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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (16487)	1/12/2007 3:37:32 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Message 23179124

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (16487)	1/14/2007 1:55:59 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Peter, that's all well and good and will probably work in the Sunni sections of Baghdad, but what's going to happen when our guys want to go after the Shiite militias in Sadr City? There hasn't been ONE public comment from Maliki in support of this plan. That's because he owes his political survival (and probably his life) to Sadr. We've cleared Sunni neighborhoods before. I think we've cleared Haifa (sp) street about three times now. We'll probably clear (and hold) those Sunni areas for as long as we keep troops there. But we can't keep them there forever and the Iraqi Army and police are run by the Shiites and will eventually regain control. That will bring the death squads and ethnic cleansing right back. When it comes to Sadr City, it's a whole different ballgame. We're gonna go in there with OUR guys and some Kurd Battalions (cause the regular Shiite army and police guys aren't gonna help) and our guys are gonna take casualties like never before. They aren't gonna meet us with force but they're gonna snipe us to death (they've got sniper rifles with silencers now) and hit us with IEDs and everything else. If we try to hold ground in Sadr City our guys are gonna get picked off one or two or ten at a time. The Shiites make up about 70% or so of the bottom 2/3rds of Iraq and they WANT to be in control. They aren't suddenly going to get all lovey dovey with the Sunnis that have been oppressing them for 300 years. This whole thing is going to turn out badly no matter HOW much education Patraeus has.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (16487)	1/16/2007 10:31:40 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Is Iraq a distraction from the war on terror? No, say Afghanistan's ambassador and the Joint Chiefs chairman. BY BRENDAN MINITER Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST Following President Bush's speech last week, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United Nations allowed himself this thought: Everything the president proposes doing in Iraq would also be welcome in Afghanistan. For more than five years the U.S. has waged war in that landlocked, mountainous country. And at least since the liberation of Iraq, the White House has faced criticism that it is distracted from the war on terror in the country that hosted Osama bin Laden when he planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The president is facing a fresh round of such attacks now that he is "surging" American troops in Iraq in an effort to stabilize Baghdad. And in the process he's watching as his case for using democracy as a weapon against terrorism is swept away. Zahir Tanin, Afghanistan's ambassador in New York, isn't one of those critics. He stopped by The Wall Street Journal's offices Thursday and, in offering his thoughts on the current situation in his country, ended up presenting a counterargument to those who would discount the importance of establishing legitimate democratic governments as bulwarks against terrorism. The Afghanistan of his youth, he said, looked nothing like the chaotic nation that the world saw after the fall of the Taliban. Kabul, where he was born, was once a "cosmopolitan city," he said. But decades of war, including years of Soviet domination, left the country in tatters and ripe for terrorists and the Taliban to assert their supremacy. By 2001 Afghanistan had become "a disrupted state." His choice of words is instructive. In the war on terror the U.S. is facing an enemy that's not moored to a civilian population and doesn't feel bound by international conventions. But it is an enemy with territorial ambitions and intentions of disrupting the normal operations of civil society. Mr. Tanin, who was living in London and working for the BBC when the Taliban fell, sees progress made over the past five years and isn't now one of the president's critics. Elections have been held, roads have been built linking some of the larger cities, a small national military is taking shape, and a commercial economy, though still tiny, is up and running. All are buffers against the Taliban's return and a strong argument against the voices who've said for years that democracy can't be "imposed." But has the U.S., by being in Iraq, shortchanged Afghanistan and handed the Taliban an opportunity to re-emerge? Here we can turn to Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who was also in New York late last week. At an event sponsored by the Oxonian Society, Gen. Pace offered a few facts to rebut the claim that the administration is distracted. Approximately 80% of Afghans are illiterate, he said, suggesting that rebuilding the country will require building a viable public education system just as much as launching military offensives. But combat operations are far from being wrapped up. He noted that there are now two types of Taliban operating in the country. The first is the faction led by Mullah Omar, which would like to retake control of the country. The second, which the general calls "the small-t taliban," is really a bunch of drug lords trying to protect their turf. Neither group is good for the country. But, Gen. Pace said, even as the illicit heroin trade remains a significant portion of the economy--at $2 billion a year--it hasn't grown in recent years, even as the overall economy has. Come spring, he said, there will be a military offensive. The question is this: "Will it be ours or theirs?" He wouldn't say precisely what the U.S. is planning once the winter snows begin to recede. But it's clear by raising the question that he's watching what's happening on the ground there even as the U.S. surges in Iraq. The general was, however, willing to draw a direct parallel between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the U.S. is pushed out of Iraq, he said, the next stop for al Qaeda and other insurgents is Afghanistan. If the U.S. is pushed out of Afghanistan, he said to a hushed room in New York on Friday, the next stop is here. Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays. opinionjournal.com