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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mistermj who wrote (3670)	7/23/2003 10:40:52 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793575

Iraqis Into the Fight The anti-Saddam majority joins the battle, and Uday and Qusay die. Wednesday, Wall Street Journal Word yesterday that American troops have killed the bloody sons of Saddam Hussein is the second piece of good news to come out of Iraq in the past week. The first is that U.S. officials are finally inviting the anti-Saddam Iraqi majority into the fight. The deaths of Uday and Qusay--Caligulas to their father's Nero--are the most important coalition victory since the fall of Saddam on April 9. The insurgency against U.S. forces has since been led by Baath Party survivors, including the sons, who want to restore their dictatorship. And after 35 years of murder and torture, many Iraqis simply won't believe that Saddam's day is done until they know that he and his sons are killed or captured. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, head of U.S. forces in Iraq, will have to show the bodies far and wide to prove they really are dead. It's also notable that their capture resulted from a tip by an Iraqi to the 101st Airborne in the northern city of Mosul. The two previous claims of their or Saddam's demise came from CIA sources who have proven to be unreliable. The 101st has led the way in changing U.S. military strategy from standoff assault to classic counterinsurgency that seeks to win the support of the Iraqi public. This Iraqi tip also underscores the wisdom of the U.S. decision this week to recruit and train a new Iraqi militia to fight alongside U.S. troops. Many recent U.S. casualties have come because GIs are doing jobs that could be done by Iraqis themselves, such as guarding banks and key buildings. U.S. forces, the best in the world, are better reserved for more vital military missions. All the more so because, contrary to the impression given by the U.S. press, tens of thousands of Iraqis are eager to fight for their own freedom. Young men have waited in long lines to join the new Iraqi Army and police forces. The U.S. trained 700 before the war for the Free Iraqi Forces but then shortsightedly disbanded them after April 9. Leaders of the former Iraqi opposition to Saddam, such as Ahmed Chalabi, have been offering to recruit thousands more. The decision by the new Centcom commander, General John Abizaid, to train an additional 7,000-man Iraqi militia in 45 days (and another 7,000 after that) is thus long overdue. The new Iraqi army won't be ready for major duty for years and the police have to worry about routine law and order. The current insurgency of Baathists and foreign jihadis is a more urgent and dangerous threat, and this is where the new Iraqi militia can help. One question still being debated by U.S. officials is just how much fighting these Iraqis will be allowed to do. Coalition Administrator L. Paul Bremer, his State Department advisers and some in the military want to limit their duties essentially to local reservist duty. That is, guarding buildings in their home cities and working the kind of shift one would in any regular job. This would be another big mistake. Guard duties are important, but the Iraqis can also be invaluable fighting alongside Americans, and sometimes even on their own, in offensive operations. When U.S. patrols are attacked, say by sniper fire from an apartment building, GIs now have to pursue the hit-and-run artists on their own. They don't know the language or the terrain, and many of the killers have escaped. Iraqis can help on both counts. They can also fill the most urgent U.S. military need--what the professionals call "actionable intelligence." Again contrary to most media reports, the coalition has more than enough firepower in Iraq. What it needs to defeat the insurgency is good information about where to find the Udays and the Qusays. This can only come from Iraqis. While more Iraqis have been offering information in recent weeks as they gain confidence that the tyranny isn't coming back, even more are likely to come forward if they see Iraqi faces they can talk to along with the Americans. The Iraqi militia should also be used throughout the country, even outside their own regions. An entirely local militia is much more vulnerable to corruption and clan favoritism. Soldiers who travel and work with Americans are more likely to adopt similar standards of professionalism. One objection is that Sunnis won't be able to operate in (say) Shiite areas, but fears of such ethnic and religious clashes have proven to be far overblown since the liberation. Certainly a Kurdish militia would have their hearts in their work searching for Baathists in the Sunni heartland. An active Iraqi militia is also far superior to the alternative of bringing in the U.N. We'd love to see 10,000 Turks working as allies in the tough Saddamite city of Fallujah. But a U.N. force, especially if it includes the French, is likely to come at the cost of too many limitations on how the U.S. fights. Nations that opposed the war will resist further de-Baathification, for example, when the early American failure to purge senior Baath figures is the main reason some Iraqis have been so afraid to cooperate with the coalition. Many of the coalition's post-April 9 troubles have come because U.S. officials took a victory lap and underestimated the desperate ruthlessness of Baath loyalists. The new Iraqi security force is a welcome change in tactics to meet this threat, assuming Mr. Bremer really lets it fight. If we mean what we say about Iraqis running a free Iraq, there's no better way to prove it than letting Iraqis fight and die for it. opinionjournal.com

To: mistermj who wrote (3670)	7/24/2003 5:08:27 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793575

There are 80 million Catholics in this country, and a lot of them will respond to a charge that Democrats won't vote for a Catholic Judge. Pryor Nomination Survives on 10-9 Vote By Helen Dewar Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, July 24, 2003; Page A04 A bitterly divided Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines yesterday to approve the appellate court nomination of Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr. and send it to the Senate, where a Democratic filibuster appears increasingly likely. The 10 to 9 vote for Pryor's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, followed an acrimonious debate that included a blistering exchange over a conservative group's charge that Democrats opposed Pryor because of views arising out of his Catholic faith. Democrats described the ads as "contemptible" and "diabolical" and called on GOP senators to disavow them, while Republicans said Democrats were applying litmus tests on abortion and other issues that would disqualify people such as Pryor who strictly adhere to Catholic doctrine. The debate became so heated that FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, who had been scheduled to testify after the Pryor vote, had to wait more than 90 minutes. Because of their opposition to some judicial nominees, Democrats have been accused of being anti-Baptist, anti-woman, anti-Hispanic and now anti-Catholic, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "This is crazy, absolutely crazy," he said. The vote for Pryor followed an identical 10 to 9 roll call on a move by Democrats to delay a vote until they could complete an investigation into Pryor's fundraising for the Republican Attorneys General Association and whether he misled the committee. Democrats contended Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) violated committee rules in forcing the vote, but Hatch overruled them, disputing their interpretation. Democrats then cast their votes on the nomination under "protest" that the process was out of order. "We have had a shabby injection of unseemly ads relative to religion, we have an unfinished investigation raising serious ethical questions, and, as icing on the cake, we're going to strong-arm a vote out of this committee," Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) complained. Republicans countered that Democrats opposed the conservative Pryor on ideological grounds and defended the nominee as committed to upholding the law even when it conflicted with his strongly held views on abortion and other issues. "Yes, he has political views but his commitment to the law is extraordinary," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said. Democrats have criticized Pryor's positions on civil rights, women's issues and environmental protection and questioned whether he could separate his personal views from his actions as a judge. Hatch accused Democrats of a "far-flung fishing expedition that has succeeded only in undeservedly trashing a good man's reputation." Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he was voting to send the nomination to the floor but would reserve judgment on whether Pryor should be confirmed until the Senate considers it. Without Specter's vote, the nomination could have died in committee. Democrats have not said whether they will try to block a Senate vote with a filibuster, as they have done with two other nominees, Miguel A. Estrada and Priscilla R. Owen, and could do with two more, Carolyn Kuhl and Charles W. Pickering Sr. But several have dropped strong hints that a filibuster is likely, especially since Republicans refused to delay the committee vote. GOP defections could scuttle the nomination without a Democratic filibuster. The GOP majority has 51 votes, nine short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster. So far it has been unable to pick up enough Democratic support to prevail. Despite the ferocity of the debate, there were some efforts at comity. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), followed by other Democrats, criticized a call Tuesday from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) to recuse himself from voting because questions had been raised about his fundraising as Texas's attorney general. Hatch rejected a proposal by several Republicans for an investigation into possible Democratic staff involvement in the fundraising dispute. And Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) criticized the injection of religion into the debate. washingtonpost.com