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: Sam who wrote (248115)11/11/2007 7:48:15 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
However, Kagan focuses on the military aspect, which while difficult, is in almost every way the easiest task to accomplish in this situation. As Kagan notes at the end of her article, it remains to be seen what will happen politically. And as I and others noted many times since the overthrow of Saddam, that is where the rubber hits the road. Perhaps the violence of 2005-early 07 was just what Iraqis needed to experience to make them sober up about what a civil war would do to the country.


Perhaps. In any case, firming up of the military solution is a precondition to the political solution; nobody gives serious political concessions while they still hope to win it all in the field of battle. Let's hope the negotiations are now ocurring in earnest. What impresses me about Petraeus operations is that they are theatre-wide; no more 'whack a mole'.

Does this mean that you'll stop ridiculing me for saying that the Sunni insurgency is over?

. Not to mention Afghanistan/Pakistan. Which is where the real action should have been focused all along, not Iraq.


Oh man, I can just imagine how much support you would have given to a Bush-led American invasion of nuclear-armed Pakistan! Al Qaeda is married into Waziristan (literally); nobody has good answers, certainly not Musharref, who has made a good living off us by pretending to deal with them.