SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Bilow who wrote (105374)7/14/2003 9:37:00 PM
From: KyrosL  Respond to of 281500
 
Carl, what you are saying is not much different than what I am saying. It's just that I don't cast it in apocalyptic terms.



To: Bilow who wrote (105374)4/12/2004 7:01:21 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi all; A reminder:

Bilow, July 14, 2003
...
What's going on is that the generals have been told to reduce US combat deaths, and to reduce the amount that they piss off the locals. Operationally, that means that US troops have withdrawn from regions that are particularly dangerous. So far I understand that we have withdrawn from Fallujah as well as the university campus where we recently had a man killed. Naturally, the Iraqis, seeing our withdrawal, conclude that they should attack us in other areas, so that we will withdraw from them too. So the result of the retreat is not a decrease in US deaths, but instead a simple decrease in the amount of territory that we control.

These withdrawals give Iraqi rebels territory to run as they see fit. The eventual effect will be "major" battles, as the Iraqis regroup in these territories. The Israelis have already gone through the same cycles of occupation / retreat many times. Our only long term solution is to retreat completely, a tactic that is not available to the Israelis. By the way, when the first major "post war" battles erupt, Bush's declaration May 1st will look even more stupid.
...
#reply-19110111

-- Carl