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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (45020)	11/19/2003 4:25:57 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

<When you are better than everyone else and well known then it invites envy, fear and spite, all those well-known human qualities we're all too familiar with. > I'm taking an unofficial break to talk about American strategy in Iraq, which is a subject I haven't broached in a long time. The finality of the American occupation haven't resonated amongst militants in the Iraqi nation but I would say that America's prime disadvantage is that it does not delegate enough tasks to the Iraqis like the Brits in Basra. As I've argued that a country under siege by the population of disaffected regions have to do more to recruit from within the locality. India by recruiting Kashmiri Muslims to her task forces would be able to emphasize to the population that an insurgency only hurts their own. By not embarking on such a strategy is an implicit distrust of the population and hence will only heighten antagonism. That's why I see the development in Iraq presaging much better times for the States in America. By delegating the onerous task of "keeping up appearances" to the Iraqi national govening council (or whatever it's called) it's no longer the front. Without an overt presence it can keep a far more deeper influence in the nation and try to course events as it sees fit. Perhaps Den Beste will correct me with millitary history however the Americans rapidly delegated power to Germany and Japan (after knocking a few key institutions) but eventually only maintained a subtle presence (military troops in southern Germany and Okinawa) to ensure that things happened according to plan. American doesn't even have to destroy and reform Iraqi institutions as it did for Japan and Germany, because in the latter two cases their threats arose from a highly-efficient and functioning political body, whereas in Iraq it was merely the play of the strong man. Iraq will see prosperity all America has to do is to to withdraw from the limelight but remain deeply involved in the workings of the nation. Fundamentally this boils down to the highly public and frankly irrelevant global discussions over Iraq since American by thrusting itself into the spotlight only invites criticism and attacks. True power can only come from discretion, knowing everyone but only allowing those who you want to know you. When you are better than everyone else and well known then it invites envy, fear and spite, all those well-known human qualities we're all too familiar with. However as you proceed to recede into the background you're enemies don't know who you are and a cloaked veil allows one to achieve more than is possible. The more who know you the more vulnerable you are since knowledge of your deeds will flow, and as we know that perfection is a high ideal, which will always invite hatred (our past is such that anything and everything can be used against us). First among equals, as is the mantra of the sovereignty and the nation state, America will always be impugned as long as her glory radiates to the hinterlands of our troubled globe. To preserve one's fame and allure from time to time a leading lady will retire to semi-exclusion, to prevent over-exposure, and that's what America is doing in Iraq. Zachary Latif 19:34 www.latif.blogspot.com