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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (144256)	10/24/2005 12:47:17 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793919

"This is exactly where we are now," he said of Iraq, with no apparent satisfaction. "We own it. And we can't let go. We're getting sniped at. Now, will we win? I think there's a fairchance we'll win. But look at the cost." This seems to be the new meme going around, "So, alright, maybe we will win in Iraq. But it wasn't worth the cost." Meaning, so we were right to oppose the war. But this begs the obvious question, which is "the cost as opposed to what?" In reality, it was the Iraq war or...what? Saddam surviving with no sanctions, with WMDs (as everyone thought, and I'm glad to see Scowcroft is honest enough not to have developed amnesia on the subject), and free to go shopping for more? That certainly seemed the most likely outcome of the pre-Sept 11th scenario. Now that we know about AQ Khan's Sam's Club for Nukes, does that sound like a good option to you? Less expensive in the short term, certainly. But where would it have lead? In the article, he argued that an invasion of Iraq would deflect American attention from the war on terrorism, and that it would do nothing to solve the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, which he has long believed is the primary source of unhappiness in the Middle East. ...unlike most of the Bush administration, which rightly understands that the existence of Israel, and its use as the Great Scapegoat and Excuse for Everything by the dysfunctional despotic Arab regimes, is the primary source of unhappiness in the Middle East. "The obsession of the region . . . is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Scowcroft wrote in the Journal. "If we were seen to be turning our back on that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us." So, was there? The Arab Street has been pretty quiet. The mass marches have been in Lebanon, where they were marching against Syria, not us. If the US were not in Iraq, that would never have happened, nor the ensuing Syrian withdrawal, nor the Libyan flip, nor the Egyptian elections, nor the liberalization of Al Arabia. Crucially, Arabists like Scowcroft never understand the difference between supporting Arabs and supporting Arab Regimes. The diplomats may murmur that the US must be more "balanced"; but the people will only hate us more for propping up their tyrants.

To: LindyBill who wrote (144256)	10/24/2005 6:33:07 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 793919

The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said, because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. sr. only stopped because cnn was showing a slaughter of Iraq troops and eu was not for taking Saddam and everyone figured he would be overthrown in several months. In other words he stopped because it was not a popular move to continue and in stopping it resulted in a failure because it has cost us all these military men and women now having to go back in the clean up for not completing the job. I wonder how Iraq would have been run if over run and saddam thrown out back then , before Al Q. gained strength for another decade. Perhaps no ships would have been hit, no twin towers, no afganistan. Who knows... Scowcroft... we should have finished the job the first time.