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: cnyndwllr who wrote (119363)	6/10/2005 10:57:32 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

How about noticing that the unit in question was a problem precisely because it was a Sunni unit picked from the worst Sunni areas, and is the most vulnerable to infiltration and dual loyalties. The US & the Iraqi government is responding to this by sending in Shia and Kurdish units, with the clear message to Al Anbar that they can make a deal or some of the Shia militias will knock heads together in the future. The Strategy Page entry below describes the process. Which seems to be working, but slowly. Also, building any Iraqi units will depend on building a professional officer corps, and that is a long process, especially as it cuts clear against the grain of Arab culture, where those higher in the hierarchy typically treat the lower-downs terribly, which is one reason Arabs stink so badly at modern war. This is a long process and if the DoD thinks there are shortcuts, they are wrong. However, it is also clear that there are already many good Iraqi units and that the story of this one unit is not the story of every unit. In short, I would remember the context, and not expect to get it from Tony Shadid, whose rather myopic and one-sided reports I read all the way through the intifada. All I would say of him is that at least I don't think he makes stuff up or is a patsy for any sob story staged for his benefit, which is more than you can say of most reporters. __________________________________________ June 9, 2005: More towns in Iraqi's "wild west" are making peace with the government. The usual drill is not another Fallujah, but a government official meeting with local tribal and religious leaders, where an offer is made. It is announced that Iraqi and American troops are coming. Neighborhoods that support the government will see little or no fighting as a search is made for weapons, bombs and the like. Neighborhoods that wish to resist will be hit hard. By now, everyone knows how smart bombs work. Increasingly, Sunni Arab leaders are being told, by their followers, that all this violence is not worth it. After Saddam fell, Sunni Arabs continued to believe in fantasies. For the last two years, the collective delusion was that the Americans had no stomach for guerilla war, and the Kurds and Shia Arabs could never get a government together. Today, Sunni Arabs who can get away on a little vacation, go north to the Kurdish north, or south to Shia Basra. In both places you can sit in an outdoor cafe without fear of a suicide bomb going off down the street. The Kurds and Shia have more jobs, more reconstruction and less crime. The Sunni Arabs don't want to live in their own mess any more. They don't want to live in a combat zone, especially while the Kurds and Shia are not. For Sunni Arabs to support the government, it often means fighting with the terrorist groups, and sometimes the criminal gangs they are allied with. The government offer includes help in building up local security. It has not gone unnoticed that Iraqi police are a lot more effective than they were a year ago. The government also has police commandoes who can go into any area, no matter how well defended, and take out terrorists or other heavily armed enemies. No longer does the government have to depend on the Americans for this sort of thing. The bad news is that over a million Sunni Arabs are still hostile to the government, and any foreign troops in Iraq. Many are propelled by religious beliefs, as well as the "we are superior and should be running the place" attitude that Sunni Arabs have been cultivating for centuries. These guys are willing to keep fighting. The government doesn't want a blood bath, and they know that millions of Shia Arabs and Kurds would be willing to carry out a general massacre of Sunni Arabs, as payback for past sins. So the government goes to each town and neighborhood, gets the local leaders together, and makes the offer. Those who refuse are free to go home and get their guns and followers together for their last stand. Some of the leaders who refuse the government offer, do so because they know most of their followers want to fight on. But more and more, Sunni Arabs are deciding that there's no future in all this violence. You fight the Americans, you die. And, increasingly, the odds aren't much better against government troops or police.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (119363)	6/10/2005 11:23:27 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793903

I've noticed that many of the left constantly throw bricks when someone has the temerity to question their material. I certainly didn't question your patriotism.... You sir, have questioned mine by the very tone of your piece. I asked you a question. What I didn't ask is what you would have done 10 years ago about this, if you had been in "charge"... First of all, it is customary to include the Header and author of the piece, as well as the date. Here it is: Iraq mission mired in differences Deep divide between U.S, Iraqi forces By Anthony Shadid and Steve Fainaru Updated: 1:07 a.m. ET June 10, 2005 Just some spots where I questioned the piece, just as you question the mission and the value: --Page #1: We have lived in humiliation since you left," one sang in Arabic, out of earshot of his U.S. counterparts. "We had hoped to spend our life with you." ---At this stage of the game, I'd say THIS was true... We can't tell these guys about a lot of this stuff, because we're not really sure who's good and who isn't," said Rick McGovern, a tough-talking 37-year-old platoon sergeant from Hershey, Pa., who heads the military training for Charlie Company. ---This statement from the article in italics is VERY true, IMO...and anyone who thinks in two years we can not only win a war, and try to win the peace, AND as well, TRAIN their soldiers like ours are trained, PLUS make sure their basic energy, water, sewer, telephone, oil pipelines, schools, food, housing and built from the ground up, ETC ETC ETC, can be done in two years either believes in miracles, or has absolutely no patience nor ability to see the problems that exist, now and in the Saddam tenure. >>>>>demonstrates the immense challenges of building an army from scratch in the middle of a bloody insurgency.<<<<< --How big is Charlie Company in Iraq? Do you suppose that the people who fought the American Revolution had any of these comments? Or do you think that those men and women who fought for our Independence and Freedom knew inately that they HAD to win. They didn't have to sit in classrooms to figure out that their very lives, and the lives of their families depended on their winning the fight. --Wonder if >>>> 1st Lt. Kenrick Cato, 34, of Long Island, N.Y., <<<<< was in the reserves, before he came to Iraq? Has he been part of the training exercises? We don't know his background, but it would be interesting to know that. --- This man >>>>> Maj. Gen. Joseph J. Taluto<<<<< says that the Iraqi forces are improving and that even with difficulties for awhile, should >>>>>meet its goal of having battalion-level units operating independently by the fall.<<<<< And there is much more to this article that could and should be discussed civilly. However, it was your comments at the beginning of Part 1 of the article that said your POV very loudly and very clearly. You said: "If you really care about American soldiers then instead of blindly accepting the rhetoric of the Administration you should read the following Washington Post article. Maybe then you'll understand why the mission in Iraq will NOT be successful, at least not until they change the mission. PS, If you can't take the truth then don't bother to read this.<<<<< It was because of your 'tone' that I asked: " So, cnyn Ed, you want the Iraqi's to fail? Or is it the US you want to fail? By the same token: Are you saying nothing can ever be done in Africa, because their customs and belief system dictates they always rape, kill, and can't live in peace and economic security?" Perhaps you would care to comment what you would do if you were a General, and various Officers down the line about the training of the Iraqi's in Iraq.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (119363)	6/10/2005 11:28:58 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793903

Are you so one sided you've gotten stupid? Do you expect anyone to read beyond that kind of opening sentence on this thread? Some of your posts are well thought out and worth consideration...at least partially, but speaking for myself, as soon as I recognize a rant I move on to the next post. May I suggest, if you want to be heard and considered, make your points, skip the unfounded the personal attacks. After all, it isn't like you are not one sided. We all are to some degree and that makes the debate. I am not trying to monitor the thread.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (119363)	6/11/2005 12:04:32 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

The bottom line is that we're sending our young on a stupid mission and that they're getting killed and wounded based on intentionally misleading, rosy statements. 2K dead, 50 dead/month & Jan 2006. You'll see major change by then unless the numbers dying/month are significantly lower by then. Just 7 more months of this nonsense.