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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (241562)	9/11/2007 5:49:45 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I note even he isn't claiming there is no progress. Anbar has flipped and is now fighting Al Qaeda. Diyala is flipping too. This is too big to make up or completely ignore. So the Democrats have to smear Petraeus, a straight-shooter by all accounts, and by implication his entire chain of command. Nadine, no one is saying that what is happening in Anbar isn't good or is "made up." Nor are many people among Democratic "deciders" saying the US should pull out immediately (i.e., tomorrow, next week--yeah, some appear to say that, reflecting the diversity in the Democratic Party, but not many). People are saying that there isn't any progress on the political front. One faction--led by Biden--is saying that any central govt that tries exercise power over the rest of the country from Baghdad is doomed to failure. Other factions are basically agreeing with the Republicans in saying that we just need a "responsible" govt willing to make the "tough" choices. Personally, I agree with Biden--the "tough choices" aren't being made because there is no real constituency for them. Great leaders, it has been said, require great followers. And the followers in Iraq are all partisan followers, not compromisers. The "tough choice" that people in this country must make, as Biden has also said, is to face that brutal fact, and frame a policy that incorporates it. Why are they so impatient for American defeat, I wonder? Why so insistent that they they have to make out that all the generals in the military are liars? Your first question is nuts. And, as for the second, so many generals have proven to be charlatans or out of touch with what was going on in Iraq that it is hard to avoid the feeling that they are either liars or incompetent. Guess you haven't read Fiasco. Or a number of other books documenting that. I have a news flash for them: the American people trust generals more than party hacks. So that is the choice, eh? I have to give it to you: You are great at framing false choices.