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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (192671)	1/11/2007 11:23:37 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793885

He has no plan except talk with nothing to back it up. He is not doing "short term." This annoys a lot of people. But that is not what he thinks or writes about. He is saying, "where do we want to be 25 years from now with China and Iran?"

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (192671)	1/12/2007 8:24:09 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793885

Meanwhile, Iran has declared war on us and is fighting it! Barnett is not even offering a containment plan. He doesn't even mention Hizbullah. He has no plan except talk with nothing to back it up. I agree Barnett offers little beyond new ways of interpreting old problems. That does not mean nothing is being done. There is little being leaked about our efforts against Hizbollah in the US. I do not recall seeing anything in the press about it since these 2 articles months ago. defensenews.com And this one in WAPO in late August. “…The Bush administration moved yesterday against a key fundraising arm of Hezbollah, the militant Shiite Muslim movement that is part of Lebanon’s government, ordering a freeze on its assets in the United States and making it illegal for Americans to contribute to the organization. …The United States regards Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but the European Union has refused to join in that designation, in part because of the group’s vast array of social services. Yesterday’s action against the Islamic Resistance Support Organization was intended in part to demonstrate the link between Hezbollah and terrorist activities. The Treasury Department released copies of a receipt issued by the group to a donor, which on the back listed projects such as “collection box project for the children and homes,” “contribution to the cost of a rocket” and “contribution to the cost of bullets.” The donor, whose name was redacted, used ink to signal his interest in helping fund a rocket. During the conflict with Israel, Hezbollah launched about 4,000 rockets, killing more than three dozen civilians….” In November, I did hear the senior FBI official in one state say that Hizbollah and Sunni Arabs are his two biggest on-going investigations. Some experts (close to GWB) estimate the number of militant Muslims and their strong supporters at 10% of the entire Muslim population or 150 million. W wants to win in Iraq. We should not confuse such a win as winning the GWOT because it won't accomplish that. This reminds me of the battle of hill 875, Dak To. There we committed the entire 173rd Airborne Brigade (at a cost of 33 Missing in Action, 158 Killed in Action and 411 evacuated wounded) to a fight that proved to be meaningless. The NVA lost 3,000 in that fight but were back on the same terrain in greater numbers within a year. The difference between Dak To and Baghdad is yet to be determined. But, this time, instead of one Brigade, we have committed our entire armed forces and reserves to the fight. In that context, W is right we can't afford to lose. Our KIA/WIA losses in Baghdad already exceed Dak To and we are about to enter what will likely be the bloodiest phase of this battle. Once again we are going to attempt to prove that conventional forces can conquer a well-armed, well-supported and highly-motivated unconventional foe. I do believe that, like the 173rd on hill 875 (and Khe Sanh, and the iron triangle, and the Michelin rubber plantation and Ben Het), our troops in Iraq can conquer the enemy forces currently in Baghdad. I do not believe a Baghdad win will result in an end to hostilities in Iraq. It certainly won't end the GWOT. My questions are: What is "The Win" we seek? Why do we now believe that conventional military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) against a significant and well-supported unconventional force will win? What is the long term gain? How do we stop the 150 million Muslim militants from coming back stronger? Can we afford the losses? Can our military? In other words, can we afford to win? W has placed enormous pressure on the Iraq government. What about our allies? We are in a big fight. Where are they?