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.
Strategies & Market Trends : ajtj's Post-Lobotomy Market Charts and Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ajtj99 who wrote (33563)8/16/2021 11:19:11 PM
From: Sun Tzu3 Recommendations

Recommended By
ajtj99
Lou Weed
TigerPaw

  Respond to of 97597
 
There is wise saying, you can get anything you want but you cannot get everything you want.

The Iraq war was doomed from the start not just because it was hard to do (you are suggesting it was impossible), but because it's various stakeholders had very different agendas and very different timelines.

The Kurds made greater social progress during the no-fly zone era under Saddam than the rest of Iraq did over the next 10 years. Why? Because they got a protected hands off approach. So you could have done nation building in Iraq IF you had created a canton system plus some funds and some guidance but stayed mostly hands off.

The problem of course would have been that (a) the oil companies would not have gotten their take (not quickly anyway). And (b) you would not be having a US friendly government (again not right away). Both of these objectives would have taken at least 10 - 20 years to achieve.

Similarly, you could have gotten the oil, but not a good public image for the US.

Or you could have gotten a super US friendly government but not one that would have been representative of the Iraqis that would be the shining example the neocons dreamed of.

As a result of this internal conflict of the objectives, the US paid a maximum price, longest time, and got the lowest return on investment.



To: ajtj99 who wrote (33563)8/17/2021 12:11:22 AM
From: rcksinc  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 97597
 
A Mish sighting on zerohedge

zerohedge.com



To: ajtj99 who wrote (33563)8/17/2021 9:05:51 AM
From: Lou Weed  Respond to of 97597
 
Yep - the neocon PNAC (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Krystol et al) was the root of the futile invasions and the defense contractors as always came out ahead.......wash, rinse, repeat.

en.wikipedia.org

PNAC's first public act was to release a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997. The statement had 25 signers, including project members and outside supporters (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). It described the United States as the "world's pre-eminent power," and said that the nation faced a challenge to "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests." In order to achieve this goal, the statement's signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of "political and economic freedom abroad." It said the United States should strengthen ties with its democratic allies, "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values," and preserve and extend "an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Calling for a "Reaganite" policy of "military strength and moral clarity," it concluded that PNAC's principles were necessary "if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

In September 2000 PNAC released "Rebuilding America's Defenses" a report that promotes "the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report also states, "advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."