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: one_less who wrote (144867)	9/3/2004 6:37:43 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jewell, re: I have also posted what I believe to be the seriousness of neglecting the situation. It would likely unleash the most volatile extremist bloodbath the world has ever known with us in its path.... I am interested in any constructive ideas you may have as well… I don't think that what happens in Iraq, if we leave, will, "unleash the most volatile extremist bloodbath the world has ever known with us in it's path." I don't think staying will unleash such a "bloodbath" either. We have to be careful about overstating the dangers of ONE of the world's trouble spots. There are plenty more that are just as bad but we don't have them under the Bush microscope. For instance, Pakistan is, even under a "friendly regime" about as chaotic and dangerous a breeding ground for terrorists, a threat to world peace and a threat for the spread of wmds as Iraq could get if we left. (But the question you ask raises the next logical issue; "did we consider that danger carefully when we stepped in and adopted that place?" As you'll recall, Bush, the elder, wanted none of it and many of our most experienced Mideast specialists warned of this dangerous and intractable consequence.) As far as constructive ideas, I don't have many. I think we're faced with picking the best of bad choices now. (--Since we're spending billions building permanent military bases there, it may not matter what the American people think if Bush gets reelected.) If it were up to me, however, I'd start by getting the thinking and the help of the Jordanians and others in the region to try to find a "Mideast" solution to the problem. If it meant power in the hands of the clerics, so what? If it meant giving up our dreams of control over Iraqi oil and permanent military bases in the region, I'd have to seriously consider it. (I think an independent Kurdish state reliant upon our military support and with control over some of the rich oil fields would be great.) In other words, I'd quit bandying about tooth-fairy talk about a democratic, multicultural and secular Iraq standing as a beacon for democracy and peace in the region, and let Iraq make its own history, even if brutal. If history has taught us that you cannot let a country like pre-WW11 Germany go unchecked, it has also taught us that you CAN let smaller, less threatening countries find their own way to enlightenment. Inefficient and brutal regimes rarely last longer than a few decades and almost never outlive the lives of their first brutal leaders. Many times they evolve from the edge of darkness and embrace a better system. Sometimes they are suddenly and violently overthrown. How many times do they prosper and seed themselves in other societies over time?- Almost never. So I would step back and let them find their path, and I'd remember what countries have learned throughout history; when you try to control a proud and passionate people through force of arms, you'd better be prepared for a bloodbath.