|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
A few comments which I believe are important to understanding the bigger
picture:
1) We cleaned up in Kuwait (not Iraq) last time by expelling an unwanted
invader and chasing his remnants back into his own country. This time the US
will be the invader. The US hopes that a country which is ethnically and
religiously far different will welcome us with open arms ... I doubt this
will happen. Further, Iraq consists of three ethnically opposing populations
in each of three regions: Kurds (north), Sunnis (central including Baghdad),
and Shiites (south). Our policy makers are adamant about not allowing Iraq
to fracture. We can expect all three groups will turn upon us when their
ambitions are thwarted.
2) I repeat ... this country is ethnically and religiously far different.
Most of the population is poor and suffering from the embargo. Saddam tells
them that this is the fault of the US, not that he is taking virtually
everything which is allowed into the country. These people do not know what
freedom is, they would simply like to live and feed their families. We are
not going to be welcomed! Perhaps, over time, if we can make things work
better, we will be tolerated. What we can count on is that Muslim activists
to use any occupation of Iraq to stir up trouble throughout the Arab world.
3) We've done the easy part in Afghanistan ... leveling anything not already
leveled and chasing the Taliban back into the mountainous regions from which
they emerged. Beyond that, little has changed. The country is controlled by
regional warlords who wage war on one another for control of the drug trade
which is the only viable trade in the country. It is impossible for goods
and trade to move across the country. The infrastructure is kaput and there
is not a chance of commercial investment. Most of the aid is being stolen by
the warlords. The Taliban and al Queda is now pressing increased contact
with our military by returning to the guerilla warfare which the Afghans
know so well. The country is not governable nor is it pacifiable and there
will be no real success there. The only strategic value of Afghanistan is
that it is useful as a base from which to wage war on al Queda in the Afghan
mountains and across the border in Pakistan. Also, our presence to the
immediate east of Iran, when combined with presence in Iraq to the immediate
west of Iran, is certain to affect the political process in Iran .. perhaps
favorably to the US.
Earl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Rollins" <kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: [RT] Big Picture
>
> QED. We cleaned up in Iraq last time (granted that war was heavily
slanted
> in our favor as we look back on it, but at the time people were saying
"Viet
> Nam II" and "Iraq has the world's 5 largest army" (they rank much lower
> now)). We cleaned house in Afghanistan when people were talking about how
> the USSR got it's butt kicked there. I think we may be underestimating
the
> military effort in Iraq, but I think things will be largely wrapped up in
a
> few months and we will be down to a police force like we are in
Afghanistan
> now. And I think it's possible that other countries will help pay for and
> provide troops for peace-keeping ops in post-Saddam Iraq.
>
> >A home grown despot is always preferable to foreign
> >rule and occupation.
>
> How about freedom? What do people prefer more: a home-grown despot or
> freedom? Did you know they held elections in Afghanistan last year? When
> is the last time you heard anyone use the word "Taliban"? They aren't
> taking women into the soccer stadium on weekends, tying them to a post and
> shooting them in the back of the head either. We are a long way from
> declaring success in Afghanistan but we are clearly on the road to
creating
> a stable, self-governing, free country.
>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|