Posted on 05/14/2004 4:18:42 AM PDT by Eurotwit
FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - The Iraqi general leading a force that controls Falluja said he had no plans to disarm insurgents, defying demands by U.S. commanders who appointed him and raising tension with Marines encircling the restive city.
Mohammed Latif, a former intelligence officer who now heads the Falluja Brigade, also told Reuters in an interview late on Thursday that U.S. forces should go home if they wanted peace.
"Weapons are not the problem. They are easy to collect," he said. "What we need to do is rebuild our country. There is no need for American soldiers. I am sure the Americans would be happy to go to their homes."
Latif's comments came after he held lengthy talks with Major-General James Mattis, the commander of the 1st Marines Division encircling Falluja.
The two appeared to have markedly different perspectives on how the Falluja operation was going.
"We discussed all our problems but we didn't find any problems," Latif said after he, Mattis and other U.S. commanders had shared a traditional Iraqi meal of lamb and rice at a U.S. camp on the outskirts of Falluja.
"Everything is easy and going well. The population is really satisfied. There are no bullets at night in Falluja, like in Baghdad," said Latif, who commands a 1,800-strong force made up largely of former soldiers from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s disbanded army.
But Mattis, repeating comments from other U.S. commanders, sounded much less at ease and said time was running out.
"We have to get done what we came to get done. I am always a bit impatient," he said. "We want it all: peace, the weapons and the foreign fighters dead or out of here. Negotiations are going fine but they can always go faster."
Latif and a group of generals offered to tame Falluja with their Falluja Brigade after the city was subject to a month-long siege in which hundreds of Iraqis died as U.S. air strikes and guerrilla mortars obliterated parts of the town.
PATIENCE VS PRESSURE
U.S. commanders would like to see Latif's force go into the restive city and round up weapons from stubborn insurgents. Latif argues that if U.S. commanders wait, the weapons will eventually be handed over and the situation will calm down.
A truce, which brought an end to the U.S. siege, has been holding for a couple of weeks.
But U.S. commanders are losing patience and have said they will renew their offensive if their conditions are not met.
Under the truce, some 2,000 Marines backed by tanks and armored vehicles pulled to Falluja's outskirts to allow Iraqi forces to hunt down weapons and crush the estimated 100 foreign fighters believed to be holed up inside the Sunni stronghold.
Many residents in Falluja, a heavily tribal and clannish society still largely loyal to toppled leader Saddam Hussein, consider the partial withdrawal of the world's only superpower as a victory.
It does appear that GW has gone wobbly... of course Kerry will simply surrender us to the whims of the UN, so it looks like we're stuck... I had such high hopes for our president...
From the media bias constantly pounding the president, and the president himself appearing to conceed in many respects in Iraq (the war on terrorism) I feel somewhat defeated...
We are too damn culturally sensitive. We should have served a traditional American meal of baby back ribs.
I know how you feel...I don't feel defeated yet...have not given up hope...but I am discouraged...and the polls are trending the wrong way daily.
The thought of a KERRY...I CAN'T SAY IT
Looks like all we accomplished was to re-enforce the enemy.
Oh well, count to ten and carpet bomb. My guess is next time they will hand over guns a bit more quickly.
Sounds familiar
I think the deal was real, but was called off because the guy they wanted decided he couldn't do what the US wanted him to do.
You are correct as to the facts, but incorrect as to the implication.
Democracy (OK, republican government) isn't brain surgery.
If the situation in Iraq is not markedly better in October, Bush is going home in January.
YES, Kerry would be worse.
YES, slow and steady can be defended intellectually.
YES, the basic thrust of Administration policy is correct.
None of that matters. One of two people will be sworn in on January 20, 2005 (well, one of three, actually). If a "capture of Atlanta" moment does not occur between now and November 2, 2004, it won't be Bush.
Unfair? Perhaps.
But war is not a precise instrument, and the people will support any course of action that produces visible victory-but they won't support the status quo.
Your "capture Atlanta" comment is interesting, and I wonder what the 1944 election would have looked like if the Battle of the Bulge had occurred in October (I know, the weather didn't permit it, but you know what I mean).
Well, obviously I agree about the vote-but I don't think that an electoral majority can be found for the current strategy.
Unfortunately, it's the only strategy we have. There is no alternative. Now, if you point out a "hawk" on the horizon who has a thoroughgoing approach to dealing with Islamofascism, he may get my vote. But it sure ain't Nader and it sure ain't Kerry and it sure ain't the Libertarians.
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.