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 (122009)	12/24/2003 12:39:44 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Another excellent Times article by Burns: Once Skeptical, Briton Sees Iraqi Success By JOHN F. BURNS ... For the most part, he offered a view similar to that of American commanders, who have repeatedly said allied forces would prevail, laying the grounds for the democracy that President Bush says is his goal in Iraq. But General Lamb also struck notes of gentle admonishment. At one point he said that drawing from his experience in conflicts elsewhere, it was "slightly simplistic" to use the declining number of daily attacks by insurgents as a measure of progress, because it measured only a part of the challenge facing the occupation forces. American commanders often use the attacks as a kind of barometer. In November there were an average of 40 a day across Iraq, and as many as 55, with more than 80 American soldiers killed, half of them when their helicopters were downed. That prompted American forces to shift briefly to an all-out offensive that employed aerial bombing for the first time since the invasion. After the Muslim holy month of Ramadan ended a month ago, the attacks fell to an average that American commanders have put at slightly fewer than 20 a day. One American officer at General Lamb's news conference said the attacks had declined still further since the arrest of Mr. Hussein, with only six reported on Monday, which the officer described as "the lowest level since May." ...http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/24/international/middleeast/24IRAQ.html?hp Let Carl put that into his pipe and smoke it.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (122009)	12/24/2003 11:41:50 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Regarding the post- war operations: The problem is that if we had occupied in force, or acted more aggressively without real intelligence to suppress the resistance, we would have created a much more hostile populace. We would have had to have battered down a lot of doors, and detained a lot of civilians, without much discrimination, as well as appearing to sit on the country with more intent to stay. Unfortunately, by missing Saddam during major operations, and due to a better organized last ditch effort than we anticipated, the situation got very dicey. However, it was always a matter of time to deal with Saddam and others in the leadership of the Ba'athist Party, to develop intelligence assets sufficient to mount a more aggressive, but tailored, response, and to increase the participation of native security personnel in order to show our good faith in planning to turn things over as the situation permitted. Now, the tide is turning, and we should see much more rapid progress in the next few months.......

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (122009)	12/24/2003 11:48:59 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "But it ignores the fact that Bin Laden was created out of that effort to contain Iraq, primarily due to the basing of US forces in Saudi Arabia." I can agree that our basing forces in Saudi Arabia did contribute to Arab support for ObL, but Bush's war in Iraq is doing far more to support Al Qaeda than anything that went on during sanctions. Al Qaeda has grown so large that barely a week goes by without their blowing up another truck bomb somewhere. Now it's the holiday season and the US is under orange alert. The war against Al Qaeda has been going on for more than 2 years now, but they're more powerful now than at any time in the past. Sure they're (hopefully) not going to get lucky again with a WTC attack, but the simple truth is that the improved resistance to terrorism in the US is due to our homeland security changes, not to Bush's military adventures. Indeed, Bush has made the US less popular in the Arab world than it ever was before. And our demonstrated inability to control Iraq has decreased the fear that the Arabs (other than their leadership who probably feel more threatened) once had of our military power. But it is not the Arab leadership that is running Al Qaeda, it's the masses. And the masses are angry, not fearful. As far as winning hearts and minds, Bush is a loser as he has only angered the Arabs. As far as grabbing them by the balls and hoping that their hearts and minds will follow, Bush is a loser, as the Arab extremists are more enthusiastic than ever (while our troops suffer from poor morale). Two years after we entered WW2, the Japanese and Germans were in retreat and no one could seriously doubt the outcome of the war. But now, more than two years after the WTC, Bush has lost ground against Al Qaeda. This is a war with a trend more similar to Vietnam than WW2. -- Carl