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: michael97123 who wrote (39872)	4/17/2004 9:17:08 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

I disagree when he says many Iraq people do not want us to succeed either. He doesn't mention the outside forces from Syria, Iran, Jordan Saudi coming into Iraq to fight. He doesn't mention in the city they have surrounded they estimate up to 400 foreign fighters in the group. We see on television what abc, bbc, etc want to show us. We do not see what is going on up in the north and south of Iraq. Only these few spots of unrest.. Sure they are a crisis and it could explode. But i take exception to many Iraq people not wanting us to succeed. I question Bush going into war. Did he rush to war as he felt daily they were losing world support, and support in congress as well as the potential of american people. Turkey didn't help and that could have contributed to some of the problems we have today. Not coming in with troops from the north could have made todays situation a little different. Not enough troops. In hide sight we need more troops. Did we need more troops in the beginning? Did we need more troops three months later? Many in congress said so but did our military? If they did were they refused by the defense department? I would like to know if the troops on the ground over in Iraq in the last year was a military judgement or political judgement.

To: michael97123 who wrote (39872)	4/19/2004 1:38:01 AM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793917

Hi Michael, this one's for you: Understanding Sistani's Role By Vali Nasr Monday, April 19, 2004; Page A19 washingtonpost.com ... It is crucial that U.S. policymakers take stock of Sistani's importance and the positive role that he can play in helping America realize its goals in Iraq and the broader region. The U.S. administration must look to strengthen Sistani. This means avoiding radicalizing Shiite politics, increasing Sistani's room to maneuver and making sure that he is able to maintain his legitimacy by delivering on the demands of his community, especially with regard to the constitution and the interim government that will take over on June 30. If he fails to do so, his brand of politics will give way to one that looks to confrontation rather than negotiation. More importantly and immediately, the United States must allow Sistani to find a solution to the standoff in Najaf. If Sistani is able to preserve the sanctity of the city and prevent bloodshed while addressing U.S. demands, his stature will be enhanced immensely. This is ultimately what America wants -- to empower Sistani and to cage Sadr, to nudge the Shiite community away from combative posturing and toward constructive engagement over the constitution and future of Iraq. The imperative of reining in Sadr and his militia has to be balanced with the larger goal of achieving the U.S. objectives of bringing stability and order to Iraq. Preserving Sistani's position should matter more than crushing Sadr. Surely the United States would not want Sistani to become "collateral damage" in a showdown in Najaf. The writer is a professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian politics at the Naval Postgraduate School.