[elfman2]

Fair enough. I’ve been condescending. I apologize.

I’ve sensed that you’re promoting only one side of the battle. I’m not challenging the Marines positive performance, their hardship or even their tactical results on a body count level. That’s why I call some of your descriptions “irrelevant”. They don’t relate to the issue that I’ve been promoting like a broken record.

They were not allowed to continue the assault in a combined arms fashion. Yes, that is the primary way they prepare to fight, and it was crippled.

In all I’ve read, after a few days the destructiveness of the battle was considered too costly by the Iraqi governing counsel, and I strongly suspect by the administration as well.

Can we agree that the Marines were ordered, or at least overwhelmingly pressured, to restrict combat into a kind of semi-ceasefire mode? I.e., don’t shoot until fired upon. No artillery armor or air other than in defense? I know that was not strictly adhered to, but it was certainly restrictive.

That is the root of what I’m upset with. You seem to have an inside track on the battle through your son. Do you disagree with that?

[gandalftb]

I don't want to see any more Viet Nams or any other wars fought and lost in DC. They need to keep their hands off the battlefield if we're going to minimize casualties. The pressure on the Marines came from CentCom and the Provisional Council/Bremer cabal. The fear was giving the rebels a cult/martyr status at the expense of giving our military a loser status. I'm voting for our military, to hell with our enemies' future political fantasies. That's the problem we have with armchair DC hacks.

The point of the battlefield descriptions was to make my point that witholding or ignoring or avoiding intel created casualties and is part and parcel of the political and tactical ambush the Marines walked into.

I never disagreed with you here, I was just more focused on the effects of politics in place before the Marines arrived rather than what happened after the battle began.