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 (149086)	10/27/2004 10:47:51 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Invading Iraq did nothing to improve our situation and created just the kind of chaos in which terrorists thrive. Perhaps. But you have surely noticed that we have had no domestic terrorism in three years. I'm not ready to say this is cause and effect, but I'm surely not willing to discount such a notion either. You, Sun, and Michael seem to be in attack mode as respects some opinions I have been formulating for a long time. Have at it. I'm simply trying to think as objectively as I can. Whatever you guys say [silly stuff like "do you believe in democracy?"] doesn't really bother me. Let me make it clear that I think the reasons for the invasion were never fully articulated because they could not be articulated in public. I think they were sound but that their execution has been very poor. The most egregious error was the failure to use an adequate number of troops and to ignore Shinseki's and White's advice on thyis point. This error is primarily Rumsfeld's. White and Shinseki both knew what they were talking about, they were pros. Both were ignominiously treated for airing correct opinions to Congress, as was their sworn duty to do. Bad stuff, very uncool. I don't like it one bit. In Rumsfeld's defense, the campaign in Afghanistan was spectacularly successful using a very small amount of boots on the ground. He probably thought he could repeat his magic in Iraq; the fact is that he wasn't taking the advice of pros with respect to a campaign which promised to be substantially more difficult than toppling the Taliban. Hubris set in, I'm afraid. This is really all that can be said in Rummie's defense. He clearly screwed up in a big way in Iraq. The overall strategy was sound, however. Its purposes were in the national interest in a huge way. We suckered the French into trying to build an EU bloc against us in which most of the newly-free Eastern European countries did not participate because, well, the French simply cannot be trusted. As a result, France was hugely embarrassed. Remember Chirac's hissy fit about the Eastern Euros not "knowing when to keep their mouths shut?" As a result of the Iraq war diplomatic run-up, it is very unlikely that any French-led EU bloc can become solidified to counter our military and political power. The French got creamed, in my view, both politically and economically when they lost their slice of the Iraq oil concessions. And do remember that this is a global geo-political chess game in which you take advantage of positions. They tried to harm us and they got beat at their own game. This bit of success does not take away from the poor execution of what I consider to have been a very good strategy which now hangs in the balance. The Jihadists--please remember that it is not all about Iraq--are formidable, committed opponents. I don't know whether our strength and commitment is sufficient to deal with them. Maybe yes, maybe no. Nonetheless, it is a struggle that we simply cannot afford to lose. This is the ultimate reason I'm voting for Bush, despite many misgivings. I'm not sure Kerry understands the issues, nor do I believe he has the toughness necessary to lead us through some very difficult times ahead. I can easily see him adding to the Laundry List of Shame by turning tail, an enormous error. The other thing I've been considering are the social aspects of the poor execution of the strategy at home. Troops are not made up of the sons and daughters of the upper-income stratum of American society, the stratum which I feel is probably the most opposed to the war for reasons I think may be misguided. Our children are simply not the ones shedding blood. What effect this will have politically I don't know but I guarantee you that there will be some deep social repercussions from this division.