[elfman2]

No statements by General Abizaid, Kimmitt or Conway contradict this. Their statements need to be read carefully and are either very vague or irrelevant to “who” decided to stop the attack.

The military is of course always subservient to political objectives, but halting the attack on Fallujah like this is indicative of the crippling restrictions behind tragedies in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.

Bush is of course principled, but one of his principles is to compromise to whatever degree necessary to claim some positive results when the outcome is not certain.

I think Americans did not struggle and suffer and die in Iraq for the president to compromise.

Some claim that a greater objective is served by this, and others call that a convenient explanation for our political weakness in kicking the knees out from under our Marines in full charge.

Some claim that we can restart the Fallujahn offensive if the Fallujahn Brigade fails. Others say it’s much more difficult now, unlikely, and the damage has been done.

Either way, we now have un-contradicted information on who made the decision to halt the attack on Fallujah.

[PokeyJoe]

Some time ago, I pointed out that the cease fire had the same ring as LBJ saying, "The US Air Force can't bomb a $hithouse in N.Vietnam without my knowing about it."

Some laughed. I didn't.

[Anti-Bubba182]

I'm not sure at all that the President has much to do personally with what is going on in Fallujah now. It is more likely these decisions are comming from the area commanders. There is no doubt that Bush will pay a political price for what happens there as it affects the larger picture in Iraq.

What concerns me is how they have backed away from their original objectives. First they back off demands for the turn over of the contractor killers. I doubt if they would get them anyway because they could have left before they cordoned of the area. But it is different with the foreign fighters. They are going to be able to blend in with the Iraqis and fade away into the larger population or other areas.

I doubt if we see either a big turn over of heavy weapons or a Marine assault as long as the new forces don't start shooting at us.

The problem with this is that it gives the insugents something to point to as a victory. This is in a country where most people are sitting on the fence looking to join the side of the winner. They will be paying careful attention because their decision is a matter of life or death.

The insurgents, if left alive and a presence in Fallujah, can say that they were not dislodged by a superior Marine and US force. It does not matter how many casualties they took. If they hold the ground, they win.

In the first Gulf War, when the Iraqis stood, they were distroyed. You will recall there was much less resistance by the Iraqi Regular Army or Republican Guard in this war because they learned they can't win. They learned because they were shown. We are offering no such lesson in Fallujah.

[LS]

"Un-contradicted information?" Like Abazaid runs around trying to counter every report out there by a USA Today reporter? Come on. This is getting ridiculous.

But let's say it's true: Let's say the Iraqi governing council said, "This is a good opportunity for us to show the people of Iraq that we are in charge, and that we can start to handle some of our own security." And let's say that over the next 3-4 weeks, lo and behold, we start getting bad guys turned in. At some point it depends on what the mission is: is the mission JUST to kill bad guys, or is it to establish a self-governing pro-American state that can take care of these types so we don't have to?

Every war involves numerous political considerations. We are all familiar with Eisenhower allowing fuel and supplies to go to Montgomery to clean out the V-2 firing positions, which came at the expense of Patton's tanks. Political considerations are not wrong just because they are complex.

[k2blader]

Bump...

[MN_Mike]

In the words of the great orator, Jay Leno, there is the media and then USA Today.

I don't know of many soldiers who don't want to get things done. God bless them all.

Mark my words on your calendar: the Fallujah mission will be successfully accomplished in full by 5-24-04.

[WOSG]

Ahem: This is saying that the *ceasefire* was political pressure put on the marines. Not the latest iteration, where marines found some iraqis to do patrols, but that ceasefire that was announced April 10th or so. (and which was followed by constant low level battles and much killing of insurgents for the next 3 weeks, including ongoing movement of marines etc.)

"Some claim that a greater objective is served by this, and others call that a convenient explanation for our political weakness in kicking the knees out from under our Marines in full charge."

Yes, the greater objective was in not winning the battle but losing the wider war of IGC and Iraqi acceptance. Now, I am as mad as you are by the IGC members like Adnan Pachachi who called it "collective punishment"... and in the discussions about whether this was a good or bad idea, I said at the time that "IGC flinched".

But it is clear that the Marines and US had 2 choices: Finish the battle and possibly widen the political crisis, or stand down/go slow and defuse the political opposition to the 'storming of fallujah'.

I am not at all troubled by the Marines, or even by Paul Bremer as much. What troubles me is the Iraqi reaction - they clearly were 'channeling Al Jazeera' and are not
willing to trust American troops to break the china.


"The military is of course always subservient to political objectives, but halting the attack on Fallujah like this is indicative of the crippling restrictions behind tragedies in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia."

It remains to be seen if it is crippling - we seem to have meted out plenty of damage during that 3 weeks 'ceasefire' - but it is troubling.

[Rokke]

I see you've shifted from your original claim of a few days ago that the Marines didn't develop the current strategy of creating the Fallujah Brigade and withdrawing to positions outside of Fallujah. I quote you... "I’m still looking for a single statement from a military commander that this pullout/repositioning on the brink of victory was "a Marine plan through and through" or something like that."
Apparently, you've decided to accept the word of this USA Today reporter. I'm glad you've finally seen the light. As to your new earth shattering discovery...nobody has been arguing that the CPA didn't arrange the initial cease fire. But since then, point to one single day we didn't carry out offensive operations in Fallujah. And before you declare that a repeat of Stalingrad is the only way to conduct urban warfare, perhaps you ought to spend a little time reading Marine doctrine on how to fight within a city. Here's what Gen Krulak had to say about it a few years ago..."General Charles Krulak has described the landscape of future urban operations as a "three block war." According to Krulak's depiction of the urban battlespace, we can expect to be providing humanitarian assistance in one part of the city, conducting peacekeeping operations in another, and fighting a highly lethal mid-intensity battle in yet a third part of the city." Gee. Sound familiar?

[P.O.E.]

When the cry went up that "Iraq would turn into another Vietnam", I knew right then and there that it wouldn't be because of the enemy, it would be because of US internal politics.

[FreeReign]

“The governing council, the Iraqi governing council, was really upset. They went to Mr. Bremer. Mr. Bremer in turn sort ‘a put in the order to hold back.

The military doesn't take orders from Mr. Bremer. The military only takes orders form the politician CIC. Even the description, "Bremer...put in order to hold back" from the unnamed source is vague.

“While they were in this cease fire meanwhile the insurgents were in there, the insurgents were in there rearming re-supplying you know, taking advantage of of the lull in activities, so they were in a real bind here, and they really had no choice, they say, except to come up with the idea for a Fallujah Brigade.

No. There were reports nightly of the Marines fighting and killing insurgents during the so-called ceasefire. Add to that the reports, that the entire city was surrounded and that the neighborhood of Golan was surrounded making it imposible for the insurgents in Golan to get "rearmed". Yet this unnamed sources claims that, "the insurgents were in there rearming re-supplying you know".

What you have described in the above two paragraphs by these unnamed sources is a real pant load of lefwing BS.

IMV, the politician CIC on advice from many people including Bremer, ordered the Marines to stop their advance short of the Golan neighborhood and have simply tried to finish the job with an Iraqi Brigade.

Stay tuned.

[mtbopfuyn]

Fallujah = Fa-loser

[philetus]

Ping

[timydnuc]

Let's not get out of the box on this. We didn't withdraw, we are in a defensive position away from the city (if we really are, we are dealing with the leftist press and the Arab lying press on this). The idea is to get the Iraqis to fight for their own country, if they truly love it as they say they do. If they can't do it by June 30, we have to stay, and we have to know their strenghs and weaknesses right this minute. The Arab and American press are pushing this thing into a "Viet Nam" it's because they need a defeat, just like the Nam. We have a President, and a spirit that just won't quit. The enemies that we have crawl among us, and they are in league with the enemies that fight to defeat us. The Courts....worthless to the American cause. The UN, totally ineffective, and useless. Too much socialism, too much envy of the US, too much corruption of power and money, too much dastardliness. We kneel, with faith, and try to overcome this barrage of lies and murderous attacks on us. When we rise and start to fight again our enemy will be soiled in his own filth and running to the safety of a hole in the ground.

[Godfollow]

Was called by the National Republican Committee and was asked for a donation to support President Bush... I gave her an ear-full regarding the President appearing wishywashy on this Iraq mess, and our guys getting picked off like sitting ducks... I told her to send a message back to the President that a lot of us who normally would support him are getting angry about the handwringing in Iraq and that I will not be supporting him unless he demonstrates a more aggressive and winning position for our troops in Iraq. Damn you Mr. President, destroy those bastards and win this thing, or I'll be voting with my feet.

[lainde]

bttt

[kissmyconservativebutt]

Thanks for hitting me on this one. I am seeing stuff like this all over the web right now. This general apparently denied there were even insurgents in Fallujah.

There are some serious idiots (wannabe conservatives) on these forums that have no clue what they are talking about. I am just going to ignore them from now on. It's like talking to a democrat.

[kissmyconservativebutt]

Gee, how can we know this from 6000000 miles away?

[verity]

"The military is of course always subservient to political objectives"

The military is an instrument used, when necessary, to secure political objectives. End of story!

[GraniteStateConservative]

Well, we will be serving as the Iraqi Armed Forces. Our Armed Forces are under civilian control and Iraq's are, too. Iraq's civilian government controls us. We volunteered to be controlled.

[ZULU]

So, WHICH "Politicians"???

Colin Powell ???

[ApesForEvolution]

I really hate the 'I told you so' thing, but I TOLD YOU SO!

More BS from the Stupid Party.

I'll see you all this Fall. Maybe. Over and out. God bless.