Your title more accurately states who exactly is "rallying in support" than the main body of your article, which is backwards from how I've seen most reporting (usually the details are in the body). It was specifically Muqtada al-Sadr who called for those rallies in Iraq, and it is mostly people who have been following him for awhile that have participated (at least from all reports I have seen). You may remember Muqtada from events like "uprisings is Sadr City," "as-Sadr's opposition to the Coalition Provisional Authority" and "the 2004 violent uprising in Najaf." Muqtada has never liked us and has consistently urged violent action against US soldiers. This is how they "demonstrate their disapproval."

If you're getting your information from the Kuwaiti Times (the first place Google News popped for demonstrations in the other cities you mentioned), please note that even they refer to Sadr as a "radical", and note that the numbers in Baghdad "dwarfed" the rallies in the other cities. Please also note that Cairo, Damascus and Amman are the capitol cities of three countries that participated in the attack on Israel in 1948 and the Six-Day War in 1967. To try to pin the "HATE for Israel" of "the Moslem world" on the current President is short-sighted at best.

Yep, the radical Muslims loved the US until Bush took office.

The Radical Muslims hated us long before Bush. What Bush has done is turn many Moderate Moslems against the United States. He was the BEST recruiting help for the Radical Moslems EVER! Bottom line-- We have many MORE Moslem enemies TODAY then ever and the increased number are because of our invasion of Iraq and the way we support Israel even they the are DEAD WRONG!

By DEXTER FILKINS Published: August 6, 2006 New York Times BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 5 — Over the past year, as American commanders pushed Iraqi forces to take over responsibility for this violent capital, Baghdad became a markedly more dangerous place. Now the Americans are being forced to call in more of their own troops to bring the city under control. The failure of the Iraqis to halt the slide into chaos in Baghdad undercuts the central premise of the American project here: that Iraqi forces can be trained and equipped to secure their own country, allowing the Americans to go home. A review of previously unreleased statistics on American and Iraqi patrols suggests that as Americans handed over responsibilities to the Iraqis, violence in Baghdad increased. In mid-June 2005, Americans conducted an average of 360 patrols a day, according to statistics released by the military. By the middle of February this year, the patrols ran about 92 a day — a drop of more than 70 percent. The first Iraqi brigade took over a small piece of Baghdad early last year. Now, Iraqi soldiers or police officers take the leading role in securing more than 70 percent of the city, including its most violent neighborhoods. They control all of Baghdad’s 6,000 checkpoints. Even after the attack on the Askariya shrine in Samarra on Feb. 22 unleashed a wave of sectarian violence, the American patrols remained at a level lower than in the past. At the end of July, Americans were patrolling Baghdad 89 times a day — a quarter of their patrols in mid-June last year. Thirteen months ago, Baghdad had about 19 daily violent events, like killings. Today, the daily average is 25 — an increase of more than 30 percent. Many of these attacks cause more than one death; some cause many more, like the rampage by Shiite gunmen in western Baghdad last month that left as many as 40 people dead. On Thursday in Washington, senior American military commanders pointedly warned that Iraq was heading toward civil war. To stop the slide, the United States has decided to double the number of American troops in the city, to about 14,200 from about 7,200. American officials have declared Baghdad the country’s “center of gravity,” an arena that must be won if they are to succeed. The Americans and Iraqis say they are also preparing to bring in more Iraqi troops and spend at least $50 million for jobs and public services like electricity. The decision to increase the number of American forces in the city appears to reflect a conviction that only American troops can bring the city under control. “If we were willing to accept the high levels of casualties that occur in the city each month, then the Iraqi security forces could have continued handling the situation,” said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the spokesman for the American military in Iraq. “We can handle it at the levels we have. But if we want to reduce the violence, then we bring more forces into the city.” American commanders say the greater violence in Baghdad does not necessarily suggest that the Iraqi forces are failing. Iraqi police officers and army soldiers are competent, the Americans say, but the explosion of sectarian violence has been of a scope and virulence that could overwhelm any army. “I don’t think we moved too quickly,” General Caldwell said of putting the Iraqis in charge of Baghdad. “I don’t think anyone could have anticipated the sectarian violence.” Some independent observers say the Americans have a point — that the job of trying to secure a city of seven million people plagued by terrorism, sectarian violence and crime is a task of a magnitude that has never been attempted by a modern army. Some wonder whether the additional 7,000 American troops bound for the city will be enough. “I don’t believe this operation was designed to turn a corner,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “I believe it was designed to stop a civil war.” Putting Iraqi forces in the lead in various parts of the city, American commanders say, frees American troops to support the Iraqis in the most violent neighborhoods. The number of Iraqi troops and police officers has steadily grown since the beginning of 2005. About 42,000 Iraqi police, army and paramilitary forces now patrol the capital. In addition to 7,200 American forces, more than 1,000 American advisers are spread throughout the Iraqi police and army. Still, since March, when the Americans and Iraqis began the first of two major operations to bring Baghdad under control, violence there has increased.

Can you say broken record?

I knew you could.

Chickenshit lazy argument if I've ever seen one. Classic flawed non-sequitor offered up by classicly prejudiced bufoon prepared to see anything as the fault of that which he hates. He's incapapable of serious discussion. And don't come down on me for the "points" - they are meaningless.

You spelled the first word in your title wrong. You added an extra 'i' and an superfluous 'e'.

This may not be the point of the topic, but just for the sake of discussion, I'll bite. The situation is what it is, and so far, my future self has not come back to tell me the secret of time travel, so the past is set. COL Gene, what would you recomend that we do differently now to heal the situation?

To be honest, I was against the war against Iraq before we went in. But we went in anyway. Crying about it won't help. So now, how to we turn things to our advantage? Do you believe if we just left, the situation in Iraq would get better? Do you believe world opinion would see us in a better light? Or do you have some other course of action to recommend? Something that we could try that we aren't doing now?

Or perhaps you are in favor of abandoning Israel as an ally? Do you believe that the distruction of Israel would be benifical to world peace? Or that demonstrating that the US would leave an ally behind is a good way to encourage others to become our ally?

I think that those who hate us will continue to do so no matter what we do. There are many who are not sure, and they are affected by daily events just as we at home are. But there are many who will loose respect for us if we just walk away as well.

Iraq as Gen Powell said is broken. We have allowed the sectarian violence to grow and now the only solution is to allow the Iraqi People to settle it which could mean an All Out Civil War. In any event our continued occupation does two things-- creates more American casualties and spending as well as provide a source of hate just by us occupying Iraq. The polls show that vast majority of the PEOPLE in Iraq want us to leave and in the end no matter what we do, the people of Iraq will have to decide what the end game will be for that country.

The Issue in Israel is that we must reel in Israel in exchange for the Moslem States doing the same with the militant Moslem groups. What will not work is what Israel is doing and the poof is IT HAS NOT WORKED SINCE 1948. THE POLICY BEING FOLLOWED HAS CREATED THE PROBLEM SUCH AS THE FORMATION OF HEZBALLAH after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. When the people of Gaza and Lebanon see what Israel has done to their countries, the HATE will be there and BOTH the United States and Israel will have created new enemies to add to the old enemies. Our policy of allowing Israel to destroy Gaza and Lebanon over the capture of 3 soldiers will make the people of Lebanon hate us and the Israelis! We have not learned and with everything that this administration has done when the policy does not achieve the desired result, they SATAY THE COURSE!

The Issue in Israel is that we must reel in Israel in exchange for the Moslem States doing the same with the militant Moslem groups.

This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Are you really fool enough to honestly believe that those governments can or even want to "reel in" the radical terrorists? You are obviously seriously deluded if you do.

That is what the Bush Road Map to Peace required. The end to the radical Moslem groups attacking Israel and it required Israel to give up the occupied territory, end the settlements and STOP building the WALL beyond their borders. Bush had a great plan got agreement on the plan and then refused to do what was needed to implement the plan. Now the Moslem World and most other countries look at the U S as supporting Israel no matter how outrageous the actions of Israel are in a given situation.

If someone DESTROYED your home, livelihood and killed your relatives like Israel has done in Gaza and Lebanon, I bet you would HATE who ever did that to you!!!!! Israel could have taken actions on a scale of taking the three soldiers. That is NOT what Israel Did. The started an all out war in two countries.

Respectfully, "reeling in Israel" has been tried time and again by the US as well. All it seems to acomplish is to signal to Israel's enemies that they may continue to conduct themselves as they have. They know that if Israel gets too far "out of line", all they need to do is pressure the US to "reel in Israel", so they need never fear retaliation.

That is WHY BOTH Israel and the radical Moslem Groups had to be controlled AT THE SAME TIME. The HATE between these groups is such that they can not arrive at a settlement among themselves. The WORLD must TELL and FORCE both Israel and the radical Moslems from attacking each other. This is like two kids fighting on the playground-- They MUST be separated by a superior force!

This is how Col gene sees it. He feels that if he has a beighbor that wants to fight him, he would rather relocate the entire family and sell the house than stand his ground. The neighbors kids beat up his kids every once in a while, but his kids have to say I'm sorry even if they did nothing. If one of his kids tryies to retaliate, he punishes them for defending themselves.

Charles C

What I said is Israel MUST stay within the borders that the World established for them in 1948 and the Palestine’s would have to accept the West Bank and Gaza, Free from Israeli occupation or interference. Do not forget that the land Israel occupies was the place where the Palestinians lived for 2000 years. You seem to not understand that the way Israel and the Palestine’s are acting IS NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM! This is not a KID GETTING BEAT UP ONCE AND A WHILE. This has been going on for over 60 years. It is time to FORCE a settlement!