What's Behind U.S.-Iraq Assault on Samara

What's Behind U.S.-Iraq Assault on Samara Summary: What's Behind the U.S.-Iraq Assault on Samara

Oct. 1, 2004 — WHY ASSAULT SAMARRA? U.S. and Iraqi forces want to retake the Sunni stronghold as part of a nationwide effort to regain control of areas lost to insurgents before next January's elections.

AT STAKE: Failure to stage balloting across Iraq could severely mar or invalidate election results. Patchwork voting would leave some religious, tribal and ethnic groups out of the process.ALSO ON THE U.S. HIT LIST: Ramadi and Fallujah where resistance is most fierce in the Sunni triangle. And Sadr City, run by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's followers.

Ramadi has been controlled on and off by the various insurgent groups since orgainized resistance has surfaced.
The 1MEF (1 Marine Expeditionary Force) has been going into that city for some 8 months now, to kill off every new insurgent group that sets up shop. Like many other towns/cities mostly within the sunni triangle and other areas of Al Anbar province, the problem is not going to go away anytime soon. To many local and foreign insurgents move about very well. Take just for one example, the town of Al Latifiya some 4 miles south of Al Mahmudiaya which is some 12 miles due south of Baggy Dad, of route 1n/s.
It is now called the IED town of Iraq. Route 1 going through it has more IED's planted ever night off the main road and elsewhere, then any other part of Iraq.
The only way we are going to be able to remove large numbers of insurgents at a time is to get the IIG (Iraq Interim Gov) to give our boys the pass to do great damage to many of these towns. We must be permitted to remove lots of them day after day after day.
My Marine nephew just left Iraq a few days back to come home shortly. Believe me I have been following events over there closely for the past 8 months.
But as can be found in other posts here, I do not propose literally "leveling" cities.
This is a tough call. The coalition forces can do hardly anything from a offensive standpoint without receiving permission by the IIG. Makes it a tough to clean things up.

I think the report's postulation that voting that doesn't include the provinces with unrest is invalid is a DNC talking point. Allabi made the statement that he (his interim government is ok with getting the vote in the other 15 provinces. Also, when we had our Civil War, the vote went on despite the southern states not voting. Was Lincoln's reelection invalid?

I think the report's postulation that voting that doesn't include the provinces with unrest is invalid is a DNC talking point.

This makes more sense. Not all areas will be under complete control. Just go with what is stable and the rest can follow later. The idea of and 'invalid' vote is ridiculous.

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.