Military Commanders’ Decisions in Fallujah Overridden by Politicians (CONFIRMED)

Fox Live Broadcast / USA Today Interview ^ | 5/3/04 | Jim Michaels

[elfman2]

Freepers have been hotly debating whether politicians or military commanders made the decision to cancel the Fallujahn offensive.

Today Fox News Live’s Jon Scott (I believe) interviewed Jim Michaels (USA Today Reporter) just back from Fallujah. I transcribed the relevant portion of the interview. In summary he said that the Marines were told to stop the attack by Administrator Bremer under pressure from the Iraqi Governing Council.

MICHAELS – “No one [in the Marines] was happy with the cease fire. The American contractors were killed.

“They got the order to go in, as we know, on a big offensive. They were in the offensive for whatever, seven or eight days and boom the politicians said no, hold back, there’s too many casualties.

“The governing council, the Iraqi governing council, was really upset. They went to Mr. Bremer. Mr. Bremer in turn sort ‘a put in the order to hold back.

“While they were in this cease fire meanwhile the insurgents were in there, the insurgents were in there rearming re-supplying you know, taking advantage of of the lull in activities, so they were in a real bind here, and they really had no choice, they say, except to come up with the idea for a Fallujah Brigade.

“Otherwise these guys would still be in there and the ceasefire would still be going on, and these talks that they were having were going nowhere. The sheiks (sp?) were just kind ‘a sipping tea with coalition officials and were nowhere, It was just getting nowhere at all. “

SCOTT –“So very quickly Jim, Do the bad folks in Fallujah think that they’ve won?”

MICHAELS – “They do indeed! They’re running around the past couple of days, celebrating and saying you know that they’ve fought things to a stand still. They’re really taking a propaganda victory out of this. “

“They’re really running around saying, you know, they fought the American forces to a standstill. You know they’re pushing it for all it’s worth.”

SCOTT –“So how does that effect their overall strategy to win the hearts and minds of the the Iraqis - the fact that they’re claiming a victory in Fallujah?

MICHAELS – Well pol… It doesn’t help. And it’s one of the biggest fears that the Marines have is that a week, 10 days down the road, this things going to continue to snowball, and and these guys are going to claim victory, and it presents a BIG propaganda problem for the American forces there. It its a big risk.

"The Marines said that they had no choice, that they were in a stand off and the ceasefire whas going nowhere."

[McGavin999]

Well, most of us listened to his speech. We all knew that the fighting wasn't over, just the major combat. We also listened to the first speech he made that said this was going to be a long war. I don't know about you, but I believed him and still do.

This didn't build up overnight and it won't be defeated overnight.

Even here on this site, all people seem to focus on is what he has done wrong, very little credit for what he as done right.

This man went through the most trying transition period in history, right after he got in office, our plane was taken by the Chinese, a few months after that we were attacked. Our military had been desimated to 40% of it's strength, most of our cruise missiles had been used up and not replaced, and still, in just 2 years he has freed Afghanistan, freed Iraq, cut our taxes, passed partial birth abortion laws, fought a congress who has been filibustering judges (again first time in history) and all anyone can do is complain.

Sorry, I don't have a lot of patience with people who can only see the bad.

[A Jovial Cad]

Oh, yeah, that was just a wonderful update from our man-in-the-field, Super-Secret Agent Section9!
[Sarcasm/]

Get real.

[McGavin999]

BTW, the only reason you heard so much praise here for the carrier landing is because it was an act of personal courage.

[WOSG]

"The year was 1975, not 2004, and the city was Saigon, not Fallujah. "

Oh please. No comparison...

"It raises hackles and reminders of an humiliating American fiasco not easily forgotten for those of us who lived through it."

Today also bears absolutely no resemblance to Saigon 1975.

I've posted on the whole Vietnam 'debunking' story. The fact is, the USA spent a lot of lives and treasure *winning* a peace in 1973. Thanks to anti-war defeatist Democrats, in 1974 and 1975 we threw away that peace and that victory, and did not lift a finger to help South Vietnam.

A huge army swept from the North to the South. With B-52s we could have destroyed that army and South Vietnam could have, on the ground, done the rest... but we did nothing.

bugging out of Saigon was a foregone conclusion of our unwillingness to fight this new war that broke out 2 years after we achieved peace in Vietnam. Our air support could have saved South Vietnam at virtually no danger to the US.

"But, given the pattern in Fallujah to date, I would feel much better hearing it from the Chairman of the JCS, and on national television."

We got better than that 3 weeks back. We got a message of resolve and a vision from President Bush. We also have had plenty of words of resolution from CENTCOM and the whole chain of command. They are *VERY* clear about the mission. A free and democratic Iraq based on the political process that CPA and IGC and UN and Iraqis have agreed upon.

This will succeed, unless these terrorists derail that process.

We have the resolve to win, and we have an acheivable vision - a democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

What we are discussing now is the Strategy to achieve that. Some of us dont like that Marines were not allowed to finish the job in fallujah. Okay, but dont imagine that just because that hell-hole has thugs running around that town that our political process will fail.

This is far different from 1975, when the anti-war Democrats had hollowed out our resolve and had no vision for Indochina except to leave it to the whims of Communist predators. That made Communist victory a foregone conclusion.

[WOSG]

A great post.

[expatguy]

This is a different war.

Different war? There is only one kind of war. The kind you fight to win.

[A Jovial Cad]

You're preaching to the choir on this one, on your general points. Nearly everything you say is correct about the *history* of what actually occurred in Vietnam (actually, I just said that to stroke your ego and make this go easier; it's clear that you know very little about the history of the Vietnam War, or the context of the wars America engaged in before it. Sorry).
But this is what you don't grasp: the same "ohhhh, puhhleeze--there's no comparing the two!!!" attitude you post with is the same thing many of us heard when comparing the "die-for-a-tie" Korean conflict with the then-current activities going on in Southeast Asia, circa 1969.
Well...you fellow's are back! And as assertive and arrogant as ever! This time it's not the Yalu River or Tet you're lecturing us about--it's Fallujah, Iraq. And it's the same old "go-along-to-get-along" crap; "we've got to let the enemy win *here*, in this particular place, because the [World Community; the Soviets; the Arab World; etc., and etc., fill-in-the-appropriate-blank] might be offended, and we can't have that!"
Obfuscation and puling cowardice, plain and simple. Given your tatterdemalion standards of how to wage war, Hitler & Tojo's spirit would live on today in Germany and Japan, and the Nazis would split the world with the Imperial Japanese Empire, given your hair-splitting "can't-we-all-just-let-the-enemy-win-just-this-one-victory?" attitude. As I stated previously, I'VE HEARD YOUR PECULIAR BRAND OF GARBAGE BEFORE. Please spare me any more of *that* kind of special pleading about what a geopolitical genius you are regarding this matter. It simply doesn't wash with those of us who've seen it all before.

[A Jovial Cad]

*A great post*

Ha, ha...your credibility just tilted to zero. A "post" heavily-larded with insults and wrapped in gentle falsehoods hardly qualifies as "great."
But then, you probably hew to the Clinton standard about what the meaning of "is" is. Understandable in that context.

[lainde]

bttt

[A Jovial Cad]

*Different war? There is only one kind of war. The kind you fight to win*

Exactly, precisely right.

[kissmyconservativebutt]

Thanks for hitting me on this one. I am seeing stuff like this all over the web right now. This general apparently denied there were even insurgents in Fallujah.

There are some serious idiots (wannabe conservatives) on these forums that have no clue what they are talking about. I am just going to ignore them from now on. It's like talking to a democrat.

[kissmyconservativebutt]

Gee, how can we know this from 6000000 miles away?

[LS]

Em, "smartass Rummy" didn't try to do anything "on the cheap." You ignore the fact that NOT ONE, I repeat, NOT ONE commander in the field has asked for more troops. The reports I get are that more men would get "in the way."

You still don't get that this isn't a NATO set-piece war won by more men and more armor, but an intel war of patience and we are doing it exactly the right way---if all the chicken littles don't stop us before we complete the job. As for the "werewolves," it took FIVE YEARS in Germany to get rid of these people, and that's with the Russkies having half the country.

As for your IDIOTIC comment about tax cuts, I don't know how people can continue to be SO STUPID. Federar revenue, based on the last IRS stats, show that revenue has RISEN after the tax cuts.

[LS]

It's your arguments that are ridiculous, and increasingly so with each new post.

[LS]

Please do.

[Eurotwit]

**Different war? There is only one kind of war. The kind you fight to win*

*Exactly, precisely right.**

I second that.

But, what is winning? What is the strategic objective?

[dread78645]

No fair quoting Sun Tzu!

Carl von Clausewitz, CoS Prussian Army.

[lentulusgracchus]

Em, "smartass Rummy" didn't try to do anything "on the cheap."

He absolutely did -- you missed the quote last year. "On the cheap" is a verbatim quote from Rumsfeld's lips to our ears.

You ignore the fact that NOT ONE, I repeat, NOT ONE commander in the field has asked for more troops.

Did I say everyone had to be over there at the same time? No, I'm talking about having more people in the rotation, because our re-enlistment rate is beginning to drop off. No telling how far it'll drop off, but if enlisted men have had a couple of tours over there, I think it's reasonable to expect, unless they're lifer fish, that they might decide to find something else to do if reupping gets them two or three more tours in-country.

Furthermore, just to quibble, the people designing last year's operation wanted more boots, but Bush and Rumsfeld kept sending their eggs back until the operational planners sized the invasion the way Bush wanted it -- cheap.

[lentulusgracchus]

As for your IDIOTIC comment about tax cuts, I don't know how people can continue to be SO STUPID.

Why don't you just tell me then what I said wrong?

I said that Bush has absolutely and consistently privileged tax cuts for the investor class above every other policy objective, arguably including the War on Terror since there has been no call to bulk up the military to take on operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan commanders did have resources sequestered out of their reach because of the Iraq War buildup. Wouldn't it have been nice to fill everyone's pipeline?

I say that, by the way, as a (humble) member of the investor class myself. Presumably someone in Bush's office somewhere is looking at a Laffer Curve. But I think people in New York are looking at numbers, their own numbers, and giving Bush political direction to privilege their current income above national objectives. That is what I am saying.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


Section9,


Try to understand that the Marines on the ground know what they are doing. They know how to wait. It's why they're considered to be the "thinking" service.


I've never served active duty military, but your analysis is right on target.


The Fallujah-Syrians desperately wanted the USMC to take the bait of the four (4) Contractors' bodies --- luring the USMC all the way through town, in excess of battalion strength units, allowing us to conveniently "converge" into the Golan neighborhood.


The Fallujah-Syrians wanted to re-create another Somolia, except on a grander scale, a la Cecil B. DeVille and "Moses and the Ten Commandments".

Not only were the buildings wired with explosives to hell and back, but strategic view points were pre-positioned with Al-Jerreza (sp) TV-video CAMERA CREWS, conveniently embedded with the Fallujah-Syrians.

The Fallujah-Syrians' final objective ?

A (failed) attempt to recreate the 1968 Tet offensive on a wider scale, with hundreds of USMC casulties, thousands of civilian casualties (real and faked), ALL broadcast GLOBALLY, with the "best video feeds" Fed-Ex delivered to George Soros and Hillary Clinton.



CREDIT the USMC and their superb Commander-in-Chief and Rumsfeld and Chenny for their foresight in NOT stumbling (a la Krinton the Oval Office) into a political and military castrophe.

Time is on AMERICA'S side here.

Section9 is right. America WILL prevail in Fallujah, despite the best efforts of Saudis secret funding against us, the Democrats, and that moron Gary Trudeau ...



Strength and Honor,

Patton@Bastogne
Free Republic Member since 1998


.