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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (179200)	1/5/2006 9:37:39 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I suspect the real problem is dealing with the results of the last election. Certainly the Sunnis are going to have to be placated economically and politically. The willingness, IMO, of certain former Ba'thist members to support and actively participate in an alliance with Al Qai'da elements, means that the violence against Shi'ites will continue because other Sunni tribal leaders believe they cannot politically oppose these extremist elements. I would like the administration to recognize that, in my opinion, there has been a long-standing relationship between the former Ba'thist regime leaders and Zarqawi's Al Qai'da group. Their interests dovetail in their mutual hatred of Shi'as and fear of Iranian influence. Thus, we'll likely need to target those former leaders of the IIS, SSO, and Republican Guard in order to more fully, as well as those individuals acting as proxies for the Iranian government. One key step needs to be the creation of a nationalist party that TRULY represents Iraqi nationalism, as opposed to the parochial interests of those elements who follow religious or ethnic lines. I believe the response that Allawi received in the recent election is a representation of this recognition on the part of Iraqis. But I'm under no illusions that Iraqi nationalism (as opposed to Arab nationalism) is "ready for prime time". But as violence continues on the part of both sides, I'd like to believe that moderate Iraqis will say "a pox on both of your houses" and emerge to offer compromises. The key over the next few years until the next election is to insure that neither Al Qai'da/Ba'thist elements, nor Iranian "sock-puppets" are able to dominate the other. The Kurds, believe it or not, have a tremendous opportunity to play "king-maker" here, if they can put aside their ludicrous attempts to create a Kurdish state in the north (which the Turks will never permit). It's messy, and that's generally the case with massive power struggles where control over tremendous oil wealth is the "prize". But we can only hope the political and social gears will begin to mesh in coming years. But we also have to be astute in offering our assistance and support. US support cannot be permitted to be taken for granted by the various factions in Iraq. We must be willing to play some "brinksmanship" with regard to being prepared to remove more troops and decrease our presence. This will serve to make the various powers look into the brink and see if they really want to engage in a full-fledge civil war (at which point we'll need to depart post-haste and adopt a "containment" policy). But unilateral withdrawal right now, without obtaining any concessions from the various Iraqi power groups (Shi'a, Kurd, or Sunni) will guarantee a blood-bath. Hawk