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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (41479)	4/30/2004 1:17:07 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

Sullivan - THE RISK IN FALLUJA: I can't be the only one troubled by the apparent decision to hand over the pacification of Falluja to some kind of Sunni/Iraqi force. Rumsfeld suggests that this is a recommendation from the Marines on the ground. You can certainly see why an effective Iraqi attempt to destroy the Baathist and Islamist forces in Falluja would be a good thing. But how realistic is that? And what does this sign of our retreat say to the rest of the population? Here's a paragraph that made my stomach lurch: And amid condemnation in Europe and elsewhere for what some leaders say are heavy-handed tactics in Falluja, American military and civilian officials in Iraq have shown much reluctance to return to all-out fighting here either, despite strong talk from President Bush and other administration officials about ending the insurgency. Don't get me wrong. I'm aware that we have to strike a balance here - between quelling unrest and provoking more of it. But if we had the chance to eradicate a whole swathe of Baathist/Islamist terrorists and walked away, then it would amount to a huge miscalculation. In my lower moments, it makes me worry if the Bush administration has begun to abandon Iraq to internal chaos. I cannot believe they would do that. But this Falluja reversal is mystifying, to say the least.