Posted on 06/04/2004 12:12:40 PM PDT by TexKat
UNITED NATIONS - The United States and Britain revised their Security Council resolution on transferring sovereignty to Iraq on Friday, giving the country's new interim government authority to order the U.S.-led multinational force to leave at any time.
The previous draft introduced Tuesday declared the council's readiness to terminate the force's mandate by January 2006 or at the request of the transitional government formed after elections held by Jan. 31, 2005.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the U.N. Security Council on Thursday that the incoming government wants the multinational force to stay to prevent civil war, and he told The Associated Press on Friday that he could not foresee its departure before power is transferred to the transitional government early next year.
The revised draft circulated to Security Council members includes what Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have stated publicly — that American and British troops will leave if asked.
It declares that the council will terminate the mandate for the multinational force after elections held by Dec. 31, 2005, or earlier "if requested by the sovereign government of Iraq."
Still avoiding discussing anything that I did say LS? Just making more things up to argue with... ;^)
Right LS..
and why bother with what Bush, Rummie, Powell, Rice, Kimmitt, et al have to say? They're obviously compromised from the real facts presented by USA Today.
To his credit, the elf is probably a right minded soul that has unfortunately dug himself a hole with his 'theory' and can't really find a credible way to wiggle out of it.
So, like all good captains, he goes down with the ship.
cc:elfman
I haven’t “wiggled” since long before posting this on 5/3. You just jump to conclusions and sink to insults without investigating the facts.
If you can’t show me a single claim by the people that you listed that contradicts what I say, like I asked, don't don’t cc me.
Don't need to discuss something with someone who is so far off base that he can't see home plate. Let me know when you are talking to Marines in theater.
I’ve listed six references to major papers supporting my claim, but now I have to know someone in theater before you’ll stop mischaracterizing it? [smile]
You believe that the press know WTF they're talking about?
Do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? Do you believe that pro wrestling is real?
You're going to be one sorely disillusioned soul pretty soon...
Five major papers including the "left wing" Washington Times verses loyalists without a shred of evidence to the contrary? Tough decision…
Your "major papers" have been deconstructed ad nauseum. Give it up. You can no longer contort your unreality to fit the facts of Fallujah.
The Washington Times. No evidence. Do you have your own zip personal code? [smile]
The Times can be wrong, and obviously is. But, of course, that doesn't fit the template.
I wasn't talking about the political alignment; I was talking about the level of military knowledge in modern newsrooms, which tends to be appallingly low, even at the Washington Times.
LOL..elfster, if you think what I have said is an insult, you certainly are an overly sensitive soul.
don't don’t cc me.
AS a matter of courtesy, I always cc someone if I mention them in a post.
Whether you chose to read it is entirely optional to you and totally irrelevant to me.
Now, you can take this one to the bank...
if you don't respond to me I won't respond to you.
FRegards
"We said to them [the commanders]: 'We are going to lose people if we don't go back on offensive ops'. So we got the word," Marine Major Pete Farnun told The Associated Press."
And that quote tells me that A. military commanders were making the decisions, and B. if Bremer "ordered" the cessation of offensive operations, he was overruled by Maj Farnun's commanders.
With regard to some of your other comments, you said..."Rumsfeld’s denial of the accusation that the White House was “calling the shots” seems blanket enough for it to apply to the decision to halt the attack. But it doesn’t speak to Rumsfeld’s involvement." Please reread the following quote from Rumsfeld...
"The Marines on the ground are the ones that are making those judgments, and thus far they’ve calculated that it’s in our interest to do it the way they’re doing it and to have these discussions with the Sunni tribal leaders."
I think Rumsfeld is pretty clear about who is making the decisions. He certainly isn't a Marine on the ground.
You also said..."Kimmitt’s quote is evidence that Centcom supports the ceasefire, but his comments about Marine commanders are too vague to draw the same conclusion about them." Again, please reread his quote...
"...the Marines still believe that the talks have promise. They are still looking for a political, peaceful solution. None of the Marines, especially the commanders, are anxious about having to have their Marines cross the line of departure and go on an offensive."
I don't think that's even remotely vague.
Finally, you state..."Mattis’s quote is the first indication that I’ve seen of any Marine buy in to anything other than a full assault." Considering MGen Mattis is the Commander of the 1 Marine Division, I'd say he's not just "any Marine", and I'd say his statement gives a good indication of the extent of the buy-in by the Marine Corps.
Rokke - I’m swamped today, but I can respond to you this evening.
When the Fallujah Brigade was created, I wasn’t upset at all. I recognized it immediately as a Marine maneuver, the kind ingenious thing a good general does when his options are limited, not wanting to pick at a defenseless town for months, not wanting to demoralize his men and tie up his resources. I posted that day that I though General Conway just said “F this”, prematurely pushed out the unit they were training for after victory there and said, “we’re out of here!”
I couldn’t prove it though, until I saw the Fox New interview, recorded and transcribed it. Now we have 7 of the largest print media across the political spectrum reporting the same thing about who ordered the ceasefire, and no contrary reports of anyone saying they have it wrong.
- USA Today 5/1 “Mr. Bremer in turn sort ‘a put in the order to hold back.”
- BBC 4/11 “Paul Bremer, said the ceasefire came at the request of members of the Iraqi Governing Council”
- National Review 4/12 “Bremer ordered the suspension of offensive operations by the Marines in-and-around Fallujah.”
- AP 4/10 “Marines agreed only grudgingly to a halt in fighting.”
- NYT 4/9 “U.S. officials said the pause was ordered by L. Paul Bremer”
- LA Times 4/29 “Bremer… and …Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, have at least once ordered the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force to postpone the scheduled attack, with the approval of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, defense officials said.”
- Washington Times 4/15 “council members Friday in scolding Mr. Bremer…The protests resulted in orders to end the Marine assault…Kind of hard to imagine what Gen. Sanchez was thinking when he ordered the Marines to cease fire”
Although virtually all those statements are unsourced, there's no reason not to believe them without claims to the contrary. Therefore, the evidence is overwhelming that Marines did not choose to end offensive operations, they were ordered to do so.
We’re then left with the questions of 1) We’re they allowed to dispatch the ceasefire, and 2) Did they ever buy into the ceasefire rather than just comply with the order for it.
As I understand, the only evidence that they could dispense with the ceasefire was the April 9th AP quote, "We said to them [the commanders]: 'We are going to lose people if we don't go back on offensive ops'. So we got the word," Marine Major Pete Farnun " But the offensive he’s speaking of is explained in the previous sentence as offensive operations to prevent attacks, not major offensive operations. "Marines agreed only grudgingly to a halt in fighting. After initially being ordered to cease all offensive operations, they quickly demanded and received permission to launch assaults to prevent attacks if needed." This does not mean that local “commanders” overruled Bremer orders, only that the Major does not speak to Bremer directly, and that Bremer/Sanchez did not order ridiculously restrictive and suicidal ceasefire conditions.
There’s no reason that I’m aware of to believe that the Marines were given the authority to resume offensive operations. They continued with preventative assaults, such as the AC130 attack on an ammunition dump, and sending snipers in to take out a a mortar position spotted at a train station – who got pinned down and had to be extracted out by bradleys. The mortars were eventually hit with AC, which I suspected they were prohibited from using in the beginning. Assuming that’s the case, that’s the kind of political BS that sends good commanders looking to get his men the hell out.
The quote you posted by Rumsfeld saying that the Marines were “making those judgments” is relating to the Fallujah Brigade which we all agree is of the Marines choosing. It’s not speaking to the prohibition of major offensive operations. The statement was on the day of the FB announcement. Chris Mathews begain that interview with“ "Tonight, an exclusive interview with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. And as Marines try to negotiate a pull-back in Fallujah…" In the sentence before the one you quoted, Rumsfeld’s speaking of “a conclave of some 50 to 80 tribal sheiks and former Iraq military people” which eventually became known as the FB.
The statement by General Mattis that you posted from the WP is presented much differently on GlobalSecurity.org. In the WP it's, " the latest approaches to dealing with Fallujah and Najaf represent [snip]… This is the way we want to do it," Mattis said. "We didn't come here to fight."
But GlobalSecurity.org article reports that the Fallujah plan (as of 4/26) was to begin joint patrols and heavy weapons. I suspect that was canceled because it would have resulted in “major offensive operations”. Mattis’s “This is the way we want to do it” follows the description of half a billion in rebuilding projects, and is probably the more accurate context given the following line of, “We didn’t come here to fight”. That would make no sense in the Fallujahn context.
So, in light of the LA times report that Sanchez and Rumsfeld ordered I MEF to postpone scheduled attacks, and without specific claims that I MEF had the authority to resume major offensive operations, I don’t see a reason to doubt the story.
Finally there’s the question of did the Marines buy into the ceasefire of just comply grudgingly. The AP report says grudgingly and only under the defensive assault conditions. There’s the LA Times report that planned assaults were delayed from Centcom and Rubsfeld. Even gandalftb with contacts in Fallujah guesses the order was taken with a “grumble grumble”. The best evidence to contradict thisis Kimmutt's statement
" "...the Marines still believe that the talks have promise. They are still looking for a political, peaceful solution. None of the Marines, especially the commanders, are anxious about having to have their Marines cross the line of departure and go on an offensive." "Fist Kimmit says this in defense of an insinuation that the Marines are braking the ceasefire. And he doesn’t say the Marines don’t want to complete the attack, just aren’t anxious if talks have promise. But the next day they announced the Fallujah Brigade solution.
I don’t know about this last one. In light of the other reports above, it sounds like the Marines were just ready to wash their hand of the BS by then, scheduled offenses and joint reinforced patrols that never happened or were reportedly disallowed… I wouldn’t be anxious in that political environment either.
It’s late. Hope I explained this well. Would like to hear your thoughts… Regards.
Regarding joint patrols, that was Bremer/Snachez' idea and when it was posed to the Marine company commanders by Conway, they were amazed at the stupidity of the idea and refused to implement it at all. That refusal left Conway little wiggle room in a middle ground strategy, so Saleh then Lteif show up and offer to bribe the 36th Battalion ICDC traitors away from the rebels and form the FB. That was the core attractiveness to the FB which everyone thought would buckle as they now are.
Without the FB variant the Marines would have finished the battle. I believe they soon will. The 3-400 old school foreign muj and about 700 local toughs are openly calling for the Marines to come back, they refuse to exfiltrate and the locals are paralyzed.
BTW predators are flying over Eastern Syria, supporting special ops. The border is now heavily electronically monitored. Let's see if Syria wants to do anything about it.
"Although virtually all those statements are unsourced, there's no reason not to believe them without claims to the contrary."
I think you have a consistent record of demanding verifiable evidence to support opinions. I respect that position. But if you really believe that unsourced claims should be believed without claims to the contrary, I think you open yourself to a LOT of mistaken perceptions.
Fair enough Rokke, regarding our explanations.
Now regarding the unsourced issue… Can I ask you for one or two examples of a claim that should be tentatively disbelieved that 1) Ws promoted by such a wide spectrum of diverse media with a little something to loose if proved false, 2) is very plausible, and 3) was not contradicted for weeks by people that we expect to have a stake it its accurate reporting.
When one of the three is removed, I agree with you that we should be skeptical.
Best regards…
Reminds me of the periodic dose of diatribe we get from the DNC and it's sycophants, the RAT legislators, the partisan press and TV...you name it. Heck, they don't even try to hide it anymore, they use the same catch words and phrases, eg gravitas.
Sooo, it would follow that since this comes from all these different 'sources', we should believe it. The problem is many people do and after all, if it comes from ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post...how can it be wrong.
Ping to read reply #115
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.