[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

[Polybius]

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

I have never considered that deal in Fallujah to be an end or a beginning but merely a phase in a long battle or, if you will, a campaign.

As I had posted to others much earlier in the thread, I am waiting for the battle to be "over" and I tend to take a long view of things.

Just as the failures of Cold Harbor and the bright idea of the Petersburg Mine that ended with the spectacular failure of the Battle of the Crater were unsuccessful phases in Grant's overall 1864 campaign strategy that started in May 1864 at The Wilderness and did not end until the Army of Northern Virginia had been bled and starved to death by April of 1865, so is the Fallujah deal such a dead end in a single long campaign.

The Marines still have the insurgents bottled up in Fallujah just as Grant had the Army of Norther Virginia bottled up at Petersburg.

If one dead-end, such as the Petersburg Mine or the Fallujah deal, is a failure, a change in tactical strategy can then be made without declaring the campaign itself "lost".

For the time being, although not currently a killing field as it was several weeks ago, Fallujah is serving the purpose that Rabaul served for MacArthur.