the number of attacks that a war of attrition requires. The only way they can use attrition against us is to bring us into an environment that favors them. I don't see any environment that "favors" them. They will not be able to conduct a war against us like they did the Russians in Afghanistan. They will need arms and personnel from outside the country to do so. This in turn will leave a trail. Once that trail is identified there will be further preemptions. More regime changes. ...And if necessary Armageddon. That's how important this is. After 9/11 we had two choices that I can see. Change our policies towards Israel at the threat of further terrorism; or use our military power to fight. We chose to fight. The possibility of having the WTC and 4,000 people crushed, or having Mom & Pop blown up at the Peoria Post Office - and doing nothing - was never an option. Neither is being forced out of Iraq with our tails dragging, which in all probability would be worse than doing nothing. Vulnerability? ...That's a question for "defenders." We are not in a "defensive" position as we were in Vietnam. GW has said "whatever it takes." I don't doubt him anymore, but if he is lying he better be damn sure nobody calls his bluff. 0\|0