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 (200072)	8/29/2006 2:15:04 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraq may be bad, but it's not hurtling out of control "The chances of success are good, if we give ourselves time to succeed," By David Ignatius Daily Star staff Tuesday, August 29, 2006 When the Bush administration talks about the progress it is making in Iraq, it points to places like the provincial capital of Diwaniyyah, about 160 kilometers south of Baghdad. The population is overwhelmingly Shiite and the region is fairly calm, by comparison to the capital. But even here in Qadisiyah Province, the transition to full Iraqi sovereignty is taking longer than it should. The Iraqi Army was supposed to take control of Qadisiyah and neighboring Wasit Province from coalition forces in September. But that timetable recently slipped to January or February because of worries that the Iraqis aren't yet fully ready. So Iraqi officials here continue to avoid making tough decisions about resources, and local insurgents keep lobbing mortar rounds into the compound where Polish and other coalition troops are working with the United States to maintain order. A visit to Iraq leaves me thinking that the right answer is tough love. We don't need radical new plans for federalism, or sharp deadlines for withdrawing American troops, as anxious members of Congress have recently recommended. Instead, America and Iraq need to agree on a reasonable timetable for the transfer of military control around the country - and stick to it. When provinces meet the schedule, they should be rewarded with more economic assistance. When they miss their deadlines, they should get fewer resources. For most of the country, that transfer should be possible within six to 12 months. In Baghdad and in Anbar Province, it will take longer. But everyone should understand that America isn't prepared to keep writing a blank check. An Iraq that's actually run by Iraqis again won't be perfect. In the early years, it will be corrupt and disorderly: Baghdad Airport probably won't work as efficiently when it's returned to Iraqi control; insurgents will probably still be setting off roadside bombs. If things go right, American troops will be welcome here training and advising Iraq's security forces even after the bulk of the US force has come home. To make this transition plan work, Americans need a little more patience and Iraqis a little less. That's the judgment of Gen. John Abizaid, with whom I traveled in Iraq last week. "Our problem is to give up some control. The Iraqi problem is to take control," says Abizaid, who as head of Central Command has overall responsibility for US forces in Iraq. He says Americans shouldn't think of the transition as a straight line - "as they stand up, we stand down" - but as a process of gradual stabilization. he new Iraqi security forces totaling 325,000 will mostly be in place by year's end, says Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is responsible for training. Dempsey tells me that next year he hopes to consolidate this force, teaching the Iraqis mundane skills such as logistics management that make a modern army work. He quotes what was said of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant on the need for steady nerve in this process: "Now is the time for 2 in the morning courage." He says the timing of transition "is an art, not a science." Abizaid's big worry is the battle between Sunnis and Shiites for control of the new Iraq. "Sectarian violence is the mortal danger," he says. "Left unchecked, it will lead to civil war. There are a lot of similarities that remind me of Beirut in the early stages before things got out of control." In congressional testimony this month, Abizaid raised a red flag about the risk of civil war, but he told me Friday that he had new confidence that Iraqi leaders were prepared to make the tough decisions necessary to check sectarian strife. He found Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his key ministers more confident and focused than they had been earlier this summer, when death squads seemed to have taken over Baghdad. To test the new security plan for the capital, Abizaid walked the streets of two of Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods on Thursday. "The chances of success are good, if we give ourselves time to succeed," says Abizaid. I don't feel quite so optimistic, but I think Abizaid is right in urging a sensible, deliberate policy to reduce the American presence - as opposed to a pell-mell rush for the exit. The situation in Iraq is difficult, but the sense of panic in the Washington debate just doesn't match the situation on the ground. It's bad here, but it's not hurtling out of control. Americans should be worried about Iraq, but not so much that they take rash actions that will end up hurting American interests in the Middle East at a delicate time. We'll be out of Iraq, one way or another, over the next few years. Rushing the process because of American impatience would make a bad situation even worse. Syndicated columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR. dailystar.com.lb

To: bentway who wrote (200072)	8/29/2006 8:48:10 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

After bombing the Taliban into the boondocks in 2001, it set up a government without first making peace - a scenario later to be repeated in Iraq. The only prospect for peace with the Taliban would have been to accept them as rulers of Afghanistan. Not setting up a government would have been a very serious mistake. The Taliban would have moved in to the power vacuum and be in a much stronger position than they are currently in. Either that or we would try to be running it as an imperial province which would turn Afghanis against us and generally make the problem a lot worse.