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: greenspirit who wrote (115841)	9/28/2003 11:52:12 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting op ed piece from Rumsfield, Michael. Very well written, argument well framed. The lack of evidence for the arguments is a given but that may change. Who knows? A couple of points. First, the argument for a larger invasion force was not simply about the invasion itself but making certain minimal security followed it. That was Shinsiki's (sp??) argument and others. That argument is now borne out, at least in the short term. Because what is absent are not town councils but the very basics of security and the very basics of infra structure operation. More troops going in might have made that possible. But we now know that one of the reasons for the low level of troops may have been lack of troops period, not simply a military plan. Second, if one way to assess an argument is to see how it deals with its most difficult problem and to expect that it will simply ignore it, that is certainly true here. Much of the insecurity comes from the several forms of opposition to the US occupation. Rumsfeld mentions that, slightly, and to his credit, but then slides away into the "let the Iraqis do it." And, of course, they can't let the Iraqis do it, because they fear that means a Shiite state, aligned with Iran, deeply hostile to the US, with a Sunni minority, in opposition to the Shiites and harboring an Al Q element. And with opposition from the Kurds. Not a mention. It's a bucket of worms, as they say.

To: greenspirit who wrote (115841)	9/28/2003 1:22:15 PM
From: KyrosL	Respond to of 281500

Today in Iraq we are operating on the same guiding principle that has brought success to our effort in Afghanistan If Rumsfeld thinks Afghanistan is a success, he must have his head buried in the sand a heck of a lot deeper than I thought. Germany Comparisons with post-war Germany are particularly ridiculous. How many American soldiers lost lost their lives due to Nazi guerilla action? -- none, I believe. And acts of sabotage of infrastructure were trivial compared to the massive destruction going on in Iraq. Kosovo Comparisons to how the UN is running Kosovo and Bosnia are also quite ridiculous. The waste of reconstruction money going on in Iraq right now is monumental compared to what goes on in former Yougoslavia. Good thing the money ends up mostly in American companies' pockets -- essentially a direct transfer from American taxpayers to American companies friendly to Bush & Co. Bad thing the reconstruction they do is less than one tenth than if the same money was given directly to Iraqis.