Saddam's Man Takes Over In Fallujah

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 5-1-2004 | Toby Harnden

[elfman2]

" excuse me but " the withdrawal to allow foreign fighters" is a concoction of the biased media!!! "

No. I watched Kimmit on Fox two days ago change his requirement that foreign fighters surrender to foreign fighters “leave”. He sounded a little like a beaten dog when he stated that. Now here’s how General Abizaid puts it:

…even the best Iraqi forces would be unable to bring Zarqawi's fighters under control. "So we will have to eliminate that enemy in a way that does not allow that force to challenge us throughout Iraq and other places at other times. No doubt some will infiltrate out, and some will find other means to escape," he said. ”

[churchillbuff]

The general's best interests are served by succeeding, and in putting down the bad guys.

What are you talking about? The general is one of the "bad guys" --- he was Saddam's general. A torturer. I thought that's why we went there - to push guys like him off the stage (at least if we didn't go to stop WMDs, which there weren't any); the whole things a ridulous mess, as I said when we went in.

[Joe Hadenuf]

If we told you this was going to happen just 3 days ago you wouldn't have bought it. But now you say it's a brilliant plan.....


I don't know hack. This whole thing is just too damn weird, it seems to be a ship with no sails...

[churchillbuff]

"It has already failed on any number of levels" Name one. With support.

Here's not one, but three. 1) Supposedly we went in because there were WMDs. But there were no WMDs. 2) Supposedly we went in because Saddam was behind 9/11. Saddam wasn't behind 9/11. 3) The fallback position now is that we went in because Saddam and his Baathist generals were evil. But now we've put one of those Baathist generals - a known torture leader - in charge. CONGRATULATUIONS!!! A THREE-FER STUPID DISASTER POLICY!/

[elfman2]

"You can be damned sure the White House and the State Department doesn't. At some point, Americans who follow these matters need to realize that George Bush lets his military commanders make military decisions"

As far as I can tell, that does not support your claim that the withdrawal/repositioning (letting the foreign fighters escape) "is a Marine plan through and through."

It does show that the USMC was in on the negotiations, that they trained the Fallujia Brigade, and that one Lieutenant is in favor of what he knows of it.

Perhaps Kimmit, the PR man, doesn’t know of Saleh and neither does the White House, but I suspect that the IGC, CPA or Brahimi was very instrumental in pressing for and brokering the terms for this deal. Time will tell.

[WOSG]

You forget: The Romans also governed well and learned to co-opt locals in their rule. I am sure in their own day the Romans were "no worse enemy, no better friend".

Also, my main point on this thread is to impress the point that the media reporting is wrong. So the handwringing that we are letting terrorists off scot-free is misplaced. Maybe we could be more 'agressive' but generals on the ground knowing 100 times more about what's really going on are making this call, and they are not dumb, not wimps, and not unwilling to be agressive if that's what it takes. they think Jujitsu with Iraqis on patrol will work better than brute force as current option, and I believe them.

Genl Abizaid explicitly reserved the right to impose the 'Roman solution' (or at least agressive action) if other approaches to guarantee security dont work... frankly, if we call having a 'ceasefire' a situation where we send in AC-130s at night and snipers when the insurgents try to pop up, I'm not worried about our military's will to fight ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1127579/posts
"But it may still be necessary to conduct very robust military operations in Fallujah," he continued. "We hope we don't have to do that. We look for a solution that allows Iraqis and Americans, together in a spirit of cooperation, to regain control for the good people of Fallujah so they can get on with their lives."

If terrorists, foreign fighters and Iraqi extremists refuse to take part in the political process and lay down their arms, the coalition may have to take strong military action. "And we're prepared to do that at a time and a place of our choosing," Abizaid said.

[WOSG]

Well, the military folks say that this man and others "stepped forward" if they did based on prompting from Brahimi or anyone else, hmmm, we'll see how it goes and then decide whether to berate or praise Brahimi or any other interlopers.

[WOSG]

"But now we've put one of those Baathist generals - a known torture leader"

If this man had any human rights abuses in his past, he's failed the vetting ...evidence for this charge please.

[Southack]

"I don't know hack. This whole thing is just too damn weird, it seems to be a ship with no sails..."

What, you think it odd for us to be figuring out ways for Iraqis to secure their own country as we hand over power to them?!

We've already done this with the Iraqi Governing Council. We put them in the middle of the whole Moqtadar in Saddam City (ooops, Sadr City) thing, and they finally got involved in the affairs of their own country (rather than simply staying obsessed with taking "diplomatic" tours of other countries on our dime) and convinced Moqtada al-Sadar to withdraw to Najaf, where he remains holed up to this very day.

Now we're getting the Ba'athists back involved in running their country, just as the Kurds are already doing in the North.

Soon the Shia will likewise be taking an active, positive role in helping to run Iraq...leaving only the Sunnis left to figure out how to play.

So yes, put the Ba'athist Iraqis on the frontline in Fallujah. Let them shed their own blood in calming down their country. Let the world press say mean things about them if they have to use a heavy hand in Western Iraq...and let them have a piece of the eventual Governing Council if they play along and actually *work* to positively restore and maintain order in their own country.

We aren't going to be there forever, you know, so the locals have to learn to run their own country at some point.

[Southack]

"Here's not one, but three. 1) Supposedly we went in because there were WMDs. But there were no WMDs. 2) Supposedly we went in because Saddam was behind 9/11. Saddam wasn't behind 9/11. 3) The fallback position now is that we went in because Saddam and his Baathist generals were evil."

What rubbish. We didn't go in because Saddam *had* WMD's, but because he failed to live up to both his 1991 Surrender Agreement as well as numerous UN resolutions that demanded that he *prove* that he destroyed the WMD's that he admitted to having after the end of the First Gulf War in his written capitulation statements.

Further, we went in because Hussein was violating his Gulf War ceasefire terms (e.g. he was firing on our aircraft in the No Fly Zones, an act of war on his part)...as well as because he was destabilizing the entire Middle-East by rewarding (read: financing) the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

As for his connections to 9/11; his intelligence agents met with the 9/11 terrorists in Prague, he harbored known terrorists such as Abu Abbas in a Baghdad hospital, and one of his agents (Ramsi Yusaf), was *convicted* in an American court for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.

[easonc52]

NOBODY cares more for the lives of our young Marines than the men who command them. The decisions of those commanders aren't made without regard to the lives of the men they command.

Agreed. Remember the leader (I don't recall his branch or rank) who fired a gun near a prisoner's head to get information? He had the interest of saving lives.

I believe that is a predominant focus in our services.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Heh Heh

A few weeks ago they said they were going to go in blazing.
DoD propaganda is as bad and full of lies as the liberal media.

[churchillbuff]

We didn't go in because Saddam *had* WMD's

Apparently you weren't listening to Powell's UN speech, or Bush's state of union before the invasion, or Blair's speeches to Parliament. THEY ALL SAID IRAQ HAD WMDs - AND THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO INVADE. If you're going to deny the past, I can't help you, but I'm not going to join you in willful ignorance.

[My Favorite Headache]

Right on. Bump.This plan stinks to high hell. The Sky Is Indeed Falling.

[Southack]

It's not like you can show an actual quote of anyone in the Bush Administration saying "We know that Hussein currently has WMD's and we have to go in now to stop him."

What President Bush said to Congress, in fact, was that we couldn't afford to wait until Hussein finally became an imminent threat, because by then it might be too late.

[Light Speed]

The biggest naysayers? Those folks back home producing the news and the American public who reads and watches them. Sort of ironic.

The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.

Abraham Lincoln

[Amerigomag]

I have no objection to your presentation.

The point of this discussion was a debate that events in Iraq were or were not driven by political considerations. At this point only Rokke appears to persist in denying the obvious. From his perspective the campaign in Fallujah was designed and is being driven by the brigade commander from atop the elevated tracks on the north edge of town.

And yes, the Romans were generally charitable to those who did not resist. Their model of aloof management in a benign theater was adopted rapidly by conquering forces. Even the Japanese left the French cadre in administrative control after they conquered Indochina.

With regard to the media, I'm in complete agreement and am torn between our founding principals and my gut feeling that our domestic media has caused more deaths in the theater than the ragtag band of crazies that are motivated by their cooperation.

[Light Speed]

Well Done Troop.....Semper Fi

The Few...The Proud...The Marines

[Rokke]

Your whole post is so full of Shiite, it's hard to know where to start. But lets start with your first point...No WMD's?? Are you willing to bet your life on that? You shouldn't be. You may find out you're wrong sooner than you think.
Did our administration ever say Saddam had something to do with 9/11? I didn't think so.
and finally...this Baathist general is a "known torture leader"? Says who? You? You haven't been right yet. I don't think I'll start believing you now.

[Rokke]

"As far as I can tell, that does not support your claim that the withdrawal/repositioning (letting the foreign fighters escape) "is a Marine plan through and through.""

You've got enough statements to validate the fact. If you're looking for an original signed document, you're not going to get it. But you've got nothing to show this plan came from somewhere else. Certainly nothing as substantial as quotes from Marine Corps leadership.