SI
SI
discoversearch

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: one_less who wrote (218160)2/13/2007 1:34:54 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
So no time limits, and no limit to the price tag, as long as our society doesn't collapse? (If I understand you correctly?)

I can't say I agree with that, but at least I understand the nature of the commitment you want to make.

I feel Iraq robs us of our power to respond to other threats that could be more immediate and much more dangerous. So we don't agree, but at least I know why we don't.

Do you think our military is at this time able to be as supportive of the outcome you want as you would want them to be? Since it seems the death toll is getting worse day by day in Iraq, someone isn't being supportive. Is it mostly the Iraqis? The fact that the US doesn't have enough men to be supportive enough? A combination? A failure to find a strategy that makes the US appear supportive? (which seems like it would be important to your plan).



To: one_less who wrote (218160)2/13/2007 5:36:36 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The outcomes I mentioned are achievable by the Iraqis, not us.

Do "the Iraqis" share the desire to achieve those outcomes? Is there a anything resembling a consensus among "the Iraqis" on what outcome is desired?

If not, then the idea that "our role is limited to support and encouragement with no chance to claim a win for ourselves" will lead to a fair bit of frustration.