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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (157581)	6/3/2003 4:22:43 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 164684

Desert duty -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally published June 2, 2003 IT'LL BE a long, hot summer for the men and women of the 3rd Infantry Division. Savoring their quick victory in Iraq, they were supposed to be coming home soon - but two unforeseen problems have put a wrench into those plans. The first problem has to do with the unfinished nature of the victory. For a while, Pentagon officials explained away the continued violence and anarchy in Iraq by saying they never expected the regime to collapse so swiftly. But it's a safer and safer bet to say they also never expected the last remnants of resistance to persevere for so long. So now the 3rd Infantry Division and all the other U.S. troops in Iraq - about 160,000 in total - will be staying on, and another 15,000 to 20,000 will be joining them this week. That's about as far as the Pentagon can go, however, because of something Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said before the war. He told Congress it would take "hundreds of thousands" of soldiers to maintain an effective occupation of Iraq - and that brought on a mocking and public scolding from two of his civilian bosses, Donald H. Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. So now, in order not to prove the top brass wrong, the United States is effectively limited to under 200,000 troops. They're just going to have to get the job done. The original idea was that Iraq would be in fairly good shape after an American victory and that an international peacekeeping force would come in to spell the troops that had done the fighting. But, anarchy or no anarchy, this isn't working out either, because of the second unforeseen problem. The international community is proving to be remarkably reluctant to lend a hand. Some Italians and Poles are on the way, but not in gigantic numbers. The Pentagon talks about 66 countries having devoted troops to Operation Iraqi Freedom, but a good number of those are actually in Kuwait or Turkey. One country that did deploy to Iraq itself is Albania - which sent 100 men. The Bush administration has been pushing Pakistan, India and Japan to send troops, so far without getting any commitment. (The political risks for Pakistan would be considerable.) No one else is leaping to the fore. But isn't that what allies do? Yes, as long as they are treated like allies. Instead, anger has been smoldering abroad over Mr. Wolfowitz's comment in Vanity Fair that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were made so much of because it was one issue "everyone could agree on." That sounds to many like they were a useful pretext rather than the real reason for war, and America's foreign partners aren't happy about it. If there's one thing allies appreciate, it's a little honesty once in a while. That's one reason why the 3rd Infantry Division is now digging in for the long haul. Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun \| Get home delivery