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: KLP who wrote (98548)	5/19/2003 2:44:29 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I fail to see, Karen, how doing as they promised everyone, which is to, immediately, make life better for the Iraqis fits with this level of lack of planning for the aftermath. It's not right/left; it's simply a failure. And one they are not about to confess to. Shuttle Garner out and Bremer in. No comment. That seems to be the style. All this gives some credence to the argument, whomsoever makes it, that the only thing that saves the Bush folk these days is a superbly performing military. They promise to make life better for the Afghan population. Nope. They promise to make life better for the Iraqi population. Nope. In both cases, the only argument that's viable is that getting rid of the previous regime made life better. But that wasn't the promise. The promise was they would do positive things to make life better. Not simply get rid of the previous regime. As for the comment about spending more tax dollars, I don't recall the Bush folk caring about that argument when it came to whipping up interest in the invasion proper. And they did say, don't worry, we are going to do a terrific job of post invasion Iraq. Not to worry. And I don't recall them saying, we'll do as much as we can but remember we don't have many tax dollars. My own guess is that they got caught with their "we don't do nation building" pants up and no one seriously planned. That everyone chose not to listen to the various groups, governmental agencies, and the like which said the after invasion part is more difficult than the invasion part. And here we are. And the Bushies are caught between staying there long enough to do the after invasion stuff right, which is what they promised; and knowing the longer they stay the more the US folk in Iraq are read as "occupiers" and likely to be attacked as such. They were warned. Let's see how they handle it.

To: KLP who wrote (98548)	5/19/2003 3:10:59 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Looks like we can't have it both ways. We either spend more tax money, have more people there to "secure the 23 million people" OR Do as more of the left wishes....get out of there. Right. Remember Rummy's little hissy fit when some Pentagon brass mentioned that it might take a few more troops than planned to maintain order? As to what "more of the left wishes", I had to do a little search on that one, it too seemed somewhat at variance with reality in the conventional sense. The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most U.S. combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, according to senior allied officers. The United States currently has more than five divisions there, troops that fought their way into Iraq and units that were added in an attempt to stabilize the country. But the Bush administration is trying to establish a new military structure in which American troops would continue to secure Baghdad, while the vast majority of the forces in Iraq would be from other nations. Under current planning, there would be three sectors in postwar Iraq. The Americans would keep a division in and around Baghdad. Britain would command a multinational division in the south near Basra. Poland would also command a division of troops from a variety of nations. trivalleyherald.com THE US will drastically scale back its troop presence in Iraq and replace them with forces from other countries to share the peacekeeping burden. Retired US general Jay Garner, in charge of the interim administration, is set to be replaced by a civilian official to placate regional concerns about US military occupation. Under a plan hatched by Washington, Iraq will be divided into three zones with the US, Britain and Poland each controlling a section. Troops in each zone will work to restore and maintain order and supervise humanitarian efforts. The US, which has about 135,000 troops in Iraq, will reduce that number by more than 100,000 in the next four months, leaving only a division to control Baghdad. "The larger the number of countries that participate, the fewer number of forces from the United States will be necessary," US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in London. heraldsun.news.com.au More U.S. troops and a contingent of military police are trickling into Iraq. But Mr. Rumsfeld still refuses to offer a public plan for their deployment, and policymakers appear to be concentrating on a scheme to withdraw most U.S. forces within months. Given the situation on the ground, such a strategy makes little sense; instead, Bush administration officials should be deploying additional forces as quickly as possible, and delaying any withdrawals, until order can be restored in Baghdad and other large cities and critical weapons sites secured. Mr. Bush also ought to rethink whether administrative and technical experts from the United Nations and other Western governments should be invited to collaborate more extensively with the Pentagon team in reconstructing Iraq's government over the coming months. Much solid expertise is available; the administration need only conclude that it doesn't have to rebuild Iraq by itself. washingtonpost.com So, I guess all the withdrawal talk is a leftist media conspiracy or something, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything Rummy and friends may have been floating lately. Or else stuff happens, as Rummy might say in a less guarded moment. Apologies to all for the lack of "substance" in the above.