Posted on 06/04/2004 12:12:40 PM PDT by TexKat
What a novel idea, being that they were in the military and that IS their job.
What's the point of going to the UN again? The UN was showed the door when the US wanted to go into Iraq, so why is the US trying to show legitimacy once more to the UN?
"The United States and Britain revised their Security Council resolution on transferring sovereignty to Iraq on Friday, giving the country's new interim government authority to order the U.S.-led multinational force to leave at any time."
WHY did we go there? To be forced to leave at the whim of any government which constitutes itself?
What about Iran and its nuclear weapons program?
What about Syria and the assistance being renedered to worldwide terrorists?
What about the WMD which might very well still be buried somewhere in that desolation?
Suppose the Baathists take over again, free Saddam, put him back in power, and tell us to go home???
Amazing.
I think its sort of interesting that following orders constitutes a military decision, no?
I frequent another board (which shall remain nameless) and the libs are trying to spin it so badly.
One guy was like "We don't have to spin this since its what Kerry has been calling for all along."
I was like, "Oh they'll spin it. Or they are going to have to drop it off the stump speech. And you know they aren't going to do that."
This little concession has them at a loss... For that alone it's worth it.
It appears that there are others that are not happy with the UN and or their actions or non-actions.
Television footage shows a United Nations vehicle burning in Kinshasa on June 3, 2004. Thousands of rioters attacked U.N. compounds across Democratic Republic of Congo on Thursday, furious that U.N. troops had not stopped renegade soldiers seizing the eastern town of Bukavu. (Reuters Tv/Reuters)
Give 'em a lighter too, tempt them. ;-)
As long as, if we're asked to leave, we go via Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, stopping to clean up the messes there on our way.
Since last summer the State Department and the CIA , not DoD have been calling the shots. People forget who Bremer is.
We recognize THIS government. The
other scenario, and all bets would
be off. Talk about alarmist...
Also wasnt aware that the Iraqi Governing Council made military decisions with respect to the USMC and where they are deployed and what they do (though it would explain a good many things). In fact, it sounds like a 100% pure political decision (to all resign unless Marines get out) to me.
The biting their tongues and doing what they were told is a direct quote from the retired Marine on the radio. It implies, to me (implies hell he flat out said Marines were disgusted and flat-out peeved over it), that they were doing what they were told without liking doing it. That implies, to me, that they would have much preferred doing things differently. That, in turn, implies that if theyd been left to make decisions on their own, this particular one wouldnt have been chosen.
So all in all it sounds like a misrepresentation of the facts to say the Marines made a military decision in this instance, at the very least. Thats all
When GWB says it was a military decision, that is true. CentCom is responsible for all actions in Iraq. The POTUS vests CentCom with a very broad set of goals (liberate the Iraqi people, provide security for the new Iraqi government, etc) and it is up to CentCom to decide how to best carry this out. The Area Combatant Commanders, next to the president himself, are arguably the most powerful individuals in the world. Most media and general citizenry don't understand this.
the State Department and the CIA , not DoD have been calling the shots...
No, CentCom has been calling the shots. And he answers only to SecDef and POTUS. If anyone, CIA, State, anyone, wants to operate in his theatre, they better have his permission.
Thanks for a good laugh. I needed that.
Ken didn't that article say we are pulling 2 divisions out of Germany?
DoD may be implementing the policy, but it is a policy that has the hands of State all over it. If this were in deed an total DoD show, then a Generalissimo would be in charge, not an ambassador
Big whoop... the Pope is a Pro-Life Democrat.
I honestly don't remember that at all. I remember that the US knew we could take the city at any time, and we held back because we didn't want a massacre that would turn the civilian population against us. Perhaps you are confusing this with the decision to consolidate to defensible positions within the city to hold their gains. I do remember that happening, since the US basically controlled the travel corridors within the city.
I'm not saying CentCom isn't master of his domain, but you and I both know that CIA and other TLAs can't share everything with him.
As for blue-on-blue, we know they're tight about that, but the truth is that a lot of our intelligence assets are cherry red.
That's what I was laughing at, not CentCom's mastery over his domain.
The world already knows full well who owns Iraq, and it ain't the bad guys.
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.