Some Marines angry over deal to pull out of Fallujah

spacewar.com ^ | Apr 30, 2004 | AFP

[Destro]

Some marines angry over deal to pull out of Fallujah

CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq (AFP) Apr 30, 2004

A decision to let former members of Saddam's army handle security in Fallujah has infuriated some of the US Marines who pulled back from the powderkeg city after weeks of violent battles. "Now it's going to get worse," said Lance Corporal Julius Wright, 20, one of the marines who withdrew from positions on the frontlines of the embattled Iraqi city that had been under a US siege since April 5.

The marines started a gradual withdrawal to a wider perimeter Friday as the first 200 members of the new Fallujah Brigade moved into parts of the city.

US commanders hope the Iraqi force, made up mainly of former members of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein's disbanded army, will be able to restore some form of law and order to Fallujah, a city partly controlled by anti-coalition forces.

Senior US officers acknowledge they are not fully convinced the deal will work out, and that Marines are prepared to retake their frontline positions if it doesn't.

Many of the grunts, on the other hand firmly believe the idea is doomed.

"Honestly, I don't think they're going to be able to do it," said Corporal Elias Chavez, 28.

"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.

Wright agreed.

"We pulled out when we should of went in."

[nathanbedford]

Context is eveything. Here we announced to the world that this was our fight and then we backed off. So there is a lot of harm done.

I have already cited George Wills column and I now refer you to this post and I quote a portion

Fallujah pullout sending mixed policy messages
By GLENN KESSLER and BRADLEY GRAHAM
Washington Post

To some analysts, the administration left the impression it was grasping at alternatives, with little sense of how this new tactic fit into the larger strategy or of its possible pitfalls. In much of the world, the agreement was first described as a retreat by Americans in the face of stubborn resistance by insurgent forces.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1127762/posts

[Southack]

Context does matter.

In this case, what we did was set up the situation such that an Iraqi could be viewed as the ultimate hero.

Fallujah was already neutered, though we kept that fact out of the press (the remaining insurgents had been herded by the Marines into a single slum in one tiny corner of that city). Now an Iraqi general gets to walk in and show his whole nation that he is the "one" who solved this enormous "problem."

He'll be a hero, a heavy favorite in the eventual Iraqi elections to become President, his fellow Iraqis will love him and suddenly have pride again in how well they can solve their own problems, and the U.S. can smile all the way to the bank.

Hey, the world doesn't have to officially know that the insurgents were beaten down so much by the U.S. that even an untrained ragtag bunch of former Republican Guards could put down their remaining uprising.

The U.S. doesn't need the credit. What we need is for Iraqis to take back control of their government so that we can go home without Iraq becoming a trouble spot for us again...and we're going to get that result from this Iraqi general who owes a great debt to us now. Heck, we've set him up now so that he's about to become an international hero.

Soon Iraqis will be governing their own country again. All that this guy has to do is "solve" the last remnants of Fallujah's uprising problem.

[endthematrix]

You are right. It isn't about credit but about stability. Does it hurt in our pride? To some here on FR and to grunts on the front lines, yes. But context does matter and some very good planning and foresight is being conducted in the war rooms. America has produced the best military war planners ever seen. Now the State Dept...well that's different.

[Texasforever]

Good post.

[Travis McGee]

Bingo.

[nathanbedford]

Southack

I have read and admired many of your posts but the most charitable thing I can say now is that this is not up to your standard. Why do strain at a gnat and swallow the whole camel?

[Polybius]

What real victory? What battlefield? This is not D Day, this is Tora Bora.

Based on what? Your hysterics?

At Tora Bora, the U.S. allowed Afghans to seal the trails and got burned. Lesson learned.

At Fallujah, the U.S. Marines have completely surrounded the city with a five foot high berm, manned by U.S. Marines, that took field engineers weeks to build.

The Battle of Fajullah is not over yet and you are declaring defeat based on a previous battle? As if lessons aren't constantly learned?

"This is another Kasserine Pass !!" "This is another Kasserine Pass !!!"

Meanwhile, you cannot fight the greater war on terrorism and exterminate the terrorists before they destroy Cleveland without the help of Europe.

Ummmm.....O.K......So, if, and this is only a hypothetical "if", there were to be a defeat such as, say, Dunkirk, Singapore or Dieppe, that means that all of Europe would withold any help in defeating a murderous enemy?

If you cannot get Europe to help because it is right, then get them to help because we are meanest mothers in the valley.

Non sequitur. Your previous point was that the U.S. looked weak in "pictures". Now you complain about the U.S. being seen as "the meanest mothers in the valley". You can't have it both ways.

Right now the pictures make us look like il Duce conducting an Italian ground campaign and not a force which must be accomodated. Even your 13 year old daughter can look at the pictures and tell the difference.

And at the Battle of Trebbia, Hannibal led the Romans to believe that the Carthagenian cavalry was retreating in panic.........

(Thirteen year old Roman girl: "Look, Pater, the Carthagenians are running away like scared old women!")

......... before Hannibal sprung his trap and destroyed an entire Roman Army killing between 15,000 and 20,000 Romans.

So, what's your point?

That illusions count more than reality?

Go ahead and judge the battle right now.

I will judge the battle after the battle is over.

"In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies".......Winston Churchill

[river rat]

Your analysis requires faith in a Muslim, former Republican Guard officer that I lack.

This General would need balls of brass and a wheel barrow to haul them in to kill Islamist Jihadists for the Infidels.

He would have to know, that would make him and his family a target for the lunatics..

Granted -- If a few well known and respected Iraqi Military leaders would step forward and kill to secure the country from the Islamists -- BIG things could happen..

I'm not sure I'm that confident yet...
The Iraqi military has never performed reliably....
I don't expect that to change anytime soon...

Semper Fi

[Polybius]

Southack I have read and admired many of your posts but the most charitable thing I can say now is that this is not up to your standard. Why do strain at a gnat and swallow the whole camel?

I fully agree with Southack's assessment in Post 82.

As I noted in my Post 87, Nathan, things are seldom as they seem to be during war, especially in the middle of a battle.

It seems, Nathan, that you are bound and determined to declare defeat in the Battle of Fallujah right here and now.

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.

[Miami_U_Redskin]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[endthematrix]

"You can't have it both ways."

That is the angle that the anti-US media is playing. Nathan's frustration is playing on the opposite side of whatever the media is stewing up at the moment. When the Marines are reinforcing their defenses, to Reuters it is quagmire and angers those who want a MOAB dropped. If the US assaults then AP distorts it as a humanitarian disaster and empirical aggression. If one Marine dies it's spun as a lost cause and Vietnam. You can't win the anti-US PR campaign. Contain the city and let the nation of Iraq begin to flourish and diffuse any attempts to derail the overall strategy...and the '04 election. Then focus on narrowing the extreme elements at kill them.

[endthematrix]

He may be less a Muslim than we know. Uncle Sam bestows wealth and power to those who tow the line.

[Barlowmaker]

Nice show of disrespect to the "grunt's" opinion. Why? because it goes against the party line? The "grunt's" opinion may be wrong or right but it should not be dismissed with disrespect like you have done.

Let's bring a crew of Serbs in to show the Middle East what goat humping fascists really look like.

[nathanbedford]

Agreed, fair enough.

[nathanbedford]

Actually I am frustrated by flip flopping of our policy with respect to Fallujah. From bluster to withdrawal. The left will attack, you are correct, but lets at least present a consistent policy so that we are not attacked on two sides. We should leave that art to Kerry.

Publius has falsly accused me of wanting it both ways, I do not complain because we are too aggresive in winning Wuropean cooperation in the greater war against terrorism but because our vacillation undermines any chance for a European politician to take a career risk for a country which behaves the way we are in Fallujah.

Polybius has obviously misunderstood my remarks and construed them precisly opposite of their intended meaning, although in good faith.

[nathanbedford]

Curious that you did not cite the Tet offensive to illustrate reality over perception.

[meenie]

Not the duty to question why, 'tis the duty to live or die. This kid is becoming a veteran!

[been_lurking]

Curious that you did not cite the Tet offensive to illustrate reality over perception.

Even more curious is your apparent desire to prosecute the war in a manner that satisfies media perception.

Which do you feel is more important at this moment, reality or media's perception?

[milemark]

I only heard one guy that was upset.

There were two in this article alone, Wright and Chavez. I've heard of several others on radio reports yesterday. Many do not like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[milemark]

The Iraqis are now being given a chance to participate in the dirty work of liberating their own country.

That bears repeating!

Given their recent efforts at this dirty work (quiting or joining the other side) it bears hysterical laughter.