Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not sure I agree with this.
|
Me either. Certainly Sullivan doesn't, but he pretends they agree with him (i.e.: the war is now a total loss).
Quote:
|
We have shown neighboring countries that we are willing to use force, but we also have made clearer the limits on our force. Without sufficient forces to secure Iraq, we are in no position to invade anyone else now.
|
I think Stratfor believes that is one excellent reason it was a mistake to try to secure Iraq. If they were shut of trying to keep a lid on that mess, our troops would be free to wreak havoc elsewhere, like stomping on those alleged jihadist camps in Syria, conduct interesting border raids into Iran, stage cooperative strikes with local intelligence agencies in Saudi Arabia, etc.
Quote:
|
Had we only been interesting in coercing other countries, we could have gone to the brink with Hussein and then accepting something short of full capitulation from him -- weapons inspectors, etc.
|
I disagree. The source of our coercive power is having a pantload of our troops on the ground in Iraq. Now, had that partial capitulation Saddam's you posit included permitting the US to set up humongous bases from which to "monitor" his WMD and otherwise kick al Q butt in all the neighboring region, replacing him might indeed have been unnecessary to the primary goals of the war.
