Posted on 06/04/2004 12:12:40 PM PDT by TexKat
UNITED NATIONS - 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.
The previous draft introduced Tuesday declared the council's readiness to terminate the force's mandate by January 2006 or at the request of the transitional government formed after elections held by Jan. 31, 2005.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the U.N. Security Council on Thursday that the incoming government wants the multinational force to stay to prevent civil war, and he told The Associated Press on Friday that he could not foresee its departure before power is transferred to the transitional government early next year.
The revised draft circulated to Security Council members includes what Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have stated publicly — that American and British troops will leave if asked.
It declares that the council will terminate the mandate for the multinational force after elections held by Dec. 31, 2005, or earlier "if requested by the sovereign government of Iraq."
All military decisions are based on political objectives.
There is a lot of confusion on this thread about the sequence of events in Fallujah. The cease fire in Fallujah started on 10 April to allow Governing Council members the opportunity to enter Fallujah and negotiate with city leaders. The Marines did not "pull out" of Fallujah until 30 April when they announced the creation of the Fallujah Brigade. Pulling out of Fallujah and the creation of the Fallujah Brigade was entirely a Marine decision, and Bush was entirely correct to say so. One could argue the cease fire was not, except that the Marines were not equipped on 10 April to start a conclusive military operation in Fallujah. They didn't have nearly enough armor or rotary wing support, and at the time had no Marine fixed wing assets. The cease fire was not entirely a Marine decision, but since they weren't ready to start a major offensive at that point anyway, it was a decision they were agreeable to. That's not to say that it was a popular decision at every level within the MEF. The guys on the frontlines were ready to go. But they weren't going anywhere until all the appropriate assets were in place, so whether there was a formal ceasefire or not, things around Fallujah were going to stagnate for awhile. Incidently, during the "cease fire" we killed as many or more Jihadists than during our pre-ceasefire operations. And we took almost no casualties in the process.
That is why many observers are at odds over this pull back in Falluja. It depends on your point of view: strategy or tactics.
Tactically, we can go back any time, the muj are still there, forming collection points of arms and fighters. The refugees are not coming back to Falluja/Al Jawlan. Not much has changed in the contested areas.
BTW, the 2nd MAW is in place, but there looks to be trouble brewing up north in Mosul and the MEU now being deployed may be headed that way. Ansar al-Sunna has collected a lot of foreign fighters there, many from Falluja. Marines may be spread too thin if a big fight starts up north and we have to go back into Falluja.
What if the Iraq Arabs voted us out, despite the protests of Kurds? And then porceeded to attack the Iraqi Kurds?
That sort of thing has happened twice before.
It would be a shame if it happened a third time.
Good news about the 2 MAW. I know the Marines feel most comfortable with Marines overhead. Mosul could be interesting. But unlike Fallujah, I think the people in Mosul have had more exposure to Saddam's evil, and to the better life after his defeat. I don't think the foreign fighters will have quite as easy a time finding sanctuary in northern neighborhoods. I also don't think the Kurds are going to be very sympathetic to any major attempt to import the violence from Al Anbar into northern Iraq. Maybe, just maybe the spark of self-determination is starting to grow within Iraq. We'll see.
Fine with me, but I don't see them doing that anytime soon. Who else is protecting these leaders?
Mosul is one of those odd towns that was historically Kurd but Saddam put a lot of his people in to maintain control of the oil fields. So a lot of Kurds (maybe 40%) were run off years ago and Arabs are a big influence there with the locals Kurds very unhappy about it. So, there's lots of safe houses there and that's where Ansar al-Islam went after the PUK Kurds ran them out of the mountains along the Iranian border.
The question is how many troops must stay. Many of the follow on forces were led to believe they might leave within six months, although my son's battalion commander was smart enough to say a year.
You apparently “forget” that that we’ve been through this exact discussion last week.
And unclear and shifting political objectives that interfere with ongoing military operations are often destructive.
That’s a misrepresentation. We have two sources now stating that completing the Fallujahn attack was forbidden. Even that Marine ops officer that speaks highly of the eventual outcome in Fallujah in a series of letters says, “Col. Coleman admits using the Fallujah Brigade wasn't necessarily the Marines' first preference "
When the Marines’ first choice is removed by political pressures that appear shortsighted, the option selected is not “entirely a Marine decision".
He clearly did indeed. Made a big impression on me when I heard it.
I 'almost' went back to one of the previous threads on the subject to ask 'wassup wit dat' but decided what's the use.
People already have their minds entrenched on this subject.
Exactamundo. :-)
Maybe it all boils down to strategy vs tactics.
What sources? Are you counting the one from this thread? No one is even sure who the guy is. Hardly a credible source. And I couldn't find the reference to Col Coleman in any of the letters from the Marine OpsO. In contrast, sources from Pres Bush to Gen Myers to Gen Sanchez have attributed the Fallujah Brigade to Gen Conway. It may not have been Conway's first choice, but I don't think a full frontal assault on Fallujah was any higher.
My mistake. The Colman quote is from a recent WSJ story , last paragraph.
If his first choice was forbidden, restarting the assault on Fallujah is the about the only thing I can imagine it being. That was reported by the lead foreign affairs reporter from USA today, and now this confirmation.
Once the first choice is removed, it’s no longer a Marine decision.
Right and you apparently did not learn from that discussion. The US Military is an arm of the US government. They work for military commanders who are in he chain of command. So orders in the US military come down the chain of command from civilian commanders.
Col. Coleman is taken out of context. Their first preference - tactically - was over-ridden by a better option strategically.
This needs to be clear, no one, not even the President will veto military tactics, during battle, chosen by the CIC on site. The commanding officers would resign their commissions, especially Marine officers. The military officer corps remembers full well the meddling of Johnson, picking out daily bombing targets, etc. in the Viet Nam war and the cost of American lives.
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.