Then please be the first, of all the people who have argued their hearts out on this, to post some evidence of that. Even a lone reporter of some credibility would eclipse all the evidence for that claim to date.
Just out of curiosity, who do you pressume was the one pressing for a ceasifire...and why?
Posted by gandalftb to elfman2
On News/Activism 05/26/2004 5:38:14 PM PDT #294 of 297
This was Conways decision. But he had the "benefit" of the Iraqi Governing Council filtered through CentCom/Abizaid/Sanchez. There was a request to Conway to do a temp. ceasefire and to just look at other options such as joint patrols, more ICDC troops, beefed up local police/militias, etc. So he did take a pause, the Marines needed rest and resupply, and they knew that the needed Abrams and a MAW were on the way. Also, the snipers were racking up lots of KIAs, let 'em go.
So, Conway rejects all the possible options over the next few days when Gens. Saleh and Lteif show up with their "brigade" and an offer to bribe the ICDC deserters into redeserting to the "brigade". Gen. Conway has little patience for haggling so he asks Gen. Mattis to cut the deal which is what happened. By that time the initiative had been lost, CentCom/DC was really fussing and you see the result. We really did KIA most of the enemy but the cost/benefit wasn't there to do more, on top of the political snorting and braying.
One additional benefit: the aggressiveness in Falluja gave CentCom the assurance that they could go after al-Sadr and his mob without causing an Iraqi-wide uprising.
We suffered additional casualties due more to the lack of armor on the cordon which allowed infiltration of weapons to the rebels and their attack on 04/26.