BUSH MAKES THE CALL: NO FULL SCALE FALLUJAH OFFENSIVE

The Drudge Report ^ | April 25, 2004 | Matt Drudge

[threat matrix]

developing tonight..header for now

[Kay Soze]

Agreed, we never ever should have set foot in Iraq and we will be paying for this mistake for years to come - but is too late to cut and run.

Will be viewed as weakness by Islam-o-fascists.

Read - Reagan and Lebanon pull out.

[Rokke]

"Then, we start getting a clue about it, and a bunch of folks lose their heads, screaming QUAGMIRE."

You hit the nail on the head there. I'm not sure anyone outside of CENTCOM planning cells could have predicted how we'd execute our campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both plans were completely unique, completely unconventional and counter to almost every previously held tactical assumption used in planning a campaign. And they were incredibly successful. Our military has made a transition that has left almost everyone (including military veterans who retired more than a decade ago) in its dust. They are left to dredge up tired comparisons to WWII and Vietnam that are about as applicable as comparing an abacus to a Pentium 4. Quagmire my ass. The only folks stuck in a quagmire are the people who insist we fight 21st century wars with 19th century tactics.

[sheik yerbouty]

We hear about "the holy city of Najaf, the holy city of Karbala", and so on. what about U.S. cities like "the holy City of New York, theholy city of washington D.C? the jihad vermin hate us anyway. In for a penny, in for a pound. Fallujah and Najaf should be razed.

[Wilhelm Tell]

The terrorists seem to only be effective when they "spray & pray" their Kalashnikovs at close range, score a lucky hit with an RPG, set up booby traps, or send in suicide bombers.

Hopefully we have lots of snipers in the area who can take out the bad guys with minimal exposure to themselves and minimal danger to the civilians. That and helicopter gunships striking target-rich areas. The civilians might get tired of the terrorists, who seem more adept at blowing up school busses than at killing "invaders" or providing public utilities. More intelligence might eventually trickle in, making it easier to target the bad guys. House to house fighting would nullify many of our advantages. Perhaps someone with military experience can tell me whether or not my evaluation of this situation is accurate. I'm not a general -- I don't even play on on T.V.

[prairiebreeze]

I see some of the really old-name pessimists and bashers have shown up. Paging Deputy Fife, paging Deputy Fife!

Prairie

[AndrewC]

Good thing it's completely wrong.

Well, I hope so, but I express my convictions. I am not a yes man. I call'em as I see'em. You remind me of an inspector's writeup I received about my advice to my D.O. when I was asked how we would do in our missions against our evaluation site. I told him we were going to get "killed". I was singled out for being negative in the report. We got "killed", not because I told the truth, but because of the situation, and it was as I saw it. That is what advisors are to do. You may kill the messenger, but the message remains.

P.S. I as not fired. I was praised by my boss.

[Southack]

"You forgot the third alternative: declare victory, withdraw from this quagmire, and emphasize national defense rather than world policing."

What childish rubbish. Being nationalistic, with no armed forces outside of their own country, didn't stop the terrorists from bombing Saudi Arabia 3 times in the last two years.

It didn't stop them from bombing a French oil tanker. It didn't stop them from bombing a nightclub in Bali, hardly a world policeman. It didn't stop them from waging a full scale offensive war first in Bosnia and later in Kosovo...much less in Chechnya. It didn't stop them from murdering Israeli olympic atheletes in Much in 1972, either.

And they've attacked us in 1982 in Beirut, in 1993 at the World Trade Center, in 1998 at two different African embassies, hitting the USS Cole in 2000, our WTC's and Pentagon in 2001, etc.

You can spout your ridiculous, jingoistic, sophomoric, moronic pabulum about withdrawing into "fortress America" all day long, but no rational adult is going to be duped by such perverted madness.

For one thing, it isn't physically possible to defend 100% of every piece of American property and 100% of all American lives 100% of the time.

On the other hand, it is *imminently* possible to wipe out entire continents with a global nuclear, chemical, and biological offensive.

So the solution resides closer to all-out offense, which is mathematically *possible*, rather than to your pathetic concept of eternal infinite defense, which won't even work on paper.

[ohioWfan]

What you expressed were not 'convictions.' They were dire prophesies based on your own personal pessimism.

I'm not killing any messenger. Just pointing out that his message is bunk.

[Miss Marple]

You are correct. Having run the thread I see the same people who were carping during the Chinese EP3 plane incident. They are probably still angry that we aren't in a full-scale nuclear war with China.

This entire thread has been built on a headline on Drudge. Drudge looks for the sensational, and often his headlines are culled from such dubious sources as the New York Times.

One would think that folks would trust their Commander-in-Chief. I do. He is not a weak or stupid man.

[AndrewC]

What you expressed were not 'convictions.'

Sorry bud, they are convictions and they come from experience.

[Rokke]

"Military Experience: I once shot a man for snoring too loud."

I feel your pain. I had a roommate one semester in college who snored louder than a D-9 Cat. Fortunately, my other roommate and I weren't armed. I still want to shoot the SOB. And I'm still trying to catch up on lost sleep 18 years later.

[ride the whirlwind]

I was on a thread like this earlier today. I've concluded that these sky is falling types want a sensationalistic "show" and anything more rational is frowned upon.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I don't know how many times I've heard this argument e.g. I opposed the war but now we're stuck there.. It seems to be accepted by pro and anti-war people in both parties. There is certainly a risk to withdrawal. But the risks involved in staying have become even higher. Sticking around in Iraq will not make things better. In fact, it the opposite is turning out to be the case. What can be we *realistically* accomplish by staying there?

Reagan's Lebanon pull-out is actually a good example. The alternative was to get into a nation-building morass in Beirut. The terrorist attacks really didn't start in a big way until the 1990s. If Reagan had followed Dubya's policy in Lebanon, we'd still be there now trying to encourage the Maronite Christians, Muslims, and Druze to play footsie.

[McGavin999]

the jihad vermin hate us anyway. In for a penny, in for a pound. Fallujah and Najaf should be razed.

Right. Let's forget that 99.99% of the people of Najef support the US. Let's forget that Al Sistani (the only Grand Ayatollah in the world who believe clerics should stay out of politics because it will corrupt them) lives in Najef. Let's forget that the Shrine of Ali, the founder of the Shiia religion is in Najef.

I don't think so. All the senior clerics have essentially castrated Sadar. The Ayatollahs have told all religious Shiia to put down their arms and they have. The only ones left backing Sadar are the Iranian infiltrators and Hisbollah and the Shiia will willingly point them out to us.

[Miss Marple]

Well, you two need to understand that there are ways to deal with snorers other than shooting them. Otherwise, I would be a widow.

The objective is to win the war on terror, not make oneself look good to armchair generals. You don't have the intelligence that the generals and the President have. You are basing your entire rants on a headline on Drudge.

I suggest acourse of patience and watchful waiting.

[ohioWfan]

This will be viewed as a "I want to be re-elected" decision, rather than a "I'm behind my military" one. Morale will take a nose dive when the U.S. portions of those patrols are killed.

Sorry yourself, 'bud.'

These are not 'convictions.' These are dire predictions based on your own personal pessimism.

And all based on one headline from Drudge.

If you want morale to nosedive, keep it up..........bud.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Your post is as much an indictment of the twists and turns of Dubya's war policy as it is of the so-called sensationalists. Only a few days ago, Bush and Rumsfeld were tough-talking sensationalists on Fallujah now they have flip flopped and want a half-way house.

[ATCNavyRetiree]

SON OF A #^#$&%!^%^! This is the kind of low intensity conflict that gets soldiers killed. And the kind of operation that will lose my vote!!!

Who ya gonna vote for, F'in Kerry? I am pissed too, but we have no choice of who to vote for...I blame this on LIBERALS who have turned public opinion against this war, not the prez.

[FreeReign]

We still have not learned that when politicians run wars based on political priorities we lose our men and then the nation. Now it’s another Vietnam.

IMO, the presidents decision on this is tactical. The purpose of the tactics is to win the war.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Actually, a vote for Kerry is even more pointless than you indicate. He voted to approve this war and now wants to send in even more troops! Ain't a dime's worth of difference on Iraq between Dubya and Kerry. I'm voting Libertarian myself for a choice not an echo.