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 (131488)	5/5/2004 11:34:55 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, I agree that if we were going to go in we should have gone in with more troops early. Our emphasis on military goals and protecting the oil assets of Iraq were fine, but we should have also viewed the Iraqi PEOPLE as our clients and we should have shown them through our efforts at security and our efforts at rebuilding their infrastructure and their institutions that we were there for THEM. The fact that we didn't speaks volumes to them about our real interests in the region. It is true, as you say, that "troops equate to a greater ability to provide security." But, and follow me carefully here, the problem lies in the fact that we have a greater need to "provide security," not in the fact that we can do it. What I'm saying is that when things deteriorate to the point where the insurgency has gathered a strong minority of the population's support and the rest of the population is not spilling their blood to fight it, YOU'VE ALREADY LOST. Sure more security will allow you to prolong the death, but it won't stop the cycle that will lead to your tucking your tail between your legs, gathering up the souls of those you've wasted and then leaving. In other words, the very fact that security needs are increasing rather than decreasing means that you will not succeed by providing more security. It's the ideas that are fueling the insurgency that must be neutralized and those ideas are fueled by the use of repressive military "security" force. If we could somehow short circuit the ideas that motivate the general population to passively or actively support the resistance then we'd have a chance. But how do you undo centuries of resistance to foreign occupation? How do you undo centuries of cultural and religious training that runs counter to many of the political and social rules we're trying to force down their throats? Our successes in this aspect of the occupation are not just failures; they're failures on a grand scale. As far as the issue of the "enemies supply lines" and "places to hide," we're crazy if we think we can flush out these people or cut off their supplies. The countries borders are wide open and it's always been a smuggler's paradise. There are probably enough hidden ordnance in Iraq to fuel a stubborn, low-level insurgency for years. We can't stop them from hiding because there is no flushing out insurgents when they can be regular civilians as long as they want and deadly terrorists when the opportunities present themselves. You say that it's important that we be seen as stronger than the insurgents. That's fine and I believe all Arabs must know that no force on earth can meet us straight up and win a military battle. The thing is that sometimes wars are won without the winning of battles. In Vietnam we won every major engagement but who won the war? If we continue to get nicked and scarred by the David that is attacking the Goliath, how will that entice "moderates remaining in Iraq to stick their necks out?" The "moderate" support is overrated anyway. Remember my hypothetical of 100 people in a room? If 90 of them kind of like you but not enough to risk injury to help you, and the other 10 are willing to die trying to kill you, you can't call that effective support and you'd better get the hell out of the room. The bottom line is that the REALITIES of the Iraqi occupation are depressingly clear; leave under our own terms or leave at a time when it's clear that we had no real option to stay. Better sooner than later and better not to have to take too many souls home with us when we do leave.