Iraqi Falluja Force Won't Disarm Guerrillas for Now

Reuters ^ | Fri, May 14, 2004 | Ibon Villelabeitia

[vbmoneyspender]

The media had that story right, the former Republican Guard general was going to be appointed -- but then the Shiites and Kurds started objecting and the marines switched horses to Latif. See Link

[Godfollow]

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...

[Colorado Doug]

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.

We are too damn culturally sensitive. We should have served a traditional American meal of baby back ribs.

[Moby Grape]

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

[American in Israel]

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.

[yonif]

Sounds familiar

[GraniteStateConservative]

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.

[Jim Noble]

While I agree with your sentiment that this is what SHOULD be done, I totally disagree about its political impact. Quite the contrary---do you SERIOUSLY think that John Effing Kerry would take a HARDER line on this?

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.

[LS]

Yah, I agree. My point with the poster was that for conservatives to carp about Bush---if it is concluded that in the real world he is doing all he can to win the war---is fruitless. To me, IF you think the WOT is necessary and important to win, there is only one vote in November.

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).

[Jim Noble]

To me, IF you think the WOT is necessary and important to win, there is only one vote in November. 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.

[LS]

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.