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: michael97123 who wrote (179328)	1/6/2006 4:00:30 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

No one will believe this. If it ends as badly as the hypotheses we talked about above, our exit will be perceived as a defeat Well, we'll have to agree to disagree Mike. Our I/O efforts have not been what they should be, thus far. We're woefully being beaten in the media war, and anything that outright smells of retreat (such as what Murtha is foolishly advocating) will come back to haunt us. On the other hand, if we continue to apply the proper political pressure on the Iraqi government and come out publicly stating that we'll leave when we're asked to leave, then the pressure remains where it should be. All they have to do is ask us to leave. And should they do so, we should do so, while publicly absolving ourselves of any responsibility for the consequences. This is like any negotiation or business contract. If we overplay our hand, or create the impression that we're in Iraq for our own interests, rather than for the benefit of the overall Iraqi population, it will feed the insurgency, as well as any perception that we're an honest broker between conflicting power groups in that country. But there is nothing wrong with "goal-setting" and taking the Iraqi gov't to task for "screwing around" and not meeting those goals. While it's quite obvious that the various conflicting interests in Iraq would like to remove the US presence and advance their own interests, none of them want to be responsible for the the departure of the coalition forces. Hell let the iranians fight the sunnis who come to sunnilands defense. Let the Turks go after the PKK in iran. Let the Iraqi kurds strike a peace deal with the turks. Do this without clearing being in a position to state internationally that we've done everything possible to resolve the conflict between the warring power centers in Iraq, and we'll be held responsible for ALL of the deaths that occur in Iraq. All of the dying Iraqis will suddenly be played up on CNN and Al Jazira as being the responsbility of the US withdrawal (look what CNN did in the Balkans when the Clinton administration tried to avoid direct involvement there).. And I can guarantee you that Murtha will shift to the background and some other Democrat, such as Kerry, will suddenly claim that Bush was irresponsible for letting the situation get out of hand and withdrawing US forces. Look.. what the American people SHOULD be doing, regardless of party affliation, is forget our partisan differences and recognize that the WORLD has an interest in fostering democratic reforms in the Mid-East. Were we to present a united front against the Islamo-Fascists and state that, past differences aside, we're determined to enact political change in the region, it would go far toward quelling the rebellious factions there. We only have to go back to basic negotiating techniques. If the opposing side recognizes that their efforts to "win it all" are doomed to failure, they will seek the best compromise possible. Hawk