Replies

I'm only going to tell you what I hear from my Lt. Col. MARINE cousin, whose son is in Iraq: the Marines learned from the model of the Russians in Grozny how NOT to defeat the enemy in an entrenched place like this. Utterly destroying the city would have created an entire city's worth of "martyrs," and the Marines had no intention of doing that.

What the article does not say is that the Marines did surround the area with the "bad guys" in it---we're only talking about 1/4 of the city---and engaged them repeatedly in skirmishes (just like Karbala and Najaf) that killed dozens, if not hundreds of them.

Bottom line, the Iraqi "insurgents" get to CLAIM whatever they want, but they know the reality that their "victory" was totally at the sufferance of the U.S. and that, as the one guy said, most of them wanted to live.

Just tonight, on Fox, there is an ex-general saying that we did not appreciate the depth of tribalism in Iraq, and that this seemed like a pretty good solution. He is by not means a weak-kneed lib: on the contrary, (sorry, I forgot his name) he thought this probably was the best we could hope for. "Will many of these rebels come back out and fight?" Brit Hume asked. "It's not clear they will," he said. Many were locals who just didn't want Americans there, but weren't opposed to a new Iraqi authority.

I find it interesting that the Marines, who everyone wanted to "go in" and "clean up," were the ones SUGGESTING these approaches and HAD TO GET PERMISSION FROM WASHINGTON to talk to these people. It's exactly the opposite of what the armchair generals here were saying---that Bush and Washington were pressuring them to negotiate.

I'm only going to tell you what I hear from my Lt. Col. MARINE cousin, whose son is in Iraq: the Marines learned from the model of the Russians in Grozny how NOT to defeat the enemy in an entrenched place like this. Utterly destroying the city would have created an entire city's worth of "martyrs," and the Marines had no intention of doing that.

Its strange that nobody worried about creating Nazi martyrs in WWII. The only time you have to worry about creating martyrs is when you know that your enemy has more willpower to see the war to its end.

""martyrs," and the Marines had no intention of doing that"

I don’t believe Marines fear the minimal civilian casualties becoming martyrs as much as politicians fear them. I don’t believe that after the photos of 4 burnt bodies dangling from a bridge was repeatedly broadcast internationally, Fallujah could be rebuilt as an Alamo.

Bottom line, the Iraqi "insurgents" get to CLAIM whatever they want, but they know the reality that their "victory" was totally at the sufferance of the U.S. and that, as the one guy said, most of them wanted to live.

In the Arab world, a claimed victory is the inspiration to other battles.

"I find it interesting that the Marines, who everyone wanted to "go in" and "clean up," were the ones SUGGESTING these approaches and HAD TO GET PERMISSION FROM WASHINGTON to talk to these people. "

You refused to answer my question attempting to clarify this, and now your repeat your mischaracterization of your opposition. That’s dishonest.

You refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between Marines finding an innovative solution to exit from a flawed “cease fire” force on them and this being the Marines’ choice. They were not given the option of defeating the city with the training and with the weapons they brought.

I think this is a dishonorable debate on your part.