WSJ: Don't Stop in Samarra

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 4, 2004 | Editorial

[OESY]

Last week's allied offensive in the city of Samarra looks to be a tactical victory, in that insurgents were routed and city offices, hospitals and other buildings retaken. But it will only be a strategic success if the allies keep moving to clean out other terrorist sanctuaries in the Sunni Triangle.

The Samarra campaign makes up for what was turning out to be a repeat of April's mistake in Fallujah to trust a deal with former Baathists in the city. That agreement looked hollow when terrorists openly patrolled in Samarra under the flag of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi only days later. This time a force of 3,000 American and 2,000 Iraqi troops was quickly dispatched to retake the city located about 60 miles northwest of Baghdad.

The Iraqi contribution was especially notable, since it included newly trained forces. Once again one of the best Iraqi units was a group of some 300 from the 36th battalion that was put together in 2003 by the much-maligned Iraqi National Congress. It's a shame the State Department and CIA opposed training more such anti-Saddam Iraqi allies earlier.

We hope Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and his interim government conclude that the lesson of Samarra is to continue into Ramadi and Fallujah. One reason the insurgency has been able to increase its attacks is because it has these safe staging areas to retreat to. Another is because Iraqis have begun to suspect that the Iraq government is afraid to respond for fear of a Sunni political backlash. But the far more dangerous backlash will be if Iraqis conclude that Mr. Allawi can't provide security. Notwithstanding the U.S. election, don't stop now.

[lentulusgracchus]

Never, ever, ever give the enemy a sanctuary.

And......"Sunni backlash?" These guys are building IED's as fast as they can lay them, and someone is worried about "Sunni backlash?"

I think we need to be making the terrorists worry about the Big Red One's frontlash.

[Gritty]

"Sanctuary" smells like "Vietnam"!

[Inyokern]

We hope Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and his interim government conclude that the lesson of Samarra is to continue into Ramadi and Fallujah.

Yes, I hope Allawi and company realize from the insults made to him by John Kerry and his staff when he was in the United States that, if Kerry wins, they are dead.

[Constantine XIII]

Boy, I sure am glad that the WSJ is able to give our military such great advice!

*rolls eyes* :)

[OESY]

Boy, I sure am glad that the WSJ is able to give our military such great advice!

*rolls eyes* :)


In general, I agree. In this day of instant communications, we at home tend to want to micromanage the war. Some do it just to gain partisan advantage, as during Vietnam.

What comes to mind is the Stalingrad example. The military needs flexibility in both maneuver and decision making. Further, political considerations voiced by Allawi are relevant until they are found not to work.

I say let our serviceman and women and their leaders do their jobs. They have far more information as to the situation and what works or doesn't than we do, and that includes the WSJ, etc.

What our people don't need are a lot of armchair colonels, artificial deadlines, unrealistic expectations, and constant criticism from the opposition and their surrogates in the media.

[Reader of news]

This strategy will be successful. All the terrorist sanctuary will be eliminated. Iraq will be held an election in January.

[Reader of news]

I meant "sanctuaries".

[monday]

"Boy, I sure am glad that the WSJ is able to give our military such great advice!

*rolls eyes* :)"

Everyones entitled to an opinion. If you think it is better to allow the terrorists safe havens in Fallujah and elsewhere then I can see why you wouldn't want to hear opposing viewpoints.

If you just don't want to hear anyone saying anything, you are living in the wrong country. Free speech and all...

If you think the military reads the WSJ for strategic advice, you shouldn't worry. I suspect this opinion piece won't even be noticed.

[Constantine XIII]

Are you scolding me or agreeing with me? :P

[Constantine XIII]

It's just that the way the media think they know EVERYTHING about the situation there, when they really don't have a clue, grates on my nerves. The President and his generals probably have a good reason for not doing "the obvious" thing. Not only have they been in the business a while longer, but they probably have better information, too. :P

Like you said, the author of this editorial has no reason to think that anyone with stars on his collar is going to give two cents about what the WSJ thinks our grand strategy should be, so I wonder why they bothered wasting the space. It really serves no purpose except to make themselves feel good.

JMHO, of course. :)

[monday]

"Like you said, the author of this editorial has no reason to think that anyone with stars on his collar is going to give two cents about what the WSJ thinks our grand strategy should be, so I wonder why they bothered wasting the space. It really serves no purpose except to make themselves feel good."


The military doesn't read the WSJ for strategy tips, or objectives. They get their orders from Washington. Republican strategists do read the WSJ however.

In a democracy decisions are collective, for better or worse. It can make for muddled policy when the objectives are less than straightforward. Currently there are two competing strategies for creating a stable and democratic Iraq.

The first is the State Dept.'s which consists of appeasing the different factions in Iraq in hopes that a diplomatic solution to the violence can be found. It is the reason Washington ordered the military to fall back from Fallujah and the other cities. This strategy assumes civilian casualties can be avoided entirely, thereby ensuring the good will of the populace. It also assumes that religious fanatics can be reasoned with.

The second is the military solution, advocated by the military itself. Under this strategy you simply kill the bad guys and hope to limit civilian casualties to a minimum. It risks alienating the populace by causing too many civilian casualties, and creating martyrs which will draw new recruits for the terrorists.

At this point in time no one knows, for sure, which method will work better. This WSJ article is advocating the military solution. So far the administration has done some of both. They have more info. than we do on the situation but we can all have an opinion. We live in a free country. Would you prefer it if no one even cared about what was happening in Iraq?

[macbee]

Has anyone produced or seen a map of Iraq showing the actual areas of conflict? Given that the "insurgency" is actually limited to just a few provinces and the rest of Iraq is relatively quiet, I would think that this might be an enlightening and useful graphic. One idea: a "weather map" with areas of conflict ranging from "hot" down to "cool".