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: Mary Cluney who wrote (130122)	4/26/2004 2:55:05 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Iraq was the largest regional power with aspirations to dominate the oil fields and to take on the West. He had the means, whether or not the stockpiles were there, to manufacture WMDs, and the will to acquire fissile material and improved missiles. He was diverting billions to his projects and whims, while causing (indirectly) the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. We had been containing him for years, but it was unclear how long support for sanctions would last, given the dire condition of the Iraqi people, and it was reasonable to fear his ties with terrorists. Thus, not much could be accomplished in reforming the region and improving its security without regime change in Iraq. However, the overthrow of Saddam was likely to lead to civil war, of an interethnic sort that might have pulled Iran and Turkey into it. Thus, it was necessary to stabilize the situation in Iraq in order to avoid political collapse. Apart from continuing to participate in security and reconstruction, the idea is to turn over most functions to the Iraqis as soon as possible. In other words, Iraqi society is sufficiently advanced that this is "nation building light", mostly they can handle administration for themselves. I would like to see a federation with a fair degree of regional autonomy but a central government sufficiently strong to mediate the various interests. I do not care if it is perfectly democratic, as long as it is fairly moderate. I am in no position to estimate costs. I think we will have a long term presence, and be there in force for several years. I think this improves our security, by providing long term regional basing, so it is worth the cost, ultimately. I think that the Iraqis will eventually offset much of the reconstruction costs, at least picking up most of the tab in the next year or two, so our costs will be mainly military. Does this suffice?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (130122)	4/26/2004 2:58:21 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

1. Why are we in Iraq? The reason I ask is because I didn't think conservatives were into nation building and it seems like we are into nation building in Iraq big time. Certainly a valid point.. But I would opine that Bush decided to take the nation-building route in Iraq because it possesses tremendous natural resources and the potential to pay for the major portion of its rebuilding over time. But more to the point, we're in Iraq, IMO, because it lies strategically placed in the middle of some of the more militant nations in the region, Syria, Iran, and Wahhabist Saudi Arabia (despite a moderate and corrupt royal family). We also had a "casus belli" due to Saddam's intransigence toward UNSC binding resolutions. And given the corruption we're uncovering within the oil for food program, NOW we know why many of these leaders were willing to run interference for Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. It's no wonder that many Iraqis believe the west put Saddam in power and kept him there. And it's no wonder there is tremendous resentment.. 2. How would you realistically like to see things end up in Iraq (another words - what is achievable)? At best, a Federal republic... At worst, a dictatorship that is allied with western interests, but less corrupt and brutal. I personally think it will wind up as a constitutional monarchy, before is said and done. That is, unless we actively block the restoration of the Hashemites, should they win sufficient support to be restored. 3. How long do you think it will take and how much much do you think it will cost (give or take a few $billion). It took 7 years to create a viable government in post-war Germany. We're still working to do the same in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo.. It takes time.. But the difference is that Iraq has the economic potential to be a regional economic powerhouse, spurring dramatic change throughout the middle east and acting as a foil against the Wahabbists (should they succeed in overthrowing, or radicalizing the Saudi royal family). Hawk