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: stockman_scott who wrote (183063)	3/6/2006 4:34:31 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Since you posted this I must ask you if you agree with the following that you posted? Troops must stay Marshall Wittmann, a centrist Democratic thinker and frequent Bush critic, posted this on his blog the other day: "Is it possible that Iraq will be lost? Of course it is. And it will be much more likely that it will be lost if America leaves precipitously. Then, the supporters of an early withdrawal will have to address the consequences of both an American defeat, and that our international jihadist enemy will be emboldened." And Missouri political analyst Tim Lomperis, who served in Vietnam as an Army intelligence officer, said by phone, "I know it seems like we've stepped into a volcano, and it is depressing." But "I see Iraq as the Vietnam war that we can't afford to lose. We were able to lose Vietnam and walk away because it was a peripheral outpost. Iraq is not. It is central, the same way that Berlin was central during the Cold War. "Yes, Iraq at the beginning was a war of choice. And yes, if we can't get a unity government, we're stuck with a strategic mess. And it's true that we won't give the Iraqi troops some of our helicopters and tanks, because we're afraid they'll end up in the hands of the insurgents. But pulling out is not a realistic choice. If we do that, the Islamic radicals will come after us, with Europe as the next front line. This hasn't sunk in with Americans yet.""

To: stockman_scott who wrote (183063)	3/6/2006 6:00:52 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yep. No one knows what to do and the admin seems quite content to roll along without a set goal other than to roll along. The latest 'goal' was to gen up the Iraqi army but the single batallion (down from 3) that was supposedly up to doing things on their own was just downgraded. That leaves no part of the Iraqi military, going into the 4th year, ready to work on its own. I don't think this counts the militia which seem quite able to work independently and at cross purposes to us. I can't imagine anything worse than a civil war. How long would it take to pull up stakes? I imagine we'd be leaving behind tons of infrastructure and equipment and probably ammo and such if we had to move it out in a few weeks instead of over a year or so. Even IF we pull out over a long period of time, what will happen to those on the tail end of the pullout? Won't they be in worse shape because of their smaller numbers?