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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (42392)	12/2/2005 9:11:42 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

What happens if the US pulls out tomorrow? Or 3 months from now? Joe Lieberman has an opinion on that. Progress in Iraq shows importance of staying By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN Published on: 12/02/05 I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the last 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam Hussein to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn. The progress in Iraq is visible and practical. In the Kurdish north, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite south remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad on the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress. There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs and literally millions more cellphones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way to a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it. It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam "revengists," Iraqi Islamic extremists or al-Qaida foreign fighters and who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority. None of these remarkable changes in Iraq would have happened if coalition forces, led by the United States, had not overthrown Saddam. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country. The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, have a clear vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them. We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to lead the fight themselves with logistical support from the United States, and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could be able to begin to draw down in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come. ajc.com

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (42392)	12/4/2005 11:26:25 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Now what's your solution?" Well, I've said to you already that I favor the U.S. staying in Iraq (now that the dice have been rolled) until maximum opportunity has been realized. Otherwise, the entire sacrifice has been negated. As to the solution to world problems of terrorism and savagery, well--it is obviously a problem larger than any one country. I have said that a united framework for action must be detailed and addressed. Shaking your head and saying, "it can't be done," certainly ensures that it won't. You are very good at showing the obstacles but I'm afraid that looking at obstacles does not work through them. All the major powers certainly recognize the threat of terrorism and WMD. So it is a matter of dialogue, persuasion, manipulation of self interest, etc., etc., etc. It is not a matter to be resolved by isolation or retreat from dialogue.