| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Mission Creep |
| 2004-05-21 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #2 Second, and far more important, intelligence professionals should always resist the temptation to become policy advocates because, being mostly human, intelligence analysts want to be right -- and when they are advocates of a strategy, they will be tempted to find evidence that proves that policy to be correct and ignore evidence that might prove the policy in error. Advocating policies impairs the critical faculties. Besides, in a world in which opinions are commonplace, there is a rare value in withholding opinions. Finally, intelligence, as a profession, should be neutral. Hello! You need to take your own advice, Stratfor. Apparently this writer knows it, but can't manage to be the rare jewel we need right now. evolution of political institutions in the midst of a sustained guerrilla war is impossible. Nothing is IMPOSSIBLE. If you can't help the president's goals, then get out of his way. Leave the job to those who are on board or help out the best you can. There is nothing worse than someone trying to help, whose ultimate goal is to push their own, separate agenda. Stratfor should be fully aware that divide and conquer is our enemies best friend. Repeat of my last point because it is so important. Iraq should then be encouraged to develop a Shiite-dominated government, the best guarantor against al Qaeda and the greatest incentive for the Iranians not to destabilize the situation. BULLHOCKY! The "me, me, me" meme of this piece is pathetic. There are higher goals than removing a leader for our own interests and then leaving the population to fight a civil war. That is not in keeping with American goals. Shame is the word that comes to my mind. I don't necessarily disagree with what this guy writes, he makes some excellent points. However, this typical...if I was in charge, then everything would be perfect self-aggrandizing that is not helpful. Those who actually are in charge have to make decisions that will never, ever be perfect as they make their way forward. Thus they will always open to criticism by those who think they know better. Stratfor finds itself in the sad position of doing little more than throwing peanuts from the peanut gallery . I have an opinion too, just like I have a belly button. I think that we should work with the Iraqi's to divide up their country into divisions that actually might work, put bases in which are useful to us and then wish them good luck. My idea accomplishes a nice balance between our desire to help the Iraqi's without thinking only of ourselves. Does anyone at here or at the Pentagon care? I think not. Same to you, Stratfor. Sure, the insight from this article is interesting and insightful and I agree with a good portion of it. But the bottom line is that Stratfor is too busy proving that their own superior advice is what the president should have and should listen to. Such self-indulgence is just not useful to those who have to make the final calls. Poop or get off the pot, Stratfor. You can't have your cake and eat it too. |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-21 8:49:05 AM |
| #1 Good articles tipper, thanx. I tend to agree a lot w/the first article. We cannot leave Iraq for the obvious reasons but we must not micromanage their internal gov't once we hand it over. A pull back out of industrial areas but strategically placed on Soddy's northern border and maybe the Iranian border as well could provide the proper leverage to ensure follow on ops in the wot. Let the mooks (shias,sunnis, et al assholes) deal in their own muck. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-05-21 7:47:03 AM |