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: Win Smith who wrote (135352)	6/2/2004 1:34:25 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

But i have been away so long. I didnt realize that i was here when i answered CB. I usually chat with her over on Bill's. Yes as far as jacob goes, its far different than a grudge. He has so many snookered. What do you make of Peters today? It sort of sums up where i am. Yes things havent turned out the way i thought they would and the way many of us said they would. However i dont think all is lost. I would feel a lot better if some of you folks could find some common ground. Losing in iraq is still the worst option vis a vis american fp. Peters is very anti-rummy if you have been following him and he was derided by the true believers on bill's thread last month. Mike nypost.com IRAQ: THE GREATEST DANGER By RALPH PETERS June 2, 2004 -- THROUGHOUT history, far more battles have been lost by a failure of nerve than have been won by military genius. Today, the greatest danger to American efforts in Iraq remains the collapse of our will. It's time to get a grip. For the past few months, the Bush administration has made painful errors, not least in sparing terrorists and insurgents. The revelation of a few nauseating incidents at Abu Ghraib prison became a media feast, an endless broadcast miracle of loaves and fishes. And the Iraqi Governing Council — a monster we created — has proven far more interested in perpetuating the power of its members than in representative democracy. But the sky isn't falling. And the blunt truth — so bitter to those on the left — is that, even if the sky eventually does fall in Iraq, it will fall on the Arabs (again), not on us. At great expense, we put an entire country into rehab. While the Kurds are already clean and sober, if Iraq's Arabs choose to backslide into the regional addiction to corrupt governance, it's a lick on them, not on us. The fact remains that we have done a great thing. We removed a murderous dictator and gave 26 million people a chance at freedom. Nothing changes that — even if the government that ultimately emerges in Iraq disappointments us. Nor is it inevitable that Iraq will fail to find its way to democracy. As this column has long maintained, we will not begin to see the deep results of this war for at least a decade. Our focus on day-to-day events in an election year only distorts our vision. As for the Iraqi people, their complaints about the occupation will always find an eager media outlet. But the Iraqis don't yet know how they'll view our efforts in the end — it will take them years to sort out their emotions and conclusions. Iraqis have experienced revolutionary, disorienting change. Expectations often had little to do with reality. Still confused and frightened, they don't quite know how they feel about themselves, our troops or their country's future. Only time will tell. Meanwhile, the grotesque war of words here in the United States is far more difficult to excuse. The ultimate outcome in Iraq — and, by extension, in the entire Middle East — is immeasurably more important than the results of the coming U.S. presidential election. Yet both American political parties have engaged in rhetoric about Iraq as morally vicious as it is intellectually vacuous. If you're looking for an honest assessment of the situation, you won't find it in our shabby electioneering. That sorcerer's apprentice, the American media, harbors diverse views, yet a reflexively liberal, anti-military and anti-Bush bias remains dominant. One feels that those on the left (who pretend that the Kurds don't even exist) would be delighted to sacrifice the lives of millions of men, women and children to defeat George W. Bush. (Of course, our domestic left has long since abandoned the cause of universal human rights, highlighting oppression only when it can be blamed on Washington.) In the last few weeks, group-think — or group hysteria — has overtaken the pundits. Lunatic proposals have been advanced to end an imagined debacle in Iraq. One strategic genius suggested that we need to allow the Iraqis to defeat us so they can take pride in themselves again. Other voices have called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops, despite the awful consequences such cowardice would bring. Yet we are a long way from failure in Iraq. Helping a broken country reconstruct itself is very hard work. Setbacks are inevitable. Instead of predicting doom whenever we stub a toe, we should be surprised at how well so much is going. Iraq is stumbling forward — not backward, forward. Baghdad will soon have its own nascent government — and it's not necessarily a bad thing that we didn't get our way in choosing its leaders. We're in danger of becoming an overly protective parent. We need to let the kid ride the damned bike and fall down a couple of times. The insurgents continue to fail everywhere but in Fallujah. Kurdistan is free and prospering. Iraq's key factions are talking instead of shooting. The economy is on the move. Development lurches ahead, despite terror attacks. And the people have already shown far more political maturity than Europeans did in the 20th century. The time will come for us to leave Iraq. But it's not here yet. Leaving prematurely would undo much, if not all, of the good that has been accomplished, while making a mockery of our soldiers' sacrifices. Sometimes you win just by staying in the game — or fail by losing heart and leaving the table. There are only two circumstances under which we should conduct a swift withdrawal: * First, if a new Iraqi government tells us to leave. No-brainer. We're gone, and we won't stop to buy souvenirs. * Second, if a new Iraqi government attempts to place so many restrictions on our troops that it turns them into nothing but a palace guard for the powerful. Military freedom of action is essential and non-negotiable. We can't accept a passive role that invites our enemies to attack us without fear of a mighty response. We need not make a blind, unlimited commitment to Iraq. But leaving too soon would be far more costly than overstaying our welcome. We haven't failed. Far from it. Let's get a grip