Posted on 06/16/2004 8:52:31 AM PDT by Peach
FNC reporting that Aarqawi is probably operating out of Fallujah
Oh my.
Hi Peach, hi Chong! I'm baaack! (Hi to the good folks at ATRW. I'm back from 15th century Florence straight into my work on 1912... ain't gonna jump back up a hundred years 'till this work is done. Hope all are well. Best to all!)
Hey, nicollo. Long time no hear from.
According to Fox
"The measures in Fallujah and Najaf were announced a day after President Bush held a teleconference with senior national security and military advisers to discuss the situation in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq.
U.S. occupation leaders are under pressure not to launch major military action. Some U.S.-picked Iraqi leaders were angered by the Fallujah siege. The top U.N. envoy for Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi -- who has been asked by Washington to help pick a new government -- warned the United States against assaults on Najaf or Fallujah
"When you surround a city, you bomb the city, when people cannot go to hospital, what name do you have for that? ... If you have enemies there, this is exactly what they want you to do, to alienate more people so that more people support them rather than you," Brahimi said of Fallujah on ABC's "This Week."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118054,00.html
so I am assuming President Bush was in the loop. However, I think you might be right. This decision could well have been made W/O President Bush's okay. In which case, whatever problems attend this decision are not the fault of President Bush.
So, what was it? Bush's call or not?
And, if he's in charge, isn't he responsible for decisions he delegates to others?
He simply can't say, wasn't me, and wash his hands off it.
One, is Falluja today a success?
Two, whose call was it to stop the Marines exerting dominance and gaining physical control?
Are you happy with a neoTalib city spitting distance from a Marine Base?
Hi, peach! Been off to Italy for the last month. Fabulous. I want to move to Florence, c. 1479, the year after the Pazzi famly was expunged from the human race.
Elsewhere, I note that things have not gotten any worse since I left. In fact, things are strikingly better.
Except for this: RIP Ronald Reagan.
So you like Italy :-)
Sounds fabulous; glad you're back for now, although you can join your FR family ANYWHERE!
I would say it was Conway's call. Let's not fault the President.
And, if he's in charge, isn't he responsible for decisions he delegates to others?
The President is not responsible for tactical decisions made by military commanders. They are responsible. What you are implying is as unfair as the Dems blaming President Bush for the treatment of prisoners.
He simply can't say, wasn't me, and wash his hands off it.
The president has not said this.
Two, whose call was it to stop the Marines exerting dominance and gaining physical control?
I am not sure, though I suspect General Conway. But I doubt the President
Are you happy with a neoTalib city spitting distance from a Marine Base?
Well, things have been relatively quiet there thus far. I can understand the logic which says that if we kicked butt, we would have energized the insurrection.
Look the important issue here is not whether everything is going right in Iraq - hindsight is always 20/20. The important thing is re-electing President Bush. Keep your eyes on the prize
Couple of points that you might find "clarifying".
1. I don't read the LA Times, much less their incompetent polls. When you have an ongoing disparity between Dems and Repubs of 12 - 13 %, its meaningless. I'm citing (from memory I admit) the overall polls when combined. Fox News, Gallup, ect etc etc. Stop claiming otherwise.
2. Yes, I understand completely there are only 200 - 500 hundred respondents to these polls. However, when they are done continually in three day "groups", and are a combination, you do in fact get a very accurate view, plus or minus 3 - 4.5 %. No, its not exact...but then again neither is an election, as the dead of Chicago demonstrate each election cycle in their curious pattern of voting for Democrats.
3. Note the time frame of the "drop". Its not a stretch to say it coincides with the insurgency. Yes, the President took a bit of drop just before this insurgent stuff began, but between the non action in regards to the four contractors, al Sadr being quoted every Friday afternoon by our media (If its Friday, Its Meet Sadr!) and prisoner "abuse" daily headlines....its very hard not to come to the conclusion our lack of action as it relates is hurting the President in the polls.
I'm a political "junkie". I understand very well the relative worth of polling data. Sorry, when I post that a 15% drop indicates millions have been moved to change their minds, its accurate. You can't have that kind of drop in a dozen reputable polls that coincide EXACTLY (within the margin of error) and not come to that conclusion.
You can bet the farm the Whitehouse understands that, Rove, Hughes, Maitlin, etc all know whats happening.
I haven't "pretended" anything. I've stated the obvious, a 15% drop in the national polls represents millions of people changing their minds. Its not debatable, its obvious. That doesn't mean they won't vote for the President come this fall. It means they are currently dissatisfied with what they are seeing and hearing on a daily basis. But a 15 percent drop does in fact mean millions.
The rest is my opinion, based on what I'm seeing and hearing, from a multitude of sources. And you might note I've been very careful to note (repeatedly) when its my opinion.
You seem to be "pretending" that nothing is wrong, everything is fine. It isn't. The President is in a virtual dead heat with the fourth most likely candidate for the Democratic nomination just seven months ago. Thats a warning bell thats ring very loudly at Bush Campaign headquarters.
Crush al Sadr, and its my OPINION those poll numbers begin to spin back up rapidly. As I have noted several times on this particular thread, the President's highest approval ratings were from the time frame he was taking decisive action, be it in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or elsewhere around the world where our foes gather.
Since January, thats not been the case, and its showing in the polls. Fallujah could very well be where the President lost this election. I hope not, but I'd be a fool not to acknowledge it.
You see it differently. good for you. I just hope thats not what Rove and company think.
I'm preferring to think of the whole Fallujah thing as setting a trap for the bad guys.
We didn't allow the bad guys in Afghanistan one place to congregate and so we're chasing them all around the country. If we would have let them have a safe haven and gather up, then surround them, and pick them off one at a time, the resistance would be all but terminated.
I think that's what we're doing in Fallujah. When we do eventually re-surround Fallujah and wipe them out we'll get butchered in the press saying we should have taken it out the first time. Unfortunately we won't be able to respond with "This was the plan all along." or else they won't fall for it next time in Syria or Iran or wherever we're headed when this one is over.
If this isn't how we're doing it, it's how I would have done it.
"I'm preferring to think of the whole Fallujah thing as setting a trap for the bad guys.
We didn't allow the bad guys in Afghanistan one place to congregate and so we're chasing them all around the country. If we would have let them have a safe haven and gather up, then surround them, and pick them off one at a time, the resistance would be all but terminated.
I think that's what we're doing in Fallujah. When we do eventually re-surround Fallujah and wipe them out we'll get butchered in the press saying we should have taken it out the first time. Unfortunately we won't be able to respond with "This was the plan all along." or else they won't fall for it next time in Syria or Iran or wherever we're headed when this one is over.
If this isn't how we're doing it, it's how I would have done it."
When this whole "thing" began two and a half months ago, I considered it much the same way you are. I stopped six weeks ago, however.
The reason is this. The UN rep wants al Sadr left alive. Brehimi (?) is the guy I'm talking about. Meanwhile, the attacks, the ambushes around Fallujah continue, and now Drudge is reporting Zarqawi is in Fallujah.
If they are "waiting" for them to gather there, I'd say the wait has been over for about a month now. Yet we do nothing.
The only problem I ever had with the Bush Doctrine was the "Arafat Exception". What I see here is a "al Sadr exception".
I don't like it, I think its a terrible decision on the part of the Administration. While I can understand the reasoning...too a point, my patience is up. Kill him, crush the opposition, turn over power.
Anything else gets "machevellian" in my opinion. And thats not the Presidents strong suit. His strong suit is walking tall, making decisive decisions, and backing them up.
The decision for American troops NOT to waste Fallujah seems to have been a good one. While it would be imminently more satisfying to watch the destruction of the city from 50,000 feet or through the sights of an M1A1, it is ultimately the role of the Iraqis to clean up this mess, with our support and protection.
Unspoken in the discussion surrounding this post is that we have been killing "insurgents" by the basketfull for weeks in Fallujah, Nadjaf and elsewhere. The followers of Sadr look fierce to the Reuters and CNN cameras, but are an embarassment militarily. The Army and Marine snipers have an absolute field day with these clowns in daylight or night and are killling them at a rate of 50+ per city per day with no more than a single US casualty or two.
Finally, the notion that we are sustaining unacceptable levels of casualties is the invention of the leftist press. While each is an individual tragedy, the casualties taken by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are militarily insignificant. Not only are we not "spread too this" in theater, but we can wage war with the troops and equipment on hand at a much higher level of intensity with as few or fewer casualities.
MY post was "Well DUH, who didn't figure that one out" Now, since you posted your rude reply to me, explain just what that has to do with "melt brown people sitting on oil".
The Fallujah fiasco will cost many GI lives. After the Marines had done their job and had encircled the foreign terrorists and baathist criminals, they were undercut by the political leadership.
Just like there are no ties between OKC and Iraq; John Doe #2.
The Fallujah Brigade was established to end three weeks of combat in April that killed 600 to 700 insurgents and 10 Marines. The Marines withdrew to the outskirts of Fallujah after Sunni members of the now-disbanded Iraqi Governing Council objected to the bloodshed.Led by former members of Saddam's military and made up largely of insurgents, the brigade was supposed to bring peace to the city and meet several demands.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the U.S.-led coalition's deputy operations chief, acknowledged Saturday that the U.S. military had not met its goals in the city.
Brown said despite the apparent failure of the Fallujah Brigade to end the insurgency, a new U.S. offensive in the city was unlikely.
Not at all, Im just stating a fact.
We did not achieve our objectives in Fallujah. We stood down and demonstrated weakness in the eyes of the enemy.
Drop a MOAB for shock and awe, then bring in the B-52s.
There is no substitute for victory. You either win or you lose.
Our stated mission in Fallujah was to hunt down those responsible for the mutilation and stringing up on the bridge, the bodies of the American contractors and either bring them to justice or bring justice to them.
After a few weeks and over 200+ American deaths we retreat outside the city limits and turn it over to the Baathists and declare ourselves the victor.
The day America retreats the citizens of Fallujah take to the streets in celebration shooting their guns in the air and announce their victory over the American forces.
We never accomplished what we set out to do, what we said we would do and for that we lost respect and we demonstrated our weakness and lack of resolve.
The solution was simple. Announce on bullhorns for all of the so called "innocents" to leave the city within 24 hours - then move in and clean that rat's nest out once and for all.
Perhaps the so-called "innocents" were not so innocent after all. They provided sanctuary and safe haven to our enemies.
Peach ......if the media is reporting he is in Fallujah.......then we have moved on Zarqawi already.
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.