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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (15845)	11/11/2003 12:04:42 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793681

"Healing Iraq" Blog Alternatives to the Governing Council? Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. I read today in the local papers, that an American National Security official has arrived in Baghdad to discuss the future of the GC with Ambassador Bremer and to meet representatives from the Council. Funny thing is he might not find any of them. Iraqis have been joking among themselves lately about GC members, and how only a handful of them are actually in Iraq, while the rest are back in their London apartments or too busy following their own personal agendas and making deals with huge corporations on the expense of Iraqis. Yes, we hear many rumours about such 'under the table' transactions by some GC members, pressuring cabinet ministers to pass these deals especially on Electric power and water projects. I say the shit has hit the fan, this is becoming serious and not so much different from the 'Oil for Palaces' programs. And people ask why Iraqis distrust the council, well thats why. I was very enthusiastic when the GC was first announced four months ago, yes I understand they were picked not elected, but the council was supposed to be open for expanding its members anyway. Other people were so and so. Most were indifferent (as usual). The cons were the sectarian basis on choosing members, not enough authority, most of the members were expatriates and had not suffered under from Saddam's regime, low women representation on the council, and the fact that members did not have a wide following inside Iraq. The pros were that members were all educated and carried higher degrees (unlike our previous 'leaders'), were from well known families in Iraq, and the political parties which they represented were all involved in a long history of opposition to Saddam's rule. MORE AT healingiraq.blogspot.com

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (15845)	11/12/2003 6:08:25 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793681

Long Military analysis by Kagan that you will agree with more than I, JF. A Dangerous Transformation Donald Rumsfeld means business. That's a problem. by Frederick W. Kagan Mr. Kagan, a military historian, is a co-author of "While America Sleeps: Self-Delusion, Military Weakness and the Threat to Peace Today." .......A sound program of military transformation would proceed in exactly the opposite way. It would recognize the value of America's technological advantage in the area of precision guided munitions. It would continue to enlarge and enhance them, much as Mr. Rumsfeld currently proposes. But it would not do so at the expense of the unique capabilities that ground forces bring to bear. It would focus, instead, on developing the capabilities of ground forces that are distinct from the capabilities provided by air power. Ground forces can seize and hold terrain, separate hostile groups, and comb through urban areas with infinitely greater precision and distinction between combatant and non-combatant than can air power. They can present the enemy with unacceptable situations simply by occupying a given piece of land, forcing the enemy to take actions that reveal his intentions and expose him to destruction. And it goes without saying that only ground forces can execute the peacemaking, peacekeeping, and reconstruction activities that have been essential to success in most of the wars America has fought in the past hundred years. Above all, the U.S. must avoid the search for "efficiency" in military affairs. Redundancy is inherently a virtue in war. America's leaders should intentionally design systems with overlapping capabilities, spread across the services, and should intentionally support weapons that do not directly contribute to the overarching vision of war that they are pursuing. America should continue to try to build armed forces that are the best in every category and have the latent capabilities to meet challenges that cannot now even be imagined. REST AT opinionjournal.com