Some Marines angry over deal to pull out of Fallujah

In the above analogy, TalBlack, subsitute "Battle of Fallujah" for "baseball game" and substitute "senior U.S. Marine commader in theater" for "Joe Torre, Manager, New York Yankees".

I still say war should be fought full tilt or you should go home. With respect to the current warI doubt very much that anyone has a plan going that it too subtle for us "armchair generals" to understand. Although if the big plan is to attract the militant to Iraq and then close the trap soon would be a good time to start.

Human nature hasn't changed AT ALL over the millenia, people understand Power and they have contempt for weakness or any thing that THEY count as weakness.

Holding short of destroying Fallujah, Saddams generals and Iraqi forces being brought into do what we should have done Looks so weak on so many levels that I don't know where to start.

War hasen't changed, people haven't changed, but today we think we can fight a new, humane--kinder and gentler war-if you will. An apt analogy would be thinking we could play baseball without taking the field.

We haven't fought properly since WWII. We could have won Korea--according to the Chinese Generals who were there. We could have won VietNam according to the NVietnamese Generals who were there. I hope to hell Dubya has a plan so cunning I'm not bright enough to see it---I really do.

121 posted on 05/01/2004 3:25:21 PM PDT by TalBlack ("Tal, no song means anything without someone else....")

Marines are trained to fight when so ordered -- little kids hold their breath when they don't get what they want and understand.

Hey I was oly trying to compliment the Marines not call them children dude. ;)

122 posted on 05/01/2004 5:26:56 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon

The point you are irate about is that we aren't all seeing it the way you want us to see it.

If the entire world continually looks shitty to you, maybe the view would improve if you pulled your own head out of rectal deflade!

123 posted on 05/01/2004 5:32:14 PM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)

One of the things that was brought to my attention over the past 48 hours was how the jihadist infrastructure in Western Iraq was brought to account. We don't know this, because we are watching Fallujah. They've been decimated, as have hundreds of tribal enforcers whom the chiefs stupidly lent to the jihadi.

The Marine leaders on the ground know that the jihadi are scamming them. They understand this. What, you think they take stupid pills at Canoe U. and Quantico? They are pulling back to let the Saddamites take a whack at things. The Saddam general is thick with the local tribals. Not with the jihadi. This is his chance to be the big cheese in town. He has to finger the jihadi to do it!

The jihadi will have none of it, of course, and find a way to kill the general. He's the modern version of Anastasio Somoza, and will be meet the same fate, but for now, he is useful to this chapter of the Marine's Small Wars Manual. Like it or not, he's our stooge. But he'll try to survive by playing both sides of the street.

Natch, the jihadist will have him car-bombed by Iraqi "patriots" (only after he has paid the jihadi a king's ransom in bribes to keep him alive, all to no avail). This craven dog will be sent to Allah for final disposition.

That's when we "restore order", after we let the Iraqis find a way to screw things up. Always find a way to allow the Arab to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity and they will never let you down.

Now ask yourself, do these people really deserve their own civilization?

Be Seeing You,

Chris

124 posted on 05/01/2004 5:54:20 PM PDT by section9 (Major Motoko Kusanagi says, "John Kerry: all John F., no Kennedy..." Click on my pic!)

To: nathanbedford

All of which is interesting, but you dodged my original question.

Which do you feel is more important at this moment, reality or the media created perception of reality?

125 posted on 05/02/2004 7:43:32 AM PDT by been_lurking

Now ask yourself, do these people really deserve their own civilization?

The chain of events you describe WILL happen predicated as it is upon the unfailing Arab will to hate and waste their entire lives doing so.

However, my fears are that they DO take "stupid pills" at Washington (historically speaking)and Washington is in the drivers seat. GWB must at all costs avoid going down the road that ended in Korea and 'Nam.

I hope to hell your secenario plays out.

126 posted on 05/02/2004 7:51:56 AM PDT by TalBlack ("Tal, no song means anything without someone else....")

"We had the insurgents cordoned off, they couldn't go anywhere, we had a chance to get them." "Now they can flee wherever they want, and we're still going to have to deal with them," said Chavez, expressing doubts the new force, largely made up of Fallujah residents, would apprehend anti-coalition fighters. "A lot of them have ties to anti-coalition forces," he said in reference to the Fallujah Brigade. Colonel John Coleman, chief of staff of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said it is not necessarily a bad thing having some of the more moderate insurgents switch sides. "We'd actively reach out to those people," he told reporters at Camp Fallujah, the main marine base just outside the city. Some of the grunts who camped out for weeks in abandoned factories and warehouses on the outskirts of the powderkeg city, coming under fire daily, feel they spilt blood in vain. Scores of Americans died in fighting in Fallujah, which also killed hundreds of Iraqis. Now that the marines are pulling out without having defeated the insurgents, the deployment "was a waste of time, of resources and of lives," said Chavez. "Everyone feels the same way, especially those who know someone who was killed," he said.

This is what really angers me. Someone should resign. We need new leadership somewhere.

127 posted on 05/02/2004 7:53:31 AM PDT by af_vet_1981

To: been_lurking

Oh, I get it, you get to ask the questions and I have to respond. When I say the question conatains a false premise, you do not address the objection, you merely ask the question again.

If I say now that not only does the question imply a false premise,that the reality is that the Marines have won, but a false choice, that the Marines could have had actual victory or media acknowledgement of victory,but not both, I suppose you will evade this objection and simply restate your question.

I am prepared to answer your question but not on your terms. Address the reality of the battle of Fallujah and I will address your question.

128 posted on 05/02/2004 10:47:55 AM PDT by nathanbedford

To: been_lurking

I present for your attention a view presented by Strafor. I guess I should have copywrited my posts so I could sue them for plagerism.

I would be interested in your reaction.

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
[ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ]

Click to scroll to commentary.

STRATFOR: Geopolitical Diary: Tuesday, May 4, 2004
STRATFOR ^ | May 04, 2004 0603 GMT

Posted on 05/04/2004 12:11:30 AM EDT by Axion

As expected, attention today turned away from Al Fallujah and to An Najaf. Representatives of Iran-based Grand Ayatollah Kazem Hossein Haeri, regarded as Muqtada al-Sadr's mentor, were publicly revealed to be engaged in negotiating between al-Sadr and the United States. The report appeared in the Iran Daily, which means that it is what the Iranians want the world to know. That makes it doubly important. There was little doubt that Shia were attempting to mediate between al-Sadr and the Americans. This article makes it clear that the Iranian government wants to see the process go forward. Naturally, both sides sought to improve their bargaining position by increasing their visible ferocity. Thus, clashes -- including some mortar shelling -- were reported around An Najaf. But it is clear that neither side has the stomach for a fight.

If we look at the Al Fallujah model, the United States essentially turned to a general from the previous regime -- having sacked one who was unacceptable to the Shia -- and has turned the problem of the guerrillas over to him. He in turn has a force of mostly local men under him; they will avoid attacking the rebels, who will in turn avoid attacking the Iraqi force. The United States will pretend that the Iraqi force is under its control and that it is an effective force, while the Iraqis will do what is in their own best interest.

The fighting in Al Fallujah will decline. The United States will not have to lose any more troops, nor will it have to level the city to get at the guerrillas. The guerrillas will have to negotiate some sort of accommodation with the Iraqi forces and the elders of the city, which should not be too difficult. Effective control over Al Fallujah will pass to the Iraqis. U.S. forces, however, will provide a frame that contains all of this. We assume this frame includes limits on the ability of the guerrillas to use Al Fallujah as a base for operations against Americans.

The fundamental question will be whether the guerrillas -- or other Iraqis -- will respect this limitation and, if they don't, what the United States will do about it. Put differently, assuming that there is no massive split between Al Fallujah's population, the guerrillas and the new Iraqi security force -- something we are pretty confident is the case -- and a decision is made to launch attacks, will the United States then launch an attack against the security force it sponsored?

The United States is in the process of transferring effective power over Al Fallujah to the citizens of Al Fallujah, the guerrillas and the security force. This transfer is about a hundred times more real and more significant than any transfer of sovereignty on June 30. The problem is this: What understanding, if any, has been reached with the three elements in Al Fallujah? If we are to believe the Coalition Provisional Authority, then the only thing that has been agreed to is that the Iraqi security force will engage and destroy the guerrillas. We flat out don't believe that will happen, and we cannot imagine that the CPA thinks it will happen. That leaves two possibilities. Either the United States simply transferred power and hoped for the best, or a deeper political understanding was reached during the two weeks of negotiation in Al Fallujah, one that neither side wants to publicize right now.

The Al Fallujah model will clearly be used in An Najaf. U.S. forces will pull back. An indigenous force, commanded by someone acceptable to the Shiite leadership, will move into the city and will retain effective control over it. Al-Sadr will be dealt with by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, but that will depend on internal Shiite politics, not on any U.S. decision. In the end, the United States will have to craft a political agreement with the Shiite leadership concerning the details about An Najaf.

An Najaf is easier than Al Fallujah. Al-Sadr is not the Sunni guerrillas. There is a broad, well-organized Shiite leadership that has an interest in a relationship with the United States. Most of all, any agreements reached in An Najaf can be transferred to the rest of Shiite Iraq. The Shia already have a great degree of internal autonomy. They will get more.

Now, let's look at where things are heading. There has been a transfer of power in Al Fallujah and there will be a transfer of power in An Najaf. The June 30 transfer is increasingly meaningless, but the local transfers are increasingly meaningful. The United States is groping toward an interim solution in which local governance goes back to Iraqis -- even former Baathist generals or guerrillas -- who take responsibility for their towns and regions. The United States has a broad presence in Iraq, but little control. It carries out its mission in the region, is present in Iraq, but not really running things.

It could work, if the Sunnis decide to let it work. But when you add it up, it will mean the partition of Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions on a piecemeal basis. That is something that is neither in Iran's interest nor in the interest of the Shia -- which means that this solution is not ultimately likely to work not only because of the Sunnis, but also because it violates Shiite requirements. It is a creative solution, but it doesn't get the United States out of the woods by any means.
TOPICS: News/Current Events; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]

1 posted on 05/04/2004 12:11:30 AM EDT by Axion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

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.

[ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ]

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2003 Robinson-DeFehr Consulting, LLC.

129 posted on 05/03/2004 9:37:15 PM PDT by nathanbedford

To: nathanbedford; Southack

Since we will never convince each other, let us bookmark this thread in a "tickler" folder, meet back here on 30 May, 2004 and we can then see who was right and who was wrong. I have bookmarked the thread. See you next month so we can determine who gets "I told you so" bragging rights..... 89 posted on 05/01/2004 1:46:30 AM PDT by Polybius

Agreed, fair enough...... 94 posted on 05/01/2004 3:05:33 AM PDT by nathanbedford

Well, here we are a month later.

What do you think?

The Fallujah Brigade: How the Marines are pacifying an Iraqi hot spot. (A definite should-read!)

130 posted on 05/31/2004 11:21:07 PM PDT by Polybius

To: Polybius; Travis McGee; nathanbedford

It was obvious back when I wrote Post #82, and it's no surprise that all that I predicted (i.e. that Fallujah would soon have a home grown Iraqi hero, grow calm, and lead into the January elections) is coming to pass.

Anyone who predicted that our Fallujah solution would end badly must surely be rethinking whatever facts and logic they used in forming such disproven thoughts, too.

131 posted on 06/01/2004 12:32:57 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

Good to hear from you. And on time too. Did you order up this article from Brendan Miniter for today? I think the article, if it is to be credited, is good news for America. I think it supports your position. I do not think it undermines my position.

My objection was primarily to the perception issue. You will recall that I posted in favor of your “boa constrictor” tactic and objected only to the notion that running the beretted Bathist General in at the last minute was part of the original plan:

However, you will no doubt be surprised that I agree and always agreed with

What I do not accept is that this bug out and hand off to the Baathist Establishment is a clever denouement to your plan. It simply does not fit

The gravamen of my complaint was stated thus:

We started a battle for perception, upped the ante with bluster, and then at the final thrust, blinked.

This is true even if this last minute hand off to our beretted Baathist general friend was part of the original plan which I do not for a moment believe and neither does most of the rest of the world. The burden is on the administration to sell that spin and so far they haven't even tried. But even if true, the battle is lost because the world sees it lost. The world sees it my way, not yours and I take no joy in that observation.

The rest of the world now believes that the America of the Bug out from Beirut and from Mogadishu, is still the America of George Bush.

I do not mean to introduce a red herring here, I do not think the matter turns on whether the plan originally called for an Iraqi general to gallop in to our rescue, that would hardly be fair or productive. My objection remains one of PERCEPTION of the whole battle. Did and does the world regard the operation around Fallujah as a defeat or as a victory for America? Additonally, I had posted that the promise of apprehending the murderers of our four civilian citizens so stridently made by the administration and its General was cynically betrayed by this turn over to the Baathist General. But first, the matter of perception.

Why should perception matter? After all isn’t reality on the ground why wars are fought? The reply, in a phrase: The Tet offensive. No one my age can forget the television image of Walter Cronkeit stepping through the rubble and declaring the battle lost. The air went out of the baloon at home and the war was lost, no matter that Cronkeit had it wrong, America had defeated the Viet Cong on the ground, but the world thought otherwise and so, in the end, Walter Cronkeit was not wrong – but ironically he was right because he had made his own reality and put it our living rooms and we believed it. Since that moment, every President who wages war, especially, a preemptive war, must do so while negotiating the following obstacles: 1) He must win decisively within a few weeks and preferably within days. 2) He must do so virtually without casualties. 3) He may inflict only limited collateral casualties 4) He may not damage any sacred sites 4) He must go to war only with UN approval. 5) He must not sustain any surprises. 6) His troops may not commit any atrocities or even imagined atrocities. 7) He must accomplish all this on live television. These are obstacles presented by television and the 24 hour news cycle. Cronkeit had to wait years to spring his trap but he was operating without satellites. Since the first Gulf War the list could be expanded to require the President to avoid all asymmetrical terror attacks on the troops, which I conclude means that we may no longer occupy a liberated land absent a causus belli involving a direct strike on our homeland from the occupied country or the discovery of WMDs.

So what has all this got to do with Fallujah? Well, at minimum, given the above list, it means that the Bush administration must at all costs avoid the appearance of indecisiveness or muddle. No one can deny that the administration looks absolutely confused at Fallujah. If nothing else in the modern age of televised warfare, the President must not fail to meet expectations which he himself and his generals have created i.e. he must capture or kill the bad guys who murdered our civilians in Fallujah. The administration has failed these tests. I note that the article alleges the capture of 27 of 28 insurgent leaders but I assume them not to be the actual murderers.

You can complain that these tests are unreasonable and impossible and you will gain my sympathetic understanding. The President may ignore these strictures and rely on the inertia of patriotism and his popularity to carry him. But eventually the friction of the left wing media will prevail and his capacity to wage war will be weakened. Bush has crossed this threshold and Fallujah (or should I say the perception of Fallujah) is part of the reason.

The President simply cannot lose the war of perceptions and remain a war President.

Of course other factors like Najef and especially the prison scandal have contributed. But there can be no doubt that Bush has lost the perception battle over the battle of Fallujah. The question is, has he also lost the war? The first sentence of your article from the WSJ Opinion page says it all, meaning the media is simply not reporting the administration’s successes in Fallujah. These three have been used by the media to disillusion the American public and make them war weary. Consider the cost to Bush in the last 30 days to his approval ratings, the confidence in the conduct of the war, and his standing in the polls. More than half the nation now disapproves of his handling of Iraq and the line was crossed since we handed off at Fallujah.

We react to Fallujah because we are emotionally involved because of the atrocities committed there but we should also care about Fallujah because it is part of the war in Iraq and thus part of the World War against terrorism. To the degree that Bush loses ground in the election, America loses ground in this greater war and that imperils us at home.

I believe that Fallujah is also important ( and now I have the chance to finally find something positive to say,) because it represents a sea change in our policy in Iraq and one which I might add thankfully goes a long way to solving the 7+ perception problems listed above which confront a war President. In essence, Fallujah represents the inflection point in which the administration abandoned its Wilsonian goal of granting Iraq a Jeffersonian democracy through and extended occupation with attendant unavoidable casualties in favor of a more Machiavellian reality which deals with the Mullahs and local strongmen in a way reminiscent of the British occupation of India. I have previously posted along these lines many times.

It seems to me there are two models of waging war on the ground against terrorists. The first is Afghanistan and the second is Iraq. In Afghanistan, America demonstrated the capacity and the will to take out a government which had supported terrorists but undertook relatively little in building a shining new western democracy. Our cost in blood and treasure has been minimal. The second model, Iraq, saw the attempt to build a democratic paradigm at much greater cost.

Rather than being applauded for our selfless trouble, the distorted Arab mind sees our efforts and losses to be indicia of defeat in a quagmire. Indeed, much of the world, including western Europe and the domestic Democrat party see the efforts as, at best, misguided. These efforts in these two countries should not be judged sui generis but in the context of the world war against Muslim fanaticism and terror. I believe that Assad while Machiavellian is not foolish and has considered and rejected the possibility that he could end up in solitary confinement like Saddam if he flirts too closely with the terrorists. He probably fears his own fundamentalists more than the possibility that America will take him out. This is not the fear of Uncle Sam that we want to be animating the actions of these Arab dictators.

I listened intently to Charles Krauthammer s acceptance speech at his award from the Heritage Foundation in which he argued cogently that the Iraq model of building a democracy was not a bridge too far. I hope feverently that he is correct but I suspect that some dictators like Assad are betting that he is not. Assad has, in effect, concluded that George Bush has shot his bolt and cannot possibly start another war. He sees a fifty fifty chance that Bush will lose this election and Kerry will revert to the feckless appeasement of the Clinton administration.

I think it is time we reconsidered whether we can virtually alone take on the task of nation building throughout the Arab world and in Iran with the inevitable attendant guerrilla conflicts following a relatively cheap and easy regime change. Bush should modify his doctrine to confine it to regime change without the moral obligation to pay and bleed and die for a new democratic nation. If in the aftermath of regime change and new odious dictator assumes power, so be it, unless he supports terror in which case he will know that he will go the way of his predecessor.

I pray that the successes which this article cites are real and enduring. I pray equally that they are seen to be such. I earnestly hope that the turn in Fallujah on the ground and as a figure of the administration's change of policy has not come too late.

132 posted on 06/01/2004 7:56:33 AM PDT by nathanbedford

To: nathanbedford

I must admit that I initially envisioned a final kill in plain sight by my anaconda instead of having the anaconda slip under the water and disappear quietly with it's prey.

However, as the commander on the ground decided, as noted in the article, that would have caused too much destruction. The cost/benefit analysis is his call.

In regards to perception, we now, unlike 59 years ago, unfortunately have an enemy that will ensure that we always lose that battle:

Post 15 of FR Thread "Death Toll: U.S. Iraq Casualties Setting Records (gag alert)"

133 posted on 06/01/2004 8:33:43 AM PDT by Polybius

Here is an interesting account from a marine to his dad:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1146613/posts

Incidently, I was flattered to hear Faheed Zakawia(?) of Newseek and of ABC'S Stephanopolus adopt my Brithish Raj analogy on Aaron Brown a few minutes ago.

134 posted on 06/02/2004 9:14:56 PM PDT by nathanbedford

Here is another view of Fallujah for your review:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20761-2004Jun6.html

135 posted on 06/08/2004 9:10:24 AM PDT by nathanbedford

Here is yet another account for your review of the failure of the deal in Fallujah:
Marines: Deal with Iraqis in Fallujah may be failing
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1153593/posts

136 posted on 06/14/2004 9:49:16 PM PDT by nathanbedford

Anyone who predicted that our Fallujah solution would end badly must surely be rethinking whatever facts and logic they used in forming such disproven thoughts, too.

Here is one of several articles quoting Marines who believe that the "Fallujah solution [has}end[ed]badly..." I think those who reflexively supported their President or just the Corps should now come out and restate their positon on the Fallujah deal. At the time of the deal, I posted that the violence would diminish but that no murderers of our civilians or ringleaders of the insurgents would be brought to justice and that the whole bug out resembled Tora Bora. One might justify the Fallujah deal on domestic political terms but all pretenses of a military strategy suceeding should be recanted.

137 posted on 06/14/2004 10:04:31 PM PDT by nathanbedford

To: nathanbedford

"One might justify the Fallujah deal on domestic political terms but all pretenses of a military strategy suceeding should be recanted."

Why? 2,000 of the 2,500 insurgents were killed in Fallujah. The remaining 500 have no national support and are stuck fighting with fellow Iraqis.

Iraqis are now bleeding to police their own nation. This is what we want. We don't want to baby-sit them forever, we want them taking responsibility for themselves.

Moreover, it is up to the *insurgents* to go out and wreck the peace. Every day that they are stuck in Fallujah means yet another victory for our countrywide peace efforts.

In short, don't confuse the lack of complete anihilation with failure. The insurgents left in Fallujah serve as a daily reminder to the people of Iraq that no one wants to be stuck without a supply chain, without popular support, and without the ability to do anything outside of that one town. Who wants to live under the oppressive rule of the Fallujah mullahs and militia commanders? Who wants to fight fellow Iraqis? Who wants to go without pay and get shafted with poor equipment and lousy food? Who wants to live in an area that isn't getting U.S. rebuilding funds any longer?

Fallujah is a national recruiting poster, writ large, for what Iraqis *don't* want.

In the meantime, the new Iraqi government is fast becoming a fait accompli. The insurgents spent so much of their efforts fighting the wrong battles that they are only now realizing that they missed the bigger war.

Don't make that mistake yourself.

138 posted on 06/14/2004 10:20:00 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

Baloney. You are changing the standard to suit events.

The President, the administration, and the generals promoted the investiture of Fallujah as the means of apprehending the murders of our fellow citizens whose bodies were mutilated and hung from a bridge.

The "deal" which was used to justify our bug out before the last holdouts were killed was touted as part of the original "plan" which was advertised in advance of the battle when it was obviously nothing of the kind.

The bug out was so egregious that posters like me called it another Tora Bora and flatly predicted all these outcomes...

and we were right on every count.

Fallujah is a national recruiting poster, writ large, for what Iraqis *don't* want

No Fallujah is a poster for a change in policy from democratization of Iraq to deal cutting and no amount of revisionism can change the reality. Fallujah is a poster for the fact that the American writ no longer runs in Iraq. It is a poster which says that terrorism and resistance works and that the American Marine corps is not willing to accept the casualties necessary to make its writ run.

You can argue that this change of policy to one of cutting deals with strongmen and Baathists is a good idea, but please do not try to deny the evidence before our eyes.

139 posted on 06/14/2004 11:31:47 PM PDT by nathanbedford

To: nathanbedford

The evidence before your eyes is that millions of Iraqis aren't flocking to live under the glorious regime of the Fallujah survivors.

The evidence before your eyes is that millions of Iraqis are living their daily lives as if there wasn't even an insurgency. More electricity is being delivered, more oil is being sold, more schools and hospitals with better staffs and equipment in all...are all better now than pre-war everywhere except Fallujah and Sadr City.

The evidence before your eyes is that Iraqis are policing their own in Fallujah.

Sure, you wanted the clear victory of ego-gratifying overwhelming force that turned Fallujah into the next Carthage. Fine. Wish away.

But the broader goal was to start getting Iraqis responsible for policing thier own country, something that they are now doing in Fallujah...even at the cost of their own blood.

That's the victory. That and the honeypot effect that lead so many insurgents into that one little pocket for our Marines to dispatch by the thousands.

Hey insurgents, who wants to mass in the thousands today?! Anyone? Class? Class? Anyone? Farris??

140 posted on 06/14/2004 11:40:05 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794