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 : THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (4027)	11/13/2003 10:13:02 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 6358

What to Do The problem in Iraq is neither political nor military; it is a security problem. By Amir Taheri EDITOR'S NOTE: This article appears in the Nov. 24, 2003, issue of National Review. In late October and early November, the Iraqi capital of Baghdad had some horrible days, with terrorist attacks that claimed scores of victims. The attacks put the usual what-is-to-be-done industry into overdrive in Washington and elsewhere. There has been no dearth of ideas, some outrageous, others amusing. One is to impose a 24-hour curfew in Baghdad. Another is to abandon democratization, and appoint a military junta to restore calm. (The calm, that is to say, of the graveyard.) We are told to court tribal sheikhs, to cuddle the mullahs, or to crown this or that aspiring despot as "strongman." The avalanche of ideas includes other gems: get a new U.N. resolution, put Kofi Annan in charge, call Jacques Chirac to the rescue, and even beg the mullahs of Tehran for help. The best short answer to the question, however, is to do nothing. Doing nothing is often better than knee-jerk reactions and panic measures. A longer answer, however, will have to start by establishing what it is that we face in Baghdad today. To present the attacks as "the Iraq problem" falsifies the issue. Iraq does remain a problem, not only for the U.S.-led coalition but also for the Persian Gulf, and, beyond it, the whole world. But to reduce that problem to the terrorism that we have witnessed since May would be to miss the point.

To: calgal who wrote (4027)	11/13/2003 10:15:05 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 6358

U.S. to Back Re-Formed Iraq Body URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33985-2003Nov12.html By Robin Wright and Daniel Williams Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, November 13, 2003; Page A01 The Bush administration plans to support the creation of a reconstituted governing body in Iraq that will assume a large degree of sovereignty by next summer -- and possibly end control by the U.S.-led occupation before the 2004 presidential election. The decision was reached after two days of hastily organized talks at the White House with L. Paul Bremer, top U.S. administrator in Iraq, in an attempt to accelerate the political transition, one of two prerequisites, along with security, for the eventual U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The decision represents a major shift in U.S. political strategy. Mirroring the U.S. military strategy of "Iraqification," Washington now wants to hand over as much responsibility for the political process as is feasible, as fast as it is feasible. "The focus is how to get to an interim government that can bear the weight of sovereignty and authority -- and to whom we can turn the keys over," said a well-placed U.S. official who requested anonymity. The two primary U.S. goals are to foster an executive body and a constitutional committee that are accepted as legitimate by the majority of Iraqis, while not totally abandoning the current council -- at least for now. The flurry of meetings reflects the growing frustration with the 24 handpicked members of the Iraqi Governing Council, which is widely viewed as a surrogate of the United States and has failed so far to come up with a formula for the transition. "We are looking at all sorts of ideas, and we do want to accelerate the pace of reform. We want to accelerate our work with respect to putting a legal basis under the new Iraqi government," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told reporters. After talks with President Bush yesterday, Bremer acknowledged that the United States and the council face "a very intense period" with the looming U.N.-imposed deadline of Dec. 15 for the Iraqis to establish a timetable for the transition. After additional talks at the Pentagon, Bremer left yesterday for Baghdad with two broad options to discuss over the weekend with the council, senior U.S. officials said. The details were being closely held, in large part because the United States wants the council to participate in the decision. "It doesn't matter what my options are; what matters is what does the Governing Council think," Bremer told reporters after meeting Bush yesterday. Added a senior administration official: "It has to be a process made in Baghdad, not in Washington." One option broadly calls for a national election to choose a new council to write Iraq's first democratic constitution and possibly select a new leadership. The other proposes the creation first of a reconstituted provisional government that would rule while a constitution is drafted and then conduct elections for a permanent government. The prime difference is the sequence of events; both options seek to create a formula for transition that will be accepted as a product of Iraqi preferences, not U.S. dictates. The Bush administration expects a speedy decision by the Iraqi council. "We hope and intend to move very fast," said a senior U.S. official. The administration said the decision is not a dramatic policy shift but instead reflects its flexibility and willingness to let policy evolve as circumstances change. Part 2 Continued: