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: GST who wrote (145971)	9/20/2004 11:26:47 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Message 17987695 I may be mistaken about this, but my guess is that the Administration does not intend a major war or occupation of the country, but instead hopes to have a swift incursion that neutralizes retaliatory capacity, encircles loyalist elements (ie, the Revolutionary Guard), and terminates or incarcerates Saddam and his entourage. Then, we will install a transitional regime from among Iraqi dissidents resident in the West, and stay long enough for them to become entrenched, and for us to seek and destroy the WMD infrastructure. The presumption is that the populace is hungry for normalization, that there is a high degree of professionalism in national administration, and that Saddam does not have a large, ideologically committed following, but mostly survives through the use of carrots and sticks. Iraq is a far more advanced country than Afghanistan, materially and culturally, so there is little fear of warlordism or suicidal fanaticism. The biggest test would be whether the Kurds and Shi'ites took advantage of the situation to partition the country, how brutally the new regime reacted, and whether Turkey and Iran were sucked into the hostilities. My guess is that the Administration is trying to work out an autonomy deal for the Kurds, short of independence, and reviewing pacification measures for the southern Shi'ites, along the lines of substantial aid.......

To: GST who wrote (145971)	9/20/2004 11:28:48 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Message 19101555 So far, my post holds up pretty well. The opposition collapsed very rapidly, as foreseen. It is also clear that I was correct about what the Administration hoped, which is the operant term in my post, regarding the post invasion situation. It is still the intention to install a transitional regime, once there is greater pacification, and "stay long enough for them to become entrenched, and to destroy the WMD infrastructure." It is looking harder than expected, but not essentially impossible. Thus, as far as I am concerned, you just showed how prescient I am. Thanks. We did not take an incrementalist approach in Iraq, we smashed the regime. What may be required for complete pacification was always subject to revision, since no one can foresee everything perfectly. However, it is not clear even yet that they cannot largely succeed by increasing the Iraqi security forces. I do not see the humor in the last quoted post at all. No one expected that bombing would suddenly stop, there are always attempts to scuttle agreements. As a result of the neutralization of Iraq, the willingness of Washington to make a new effort to broker an agreement, and the rise of Mr. Abbas as Prime Minister, there is a somewhat better security environment permitting the moving forward of negotiations........