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: Hawkmoon who wrote (115641)	9/24/2003 10:06:15 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Where was the "exit strategy" there [Korea]?" We exited with one of the standard exits from a standard war, namely an "armistice". I'm shocked that you're so unaware of such recent history. For more information on how the Korean war ended, read these links: news.findlaw.com defenselink.mil If it were up to you, we'd probably be still lobbing shells over the border and losing a few thousand guys there per year. Re: "Ok.. what's the exit strategy you seem so intent upon having announced to the world at large. What should it be?" Say we're sorry, and run with our tails between our legs. Either a more or less acceptable regime grows up in Iraq or a more or less unacceptable one grows. (a) If we get an acceptable regime, we're done with a victory (yep, defeated Saddam, or at least made sure there were no WMDs there), and fewer troop losses than we would have had from keeping our targets in country. Furthermore, our absence calms down the region and results in lower terrorism. (b) If we get an unacceptable regime, then we go in again. But the death toll from going in again is already known, and amounts to fewer deaths than staying there. So we end up in the same place we're at now, (and will, after tipping over the new regime, have to leave again, but this time as part of a plan instead of with our tails between our legs). This also results in fewer troop losses than the continuing occupation, and probably lower terrorism too. Instead, the option of sticking around (a) generates steady casualties, thereby sickening the American public with the whole concept of the war on terror, (b) generates hatred among the population being occupied, thereby increasing the number of terrorists, (c) pisses away America's ability to mass troops for a similar demonstration somewhere else. My plan takes advantage of the strengths of the US military, that is, it is particularly good at attacking enemy governments and armies. Your plan lets the enemy take advantage of the weaknesses of the US military, that is, our inability to pacify civilians. It is the essence of good generalship to choose terrain where the enemy is at a disadvantage. Sometimes that terrain is abroad, sometimes it is at home. It is a sign of Bush's bankrupt policy that they go on and on about how they intend on fighting terrorism in Iraq, instead of in the US. THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN HARDLY ANY TERROR ACTIVITIES IN THE US SINCE THE WTC ATTACK AND WHILE SADDAM WAS STILL IN POWER, WHILE AL QAEDA CONTINUES TO PERFORM TERRORIST ACTS ALL OVER THE REST OF THE WORLD. This is an undeniable fact. It cannot be denied that the terrorists would LIKE to create problems in the US, but the fact is that they have not been able to. This is in direct contrast to Iraq, where they are blowing the bejesus out of stuff on a weekly basis. The only possible conclusion is that the US is unfavorable terrain for the terrorists. This is obvious to anyone who simply walks around here and looks to see how many of our citizens look like Arabs, LOL. What Bush has done is to decide to fight the war on terrorism in a manner that has already been demonstrated by the Israelis to be a failure that will result in escalating losses for us, just like the Israelis. And as long as we're stuck in Iraq, we are impotent everywhere else, as far as any threat to actually invade. Sure we can drop bombs on somebody, (just like Clinton, LOL), but we do not have the troops available to fight two stupid Asian {ground wars / peace-making operations} at the same time. So keeping our pecker in the hornet's nest means that every other hornet's nest is free to do whatever the hell it wants. The fact is that Teddy Roosevelt's "walk softly and carry a big stick" advice is impossible to follow when you can't pull your stick out. Your plan is basically a prayer plan, a hope plan. It makes about as much military sense as sending our whole fleet into Japanese waters in late 1941. You were probably standing there calling Roosevelt a coward for not immediately marching US troops into the ocean so they could walk from California to Japan. The sad fact is that all military operations have to operate under political and material limitations. The political limitations that are currently present in the US prevent us from having a successful occupation. Similar reasons have kept the Israelis from pacifying the Palestinians for 50 years. The material limitation is that Iraq is just too damned big for our Army to effectively occupy. The Arabs are doing the same thing to us that they did to the Ottoman Turks back in WW1, though there are differences such as our having better mobility and communications, but having fewer troops and tighter restrictions on the use of reprisals. If you doubt that the US now has political limitations, then you should take a good look not only at my opposition (and I'm a right wing Republican for as long as I've been old enough to vote), and the opposition of so many US military officers and men, but should in addition simply look at the President's declining poll numbers. He's in a dead heat with Dean, for God's sake. -- Carl