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 (122309)	6/27/2005 1:53:45 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

Hi Nadine, I do indeed recognize progress is made but it is foolish not to see the situation in the sunni triangle as at least troubling if not worse. When i said i was confused i was mimicing Rumsfeld who more or less said that he didnt know whether to increase troop levels, decrease them or leave them the same. Sunni triangle looks like the infitada on the West Bank to me but there is no israel there in a contiguous state to deter and defeat the terrorists. Or should i say there is no population in the triangle other than arab. For this infitada to be stopped the shiaa and kurds and good sunni need to be at least as instrumental as us and thats why i have proposed the timetable to make them serious. I understand timetable is not a popular position but for the life of me i dont understand the opposing logic about terrorists waiting until we leave before acting. I think more in terms of iraqis getting ready to take over out of impsnding necessity but most folks believe the CW on this. I am not an ideological opponent to our policy but I also dont looks at these things with rose colored glasses as some do. I try to be a realist. Mike

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (122309)	6/27/2005 2:35:42 PM
From: Zakrosian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

So stay the course means just that, keep training the Iraqi army and police, pressure the government to keep on schedule, keep the Kurds on board, keep the pressure on the insurgency and work to close the border - keep doing what we are doing. But why not couple that with an announced timetable for withdrawal? If it turns out that the "Jay Tea on War On Terror" comments that LB posted earlier are on target: But let's presume we do set a deadline for our withdrawal from Iraq. Immediately we give a HUGE boost to the terrorists' morale -- "all we have to do is hang on until December 2006 (for example), and we win by default!" The immediate result of a timetable for withdrawal will most likely be an immediate decrease in deaths, but that will be merely the calm before the storm, as they will be saving up and resting and re-grouping and re-arming for the civil war that will break out the instant the last American leaves Iraq. then it might not be such a bad thing. It would give the US and the Iraqi govt about a year and a half to develop the country's infrastructure, continue recruiting and training troops, etc. without the distraction of daily suicide bombings. At that point, I just can't conceive of a resistance that would have much hope of success - why would there be much, if any, widespread Iraqi support for an uprising after 18 months of peaceful progress?