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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (5481)	11/18/2005 10:19:26 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541933

Iraq will never have the wherewithal to give it a go until we have the courage to let them do it. They don't have a fighting chance yet. Once they have at least a fighting chance, I would agree with you. Right now it would be like abandoning a puppy by the side of the interstate.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (5481)	11/18/2005 2:21:34 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

The U.S. doesn't have an army large enough to actually beat the insurgency Oh, it does. Sort of. But the civilian casualties that would ensue from the necessary scorched-earth engagements to destroy and demolish rebel strongholds (e.g., half of Baghdad), plus the requisite civilian controls, forcible relocations, internment and the like would be far more than any democracy could stomach in whatever cause. It would take policies of Stalinist intensity and callousness; but US power would not be the issue. Thankfully the "whatever it takes" wing appears to have been defeated by those not believing that the theoretically possible ends justify any possible means. Of course the aftermath of the withdrawal would be unlikely to lead to a friendly US ally, to say the least: but realistic forward planning has not been conspicuous thus far, so I wouldn't rule it out on these grounds. Also, the only viable ruler of the resultant state would be a ruthless dictator with tight control over the military, probably ruling via personal/tribal links and the willingness to crush internal and/or religious dissent... like, er, Saddam...