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: Dayuhan who wrote (40926)	4/26/2004 10:09:15 AM
From: Triffin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794236

We can't govern Iraq. Neither can anybody else, at this point. Nature abhors a vacuum, and who do you suppose will fill it? Is preserving a viable Iraq the most desirable outcome ?? If you look at the post 1991 period it hasn't been a 'country' at all .. We've enforced a 'no fly zone' with northern and southern borders .. The Kurds have been pretty much allowed free reign in the north as have the Shias in the South .. The problem in my mind is how do you setup representative government to run Baghdad that has any chance to succeed .. I agree with LB that a strong military will be needed but will the populace accept either the US military or the former Baathists in that role ?? Jim in Ct ..

To: Dayuhan who wrote (40926)	4/26/2004 11:40:44 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794236

We are finding ourselves, with disturbing frequency, in situations where all available courses of action will lead to worse problems. If we root out Fallujah and Najaf we come off looking like hardnosed killers, if we don't do it we come off looking like wimps. If we turn over power in June, we will inevitably turn over power to an unrepresentative group that cannot govern. If we don't, we look like colonizers. This is what happens when you ignore nuance, and charge in thumping your chest. That approach leads to dead ends, often with the dead stacking up very quickly. Then people look around and ask "how did we get here"? We got there by thinking with our balls. It never works. We didn't "think" at all--we were blinded by our own undisputed military superiority, and didn't think about the fact that if we aren't willing to actually use that superiority (that is, adopt scorched earth tactics if necessary,as in WWII, for example), that superiority is negated. And if our real goal was to set up a stable democratic govt in Iraq, we couldn't use those tactics. We get into no-win situations by not considering worst case outcomes. The current situation was likely if our Iraqi opponents were not "Shocked and Awed" into submission. And it was not likely that they would be, IMO. That is why we needed a broad national and international consensus and support prior to the invasion. The Bush admin tactics could have been brilliant if they had done that, if they had secured true support.