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 (220633)	2/24/2007 4:56:47 AM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

Honestly, I wish he would go so far as to say why specifically it has gotten to this point. I always think that the talk skirts the issue of the MILITARY and its role. IMO they can talk about the military problem without blaming soldiers and marines. No one is reliving Vietnam in terms of blaming them. We have, at least, learned that hard lesson. I wonder why no one on the right has demanded that Bush send in 150,000 (say) more troops. McCain was saying 40,000 but even that doesn't seem like enough. Why isn't there a rightwing movement to send in an overwhelming force? Has there ever been one? It's curious.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (220633)	3/3/2007 1:09:58 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

The British Defeat in the South and the Uncertain Bush "Strategy" in Iraq Anthony H. Cordesman full report at: csis.org Synopsis: There are many definitions of “strategy,” some of which are virtually indistinguishable from “tactics.” To use one of the better dictionary definitions, however, “strategy” is “the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war.” By this definition, and any other meaningful definition of “strategy,” a meaningful US strategy in Iraq cannot simply focus on winning in Baghdad and going on with efforts to fight the insurgents in the most troubled. A meaningful US strategy in Iraq has to combine all of the necessary means to achieve a clearly defined objective and it has to have an end game. In practice, any form of US action that ends in some form of “victory” means finding a strategy that allows the US to withdraw most US forces from an Iraq that is stable enough to have reduced internal violence to low levels that can be controlled by local forces, that is secure against its neighbors, that is politically and economically unified enough to function and develop as a state, and which is pluralistic enough to preserve the basic rights of all of its sectarian and ethnic factions.