Military Commanders’ Decisions in Fallujah Overridden by Politicians (CONFIRMED)

Fox Live Broadcast / USA Today Interview ^ | 5/3/04 | Jim Michaels

[A Jovial Cad]

A balanced, nuanced, civil post from someone who disagrees with me on this issue! Thank you. And I'm *not* being sarcastic, either. Every time I've posted my opinion on a thread regarding this topic, the ad hominen name-calling has commenced forthwith, and continued without let-up. Something about the issue seems to set some people off into hyperbole-land.

As to your comments, I agree with most of them. *I* certainly don't want to "throw Bush and his folks out with each days news"--quite the contrary, I intend to vote for Bush this November regardless. But I do feel the policy regarding Fallujah *specifically* is flawed, and needs to be revised. Now it's quite possible that I've got it all wrong, but I can only go by the information I have at hand. Feeling that the policy is wrong and needs to be changed is not quite the same thing as declaring that the "sky has fallen"--some may feel that way, but I don't. Another trite, sloppy rhetorical tactic has been to declare "well, you just want to flatten the whole place" (you haven't leveled that charge, but some have), when all I've called for is all *necessary* force, not *ALL* possible force, instantly applied.
In any event, thanks for your civil reply. It was a refreshing change of pace from some of the replies I've recieved on threads pertaining to this singular topic.

[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.

[El Gato]

They know what the mission is, to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

But the question is, "which Iraqis?". Surely not the murderous thugs in Fallujah or that wacko Al Sadar?

[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?

[Last Dakotan]

What are you talking about?

Sighs...Ok lets review, this thread is about a story in USA Today that military decisions in Fallujah are being overruled by civilian authorities. Which if true IMHO is a big mistake. You questioned why I was believing a story in the media over statements made by military leaders. I replied if you have links to these statements they are germane to the discussion and I'd like to see posts of them.

I've kept myself from bringing you personally into the discussion, despite numerous attacks from you, but really, you don't do your side of the argument any favors.

[Eurotwit]

The war AGAINST Iraq was one year ago.

The war FOR Iraq is now taking place.

[WOSG]

LG, he is stating the obvious. It aint over, not when guys on both sides are carrying guns in near proximity to eachother.

In the last month, while we lost (far too many) troops in various parts of the country, our losses in Fallujah were quite small, yet we killed many hundreds of the enemy.

We let the IGC try to handle it. It helped to defuse the political pressure mounting, but did nothing to bring the bad guys to account.

So many of them remain inside fallujah and Marines and friendly Iraqi police remain outside it. Now it is the turn for the Iraqi police to try to pacify it.

Curiously, this approach is what the army was doing all along in Fallujah. Frankly letting that hell-hole simmer, avoiding a direct confrontation.

Do we have to 'win' fallujah to win in Iraq. Not necessarily, since a cordon and checkpoints would be enough to keep the bad guys bottled up. But the precedent of backing down to political pressure is an unfortunate one. Once sovereignty happens june 30th, it is clear that more of the same could happen.... which mean iraqis better be ready to FIX THEIR OWN PROBLEMS!

And I am sure the problem of Fallujah will be awaiting whoever wants to stir up that nest.

The battle is certainly not over.

Not by a long shot.

[Last Dakotan]

Do you get the feeling we are up against the school yard bully?

[Tribune7]

Thank you for your posts. Very much appreciated.

[WOSG]

Why would adding more troopsw help us with 100 jerks in falluja? How is it a resource problem. This is a whole other issue. Stop letting the media play you. this will be over soon and quickly forgotten."

Dittos on this. We had about 3,000 troops in Fallujah... okay that is 2% of our total forces... in this 'huge' battle, and 98% of our forces elsewhere.

And those forces could have liquidated the resistance in fallujah in a matter of 6 days or less.

The restraint is the ROE to avoid collateral damage and the political pressure not to hurt Iraqi feeeeeeeelings.

[elfman2]

I don’t read anything you write. You sank into childish name calling on this issue 2 days ago, and then you sank into dishonesty.

Don’t be a pest. Don’t write to me.

[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.

[A Jovial Cad]

*Stop acting like a little girl and second guessing things that you have no kbowledge of.*

And I suppose *you* do have first-hand knowledge, huh? Are you posting tonight from a foxhole on the front lines? How's the desert air?
[Sarcasm/]
Talk about your armchair generals, indeed.

BTW, calling someone you disagree with a "little girl" is a pretty poor display of debating skills, but that's just me. Feel free to continue dazzling us with your keen recess-yard skills in the art of third-grade argumentation.

[elfman2]

" Ahem: This is saying that the *ceasefire* was political pressure put on the marines. "

No, you’re saying that. This says they were “sort of ordered” to stop.

" But it is clear that the Marines and US had 2 choices: "

No, This article says “The Marines said that they had no choice”. Last line in the excerpt. Just about like I claimed two days ago.

[A Jovial Cad]

Gee, you type a lot without ever saying very much. Is there a point to be deciphered somewhere in that gauzy flow of words?

[Rokke]

"I don’t read anything you write."

Um hmm. I recall you saying that last time you responded to what I wrote.

[Rokke]

Just for you, a Readers Digest version...elfman2 claims the Marines didn't come up with their plan to withdraw from Fallujah. He's wrong.

[FreeReign]

Please, this is the lead foreign reporter for the paper that Fox’s Jon Scott introduced as the “Paper of Record for the Iraq war”. If he has it wrong, he’ll pay. You have ZERO evidence to the contrary.

The burden of proof is with who???

The lead foreign reporter's source is unnamed. There is no burden to disprove what an unnamed source is saying.

[BluH2o]

Speaking as a Marine going back to the Vietnam era ... that strategy rarely, if ever, works.

[Ranger]

I'm thinking pretty clearly that Mosul-Kirkuk needs a series of very large and permanent US bases. We need a democratic Kurdish dominated country which, as part of the condition for our involvement, would respect the borders of Iran and Turkey. We can't abandon them again.

As to the Sunnis in the central and western regions, I'm happy to have a secular government but think democracy is beyond their scope. As to the Shia areas, well unless we want to fight them, then I guess they are drifting to theocracy, not because of Sadr, but because there is no Shia group willing to stand up to Sadr or the Iranians. I'm concluding we can knock their shackles off, but there is nothing to keep them from putting them back on again.

I'm appreciate you thoughts. For example, is there any alternative to the Baathists in the Sunni areas?