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: DavesM who wrote (134410)	8/25/2005 9:13:35 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793905

I do not see why you can say that al Qeada is not the largest problem likely to occur in Iraq. Al Qeada is the group stoking the flames of Civil War. My own view is the Al Qaeda is a very minor player in the future possibility of civil war in Iraq. Right now the bulk of insurgency/bombing, etc., directed at US troops seems to come from Sunnis not necessarily connected to Al Q. But much of the killing of Iraqis by Iraqis is a proto-civil war violence, mostly Sunni versus Shia. I don't see a straight line between now and early 09 in which basically a static configuration of forces stays in place. The tendencies over the last six months have been toward increasing the probability of severe civil war. It's, obviously, not a lock; there's still possibilities for better outcomes and some leverage. But it looks as if the mismanagement from the Bush administration continues. And I don't see an acceptable solution yet for division of the oil revenues. That strikes me as one of the very large keys. Do you? If you are interested where these views come from, it's pretty widely known here that I read Peter Galbraith in The New York Review of Books, Juan Cole's blog, and The New York Times for information on Iraq. Best, by far, that there is.