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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cage Rattler who wrote (20615)	10/8/2009 2:44:17 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 103300

For the record... I actually supported the decision to invade (but narrowly), judging the risk/reward ratio to narrowly favor America's national interests after guesstimating the eventual total expense to the US at about 1/2 Trillion Dollars and weighing that against the possible strategic gains. I agreed with the Neo-Cons' argument that Saddam's Iraq represented "low-hanging fruit" and that we'd have a fair chance (due to the ethnic make-up of Iraq, and it's status as 'most secular nation in the Middle East') to nation-build something functionally close to a working Democracy there... (or separate Shia/Kurd nation-states, with perhaps a rump Sunni zone in the old Trans-Jordan region), and that either result stood to benefit us. And that Iraq's unique position astride the Islamic Sunni/Shiite religious divide offered a reasonable chance of strengthening Shiites (thus: weakening monolithic Sunni Islam, and the Saudi/W'habbist style of Islamic fundamentalism that had attacked us directly through al Qaeda...) --- this much certainly came to pass, Iran and the Shia have come out as big winners --- and that this might possibly even produce conditions that might eventually result in the long-delayed "Islamic Reformation" (similar to the Christian Reformation that happened centuries earlier in Europe). And that the invasion and occupation ALSO offered us a chance to try to 'make it up' to the Kurds --- who the first President Bush had so cruelly and disastrously sold down the river more then a decade earlier. All this was posted on these threads numerous times while the decision to go to war was being debated in America.... What I never counted on though, when I was making my personal assessment about 'would such a war be a net plus, or a net minus to America' was that Bush II would so completely screw-up the occupation phase (the military victory was both as brilliant and quick as it was inevitable...), by tossing out THREE YEARS of Pentagon/CIA/State Department occupation planning just a couple of months prior to the invasion... and going instead with a cockamamie, half-baked, under-resourced Neo-Con hatched pie-in-the-sky foul up occupation 'plan' that resulted in at least a doubling of the cost (and time) to America... and was only pulled back from near failure close to the end by the 'double-down expedient of the "surge".