Posted on 06/16/2004 8:52:31 AM PDT by Peach
FNC reporting that Aarqawi is probably operating out of Fallujah
"What sort of bone head idea is that?"
It is not bone headed, it is a time honored military technique that works. Read a little history. Brutal, overwhelming tactics often result in fewer total casualties and more important, they often lead to total victory, even when dealing with fanatics, such as these Islamic terrorists, the Jewish Zealots during Roman times, and the WWII Japanese
I understand that the REAL purpose is probably to have a "free Iraq" that lets us set up a military base there as a useful thing in the region. But the problem is that everybody else in the middle east understands it too, and it just makes them "hate" us more..... which is something that we say we're trying to avoid.
Of course he's probably operating out of Fallujah. For whatever the reason, we've in effect made Fallujah a "safe haven" for those that kill Americans in Iraq.
I support President Bush. But this decision not to crush Fallujah, al Sadr, is backfiring badly, and I think its going to get much much worse before all is said and done.
My biggest fear is a Bush second term will be lost because of how we decided to "handle" Fallujah and its inhabitants. Watching them "celebrate" at the scene of the latest murders pisses me off more and more and more.
Its a war, and in this specific instance, for whatever reason, we are acting like its a Civil Rights march in Selma Alabama in the 50's and 60's.
It doesn't make sense, on any level, to me.
I reluctantly agree with you and wish I knew the answer as to why we are doing this.
Failed military operations can usually be traced to "fighting the last war" as opposed to fighting the current or "next" war. So much for historical perspective.
In this case, I think you are wrong.
The President felt that further continued military operations would result in negative PR for the US, and would hurt us in our efforts to win Iraqi "hearts and minds". I think we have to trust President Bush on this. After all, he has not made any mistakes thus far.
Bump for reference, this is great!!
Nah -- Fallujah is where your opinion became worthless.
Do you have any proof for your assertion that it is "backfiring badly?"
I seem to recall reading something here recently from a Marine in the area who believes differently.
Maybe you forgot about the contractor's burnt bodies strung up from the bridge and the vow we made to hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice.
Did we finish the job? Did we do what we said we were going to do?
"Do you have any proof for your assertion that it is "backfiring badly?"
I seem to recall reading something here recently from a Marine in the area who believes differently."
If we had the internet during 1968, you would have read the same thing from that marine if he was "in country" at the time. Oblivious to what was happening here, during that election year, for the obvious reasons.
Proof? Sure. Many people like myself don't see the viability of leaving al Sadr to run around the countryside preaching "Death to America", don't see the viability of allowing Fallujah to be a "city state" for any terrorist scumbag that needs "safe haven" between ambushes.
You can dispute my viewpoint on this by citing any statistic you want, to be sure. But at the end of the day, the monsters that killed the four contractors haven't been caught, let alone punished. Remember them? Killed, butchered, burned, hung up from overpasses.
Leaving al Sadr alive, leaving Fallujah as it is, is a scaled down verision of what we did in the wake of the Gulf War, when we left Saddam in power, when we failed to support the Kurdish led uprising in the North, and those various religious leaders that rose up in the south of Iraq.
Like I said, I support President Bush, and I'll add I'm going to be voting for him again come November.
That said, I will continue to point out what I think is the single biggest mistake he's made in regards to Iraq. Failing to crush the "insurgents" failing to kill al Sadr, failing to retake Fallujah is a mistake thats only now beginning to be realized by the Administration in my opinion. There will not be a "silver lining" when all is said and done on this topic, again in my opinion.
This specific "policy" in this regard transmits a signal of weakness, a lack of resolve to our enemies, in my opinion.
Which is exactly what the Carter Administration did in 1979, where this all really began, again in my opinion. The Arab world scoffs at this type of action in response to acts of aggression.
If so, time to close the ring.
"The President felt that further continued military operations would result in negative PR for the US, and would hurt us in our efforts to win Iraqi "hearts and minds". I think we have to trust President Bush on this. After all, he has not made any mistakes thus far."
The only thing thats happened on the "PR" front is the Presidents poll numbers took a huge hit since the "insurgency" began.
Its one thing to trust the President, which I do. That doesn't make me blind to what I believe is a big error by this Administration on this specific matter.
What your post tells me is the President is playing "not to lose" instead of "playing to win". He did this politically in the last week of the 2000 election, with the end result being the Floriduh fiasco (I will always believe his weak response to the DUI story cost him four percentage points among voters).
Its not a matter of "trust". Its a difference of opinion on what should have been done in this regard.
Peach,
I'm not happy about my "conclusion". I get no "joy" from suggesting we are screwing up this specific situation.
I'm posting these comments because I'm scared to death of what a Kerry Presidency will mean, not just concerning the War on Terror, but domestic issues as well.
Kerry will be a disaster on so many levels its hard to catalog them all in one post, or even one day.
There is only one way to deal with religious fanatics that have come to the conclusion all that differ in beliefs must be purged from the earth. You cannot "negotiate" with them, doesn't matter if its a wacko fundementalist in the Middle East of the Muslim belief, or a wacko fundementalist in the Mid West of Christian belief.
When either go so far around the bend they believe God has told em "Kill the infidels, kill the non believers" you only have one option left.
It isn't "talking" btw.
Still beating on that same old RAT drum I see.
This is not proof, it is merely your opinion. The Marine on the ground reported that the Iraqis were ... er, unsympathetic ... to the salamikazes in the city limits, and were taking care of business when and where they could. The Marine was surprised and pleased by this.
"concerns about the goal (free Iraq)"
Think. Our ancestors shed their blood for freedoms that we now have. Since then, repeatedly, our folks have shed their blood for the freedom of others. I wouldn't have an attitude about Iraq if the Iraqis stood next to our soldiers and participated, using our effort as a launching pad for their own effort to help themselves. Unfortunately, the majority of the Iraqis that are fighting happen to be subversive so-and-so's that refute our efforts to hand them freedom. Ingrates should get nothing.
If Zarqawi is in Fallujah, I believe Nick Berg would beg to differ with you, if he could.
Well I have to think that President Bush gave this matter a lot of thought before he pulled the Marines back from Fallujah. I believe he made the correct decision. I am not saying you are wrong, based on what you/I know. I am only saying that President Bush perhaps knows more than any of us, and did a correct risk/benefit analysis.
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.