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: bentway who wrote (174082)	11/3/2005 5:54:52 PM
From: bearshark	Respond to of 281500

>>>I see logic in your scenario, but it assumes the Iraqis will be able to provide security in the face of a stiffening and ever more violent and sophisticated insurgent opposition.<<< Is there any security in Iraq now? One of our generals in Iraq already mentioned a strategy. As a city becomes less violent, Iraqi forces are sent in to manage the city and U. S. forces are pulled back. I don't know how far they have progressed with that idea. At any rate were not leaving, as General McClellan would call it, it would simply be a "change of base" for part of our troops. >>>Since Iraqization directly mirrors "Vietnamization", it would be enlightening to review statements, expectations and projections from that time.<<< In Vietnam, we had a guerilla presence in South Vietnam and North Vietnam with a trained regular army itching to visit Saigon. Its hard to say what we have in Iraq. There is a guerilla presence. However, there is not a willing and available army to invade Iraq, as a whole, from the outside--at this time. I agree that the Iraqis will have the last say as to what Iraq becomes. In the end, they will decide whether their new government and Iraq survives, whether it implodes and separates into smaller entities, or whether outside forces pacify the remains of Iraq sometime in the future. It will take some time for that to work itself out.