Posted on 06/28/2006 6:09:35 PM PDT by Dr.Syn
And isn't that a shame.
My only real objection to the article is this one - in fact, the actual military campaign was breathtakingly rapid as it was intended to be. What is stretching out isn't the breaking of the will of the Iraqi army to fight or the overthrow of a vicious police state dictator, nor is it a "protracted police campaign." Nor, actually, is it a classic "nation-building" campaign as it has been accused of being.
It is, in fact, an attempt to weave a set of disparate and conflicting elements into a federation in the face of armed opposition by people whose interests are being challenged thereby. That may prove to be asking too much in the long run, but at the moment it looks as if it just might be working.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss a more robust alternative policy. Should we have leveled Fallujah, for example, or Ramadi? In a classic burnt-earth campaign that probably would have been the alternative of choice. If we did not do so it was either out of irresolution as the author implies or it was because leadership did not consider it to be more helpful than harmful to the overall goal. I'm guessing the latter (with the proviso that it might very well be an uninformed and inaccurate guess. Comes with the territory.)
Oy...
I agree. When will be get Al-Zarqawi? I'm sick and tired about us getting his aides. How many aides does he need?
You wrote, "When will be get Al-Zarqawi?"
Be got Zarqawi.
A pacification project - best description of it that I've seen yet.
Maybe he meant al-Zawahiri. These names are like the specials on a Chinese restaurant menu. They all sound the same.
You're probably right. Maybe they can sell the surplus vowels to the Croats and Serbs.
No offense, but are you kidding me? I had to re-check the date of this thread with that statement.
What we're fighting now is NOT the Iraqi army. Command and control works differently for Al Quaeda, on entirely different channels than those that were anywhere near our crosshairs during the invasion. We fought two successive wars, against two different enemies (one of which is now our ally), from 2003 until now.
People just get it mixed up because we happen to be fighting those two wars on the same battleground, and the end of one and beginning of the other is kind of amorphous.
I stopped reading right there.
Second Bush is wrong on the war thread in an hour.
And of course, those posting them aren't against the war, they're just posting alternative viewpoints they have no interest in, though they won't say what their position is, exactly...
I think that's kinda his point.
Hay we gotta see what the enemy is up to.
As I said this is the next attack since immigration is losing steam.
I think you are correct. From the information I've gleaned from folks who were there, on the ground, that leveling either of these cities would have caused resentment among the Iraqi populace and created refugees. These refugees would have become recruitment fodder for the terrorists and a talking point (much like Palestinians) for insurgents.
Al Katraz? Al Kaseltzer?
You shouldn't have because the article wants the war fought as a war for the sake of the troops. It is a pretty kick-A approach.
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.