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: bentway who wrote (188968)	6/9/2006 11:15:15 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Its doubtful that a foreign jihadist will dominate the insurgency from here on in. He was a larger than life figure. The remaining insurgents need to be cajoled to participate in the new iraq. Whether that is possible or not is the key question because before shiaa militias stand down, sunnis of all stripes have to lay down their arms more or less at the same time. I think shiaa militias and sunni insurgents may be able to at least talk now. What role does sistani play? Otherwise the march toward total civil war continues.

To: bentway who wrote (188968)	6/10/2006 7:44:38 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

Perhaps that's why we didn't try to capture him. Other than as a symbol, he's just not that big a deal. Why they made the decision they did, isn't all that important. While he might of been of some intelligence value it never would have risen to a .... "Now we can win GWOT in 30 days!" I don't believe that the history books will ever put Zarqawi in the brilliant military tactician class along side with The Desert Fox, sic Rommel. If you believed at the time that Iraq had WMD hidden somewhere in the country, capturing Saddam's boys vs. killing them would have been worthwhile. jttmab