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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce L who wrote (21644)	9/30/2004 7:08:39 PM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Hi Bruce, I believe there is a lot of truth in what she states but she has an obvious bias against Bush and Co. I think her economic view of the situation is very close to dead on (on a superficial level) but I don't think the conclusions she draws are necessarily the "right ones". Like her, I believe we had a very small window of opportunity in Iraq to start the rebuilding process on the right foot and we've squandered it. I think the plan to (basically) ignore the state run institutions was a huge mistake, one which we've been paying dearly for all along. I am guessing that the alienation of the "working class" in Iraq she describes in the article is also dead on. The more people who lose their jobs, the more people who's houses fail to be rebuilt, the more people without reliable basic services (water, electricity, etc.), the more alienation grows. The Iraqis see or read about a $10 million dollar bridge being built by foreign contractors where a $1 million dollar bridge should go (if it were built by Iraqi contractors and labor). They see the privatization plans which not only eliminate substantially large percentages of the local jobs and then they believe the state's assets are being "given" to outside interests. Once again, the more the alienation grows. I believe our failure to secure (or at least attempt to secure) the borders of Iraq immediately after the rout of Saddam and his forces was a huge policy failure. Having said the above, with respect to public opinion and the press, I think our people on the ground in Iraq have been in a no-win situation from the start and they were going to be subject to second guessing, regardless of their actions. Even though this is water under the bridge, I have always felt that we should have used the approach labeled by the author as the "Year Zero" in Afghanistan. There was basically a clean slate to work with there and if we could have created the proper foundations for a "modern" Afghanistan, we could have made a larger dent in the Islamo-facist world. Like the author of your article states, I beleve we left Afghaninstan hung out to dry in the early 1990s and it appears that we have done it again. The billions of dollars we have to pour into Iraq should have been pouring into Afghanistan. One of the elementary failures of Vietnam was not winning quickly and decisively. We didn't give our people on the ground the tools or the support to do their job. I fear we are bungling the job once again in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope and pray that I am wrong and that my fears are unjustified. Is it possible that a new administration could get better cooperation from the Iraqis? I believe the answer is yes, only because there has been too much animosity created by the current administration and their desire to see their friends benefit 1st, before all others. The desire to see the Haliburtons and the Bectels profit, before all others, will continue to haunt us in Iraq. Will Kerry do a better job? I have no idea and my guess is probably not. I think the window of opportunity, to quickly make positive changes happen in Iraq, has closed.