Posted on 01/03/2008 6:29:07 AM PST by jdm
According to the Washington Times, the military reviewed the loss of Fallujah to Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists in 2004 to determine how the US lost control of the city. The Marine Corps should have beaten the terrorists in a straight up fight, but the Pentagon believes that the enemy had a lot of help from a surprising source -- surprising for everyone except those who watched it happen in real time:
"The outcome of a purely military contest in Fallujah was always a foregone conclusion — coalition victory," read the assessment, prepared by analysts at the U.S. Army's National Ground Intelligence Center, or NGIC.
"But Fallujah was not simply a military action, it was a political and informational battle. ... The effects of media coverage, enemy information operations and the fragility of the political environment conspired to force a halt to U.S. military operations," concluded the assessment. ...
The authors said the press was "crucial to building political pressure to halt military operations," from the Iraqi government and the Coalition Provisional Authority, which resulted in a "unilateral cease-fire" by U.S. forces on April 9, after just five days of combat operations.
During the negotiations that followed, top Bush administration officials demanded a solution that would not require the Marines to retake the town, according to the assessment.
What happened? During the initial effort to retake Fallujah in April 2004 -- following the brutal murders of four Blackwater contractors -- Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya began broadcasting propaganda that Western media immediately repeated. The two Arab news services showed video of babies in hospitals and claimed the Marines had wounded these and killed more. Both channels made explicit comparisons to the Palestinians, and the American and European press ate it up.
The propaganda efforts worked. The Marines withdrew and the terrorists made Fallujah the center of their oppression over the people of western Iraq. It took months for the US to mount another offensive, this time with media embeds to counter the propaganda that the Western press seemed eager to indulge. In November 2004, the US finally cleared Fallujah, but not before losing a lot of credibility with the Iraqis who felt abandoned to the terrorists.
This is just a repeat of the Peter Arnett story. In the first Gulf War, Arnett famously repeated without any hint of skepticism the notion that the US bombed a baby-milk factory instead of a weapons factory. Years later, Eason Jordan would admit that CNN cooked its reporting to curry favor with Saddam Hussein, and would occasionally just read copy into the camera provided by the Saddam regime as though it was CNN's own. Rather than treat the Al-Jazeera propaganda with any skepticism at all, the Western media instead regurgitated it while insisting that American military sources could not be trusted to provide honest accounting of the fight.
We saw this at the time, and tried to point out the contradictions. It cost the lives of American Marines and soldiers, and it cost many more Iraqi lives. The media lost Fallujah, and had it not been for the determination of the Bush administration, they would have lost the entirety of Iraq to al-Qaeda terrorists as well.
Great analysis.
When the citizenry starts holding these media dhoosh bag journo hacks accountable by stringing them up in town square and pelting them with rotting produce...we’ll have a more geniune and honest media...but until then they’ll spin their lies at the cost of our lives...
The Media didn’t cause the loss, but the Bush Administration chickening out.
Iraq is just one of the many things the Bush Administration does, starts with a bunch of big talk, gets everybody committed and then jumps ship halfway through and leaves a mess. They did this to the Federal Budget, they did this in Afghanistan, they did this to the pro-life cause, they did this in the border fence.
Remember this simple mantra: The American media is the enemy. They are not our friends and no amount of smiling, living with us, sharing our food, facilities or transportation will ever make them our friends. They can not be trusted for one second once out of sight and they will stab you in the back at the first oportunity, regardless of what has happened to that point.
They want to be our enemy and now they are our enemy.
The Drive By Media on the side of the enemy???
I’m shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great analysis.
But, it was very obvious from the beginning that the left-wing media wasn’t going to allow any successes by our armed forces for which Bush could then take any credit. “Mission Accomplished” anyone?
But, it’s become quite clear that whenever we, the U.S., undertakes any kind of foreign policy initiative, military or political or otherwise, that we will be confronted by at least two enemies: the enemy abroad and the domestic MSM. Especially the left-wing media and more especially if the administration in charge happens to be republican.
BUMP!
Not because they "offer criticism", for no one is beyond that...but because they delight in being propaganda organs of our enemies. They do so, for the reason that they hate George Bush, and Republicans, in general, since Bush and Co. are not members of the Democrat Party!
I see and hear it, every single day. Pure partisanship, regardless of the expense!
They have been our enemy since Korea...
That's what sites like FR are for, relegate the MSM to inconsequence as quickly as possible and we may just save the country!!
The battle was lost the moment the President began reading media reports, rather than battlefied reports.
Second, leaving al Sadr alive was the dumbest single decision made in 2004.
Just my opinion. Had the President played ‘to win’ rather than ‘not to lose’ from 04 to November, 2006, we wouldn’t have Pelosi as Speaker, Reid as SML, and troops still engaged in daily combat today.
Just my opinion.
you don't know how "right" you are. Nobody should tell men to risk their lives then act surprised when Marines blow the cr#p out of the enemy. Battles aren't neat and clean. Especially in an urban environment.
The second time the Marines and Army went in to Falluja was just sweet. Free fire zone and kick the cr#p out of muzzies.
Boy, aren't you right.
It really, really pi$$ed me off when they announced the withdrawal in 2005, right after Fallujah fell.
If only Bush had hung in there another couple years we might have won the Iraq war.
Or they could have started the Surge in 2004 and finished this nonsense once and for all.
Can’t speak to the politics behind the scenes but my understanding is that the Marines were sent in the first time without a large enough force.
Does anyone remember that?
They could have done a lot of things different in WWII also, saving tens of thousands of lives. War is fraught with mistakes, and with Monday morning quarterbacks.
This president has come under a lot of pressure from the Left to do a lot of things to lose the war, but he has stood firm in his resolve to win.
What could they have done differently in WWII?
"Iraq is just one of the many things the Bush Administration does, starts with a bunch of big talk, gets everybody committed and then jumps ship halfway through and leaves a mess.
is flat out false.
So you don’t actually have any evidence to back up your claim, but you still think it’s valid.
We lost Fallujah because the Bush Administration, over the objections of the Generals gave the order to retreat. President Bush had the final say and he abandoned the soldiers who gave their lives to take back Fallujah because he couldn’t be bothered to do the political work.
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.