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."

[Joe Hadenuf]

The alternative is to sit in your grass hut with your eyes and ears covered. Of course the media is generally liberal and biased, but completely falsifying stories in a war zone? If you've got stories that things are going just swell in Fallujah, post away.

No kidding.

These party people are over the top. If things are going great, they run articles about attacks on Fallujah up to 2000 posts, telling everyone how we are killing them all while worshiping the President for doing such a good job. Yet when things go south, we are all fools for believing it. LOL!

[RinaseaofDs]

The war's just begun, it isn't over, and if allowed to, we will take away the enemies desire to make war.

You are one of the enlightened people that needs to see another 3,000 to 40,000 of your fellow Americans die. You'll see it on TV, jump back on the bandwagon, and three years later, you'll be back here saying we need to bring the boys home from Malaysia, or wherever. Another 5,000 Americans will die in an attack here at home, and you'll be back on that wagon.

It's the nature of most liberals, and people who haven't actually spent time with Arabs in the Middle East. This problem is about 60 years old, and we are picking up the check instead of passing it on to our kids.

It's alright, you have a right to be the way you are, a true benefit of our political system, and your taxpayer investment in military hardware and people.

[george wythe]

“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. “

American GIs will pay with their lives for this capitulation in Fallujah. The spineless Arabs have found a spine to fight against the US military, the same spine that was missing when their strongman was in power.

The only language that Arabs understand, the language of force, is telling them that they can kill/mutilate Americans and get rewarded with a "ceasefire."

[swarthyguy]

Yes, I could. So could many others.

Failure is the Admininstration's responsibility.

Faith is for religious deities, not for the President or his minions, For them performance and effectiveness is the criteria.

And as of right now, the southern cities are not under US control. Vacillation in the CPA and the White House has given the Fallujans a victory.

Why did we not take Falluja. Could it have been that our supply lines are threatened because of insufficient troops?

So, apart from Kurdistan, show me what's working.

[Joe Hadenuf]

This problem is about 60 years old, and we are picking up the check instead of passing it on to our kids.

What problem are you referring to?

[XJarhead]

American GIs will pay with their lives for this capitulation in Fallujah. The spineless Arabs have found a spine to fight against the US military, the same spine that was missing when their strongman was in power.

What's the basis for the assumption that we've "capitulated" in Fallujah? The most the evidence supports is that politicians directed a halt to an anticipated all-out Marine offensive.

But whether that halt is temporary or permanent is what we here do not know. The President has said that it is a conditional halt, designed to determine whether Iraqis are willing to step forward and accept responsibility. And that if they don't, we will finish the job ourselves. Is there any evidence contradicting what the President said? Because I sure haven't seen it.

[expatguy]

It's the nature of most liberals, and people who haven't actually spent time with Arabs in the Middle East...[sic]"

Twenty years under my belt friend, I think I have a little bit of an idea of what I am talking about when I post about what the mood is on the "arab street".

You seem to be of the opinion that this battle can be won with something short of victory. I am not that naive.

You type about the enemy's desire to make war. Do you know what is behind that motivation? Do you know why they want to kill you?

[george wythe]

What's the basis for the assumption that we've "capitulated" in Fallujah?The most the evidence supports is that politicians directed a halt

The first clue was the terrorists dancing in the streets, the same thugs who have killed both military and civilian Americans, mutilated them, and paraded them all over the Fallujah streets.

We can spin the capitulation in Fallujah all day long, but we cannot change the perception of reality on the ground. The terrorists are embolden to repeat the Fallujah "halt" all over Iraq now.

And if we go back to retake the city, the second time around will be costlier than during the original offensive.

As a Marine said a month ago, "We either fight them now or we fight them later." Later is costlier.

I hope I'll be proven wrong.

[My2Cents]

So, we should win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and their emerging leaders, by flipping them off?

[A Jovial Cad]

Actually, I agree with just about everything in your post. The only thing I would disagree with to any degree, and even then not all that much, is allowing long range *strategic* decisions to always trump tactical considerations. Sometimes they must, of course, but when the *raison d'etre* of troops in the field is always what some diplomat back in Washington thinks will be their appropriate "winning of hearts and minds" role, I think we have a problem. There are times for both the carrot and the stick in Iraq by our forces; I just happened to believe Fallujah was an instance where we need to use a little more stick. Others disagree, which is fine, but the bulk of them, like Super-secret Agent-man, resort to childish insults to express that disagreement. As you said yourself: *I don't come here to freerepublic to insult or to be insulted.* Neither do I, but there's been a lot of that going around.
Not on your part, however; thank-you for a civil tone to your reply.

*As for jihadees dancing in Fallujah. They even danced in the Fallujah soccerfield claiming victory even as they buried several hundreds of themselves. I guess, they would still be dancing even if a third of the population was killed off.

They are nuts.*

Absolutely agreed.

*I appologize for my rambling thoughts.

Cheers*

Not rambling at all; I found them concise, to the point, and on topic. Thanks for the post.

Sincerely, AJC

[RinaseaofDs]

The acquiescence of past foreign policy to Arab monarchies as they turn a blind eye to the impoverishment of their citizens, and the indoctrination of their children in Madras' (the only book they use, from age 4 to age 13 is the Quran, memorizing all 6666 passages), the subjugation of women there as something just higher in status than cattle. Entire generations of children being raised by women who's men are allowed to beat them to keep them in line - as a matter of proper religious and moral conduct.

Generations of abused children that grew up to be abused adults coming after us with 9 years of anti-western hatred under their belt.

France is starting to expel Arabs, the Dutch are waking up, and so are the Spaniards and Italians - though they are doing so ever so quietly.

And no amount of goodwill, not the risk of American soldiers in the Balkans, halting the spread of ethnic cleansing against Arabs, no amount of money, no amount of negotiation is going to make these people love us completely.

We actually have the very best shot possible in Iraq, due to the secular nature of Hussein's rule, the banning of Madras', and the brutal nature of the regime. The next best shot we've got is Iran - Persian, not Arab. Islamic, true, but most of the young people aren't buying it.

All of the garbage on the news, regarding our mistreatment - massively overblown. We are releasing people from Gitmo only to see them shooting back at us within two weeks.

This isn't a police action, its a war, and it isn't being conducted like one. Add to that the disloyalty of the opposition party, and you have the situation you are in today.

We made Japan work, and we made Germany work. If you can make Japan work, you can make just about any country a democracy. You just have to take the fight out of them using any means necessary. Patton and every general that wasn't called upon to be an ad hoc civil administrator understands this millenia old concept of how war is conducted. It is ugly and a crime unto itself, but wars are fought until one side gives up completely.

[Eurotwit]

Thanks for your post.

I must admit that I am not particularly happy with what is going on at the moment. I am even going to go so far and state that I think the long term strategic objective might have been better served by a devastating military action in Fallujah.

But, I am in a little flat in Oslo, so for the moment I see no other choice than to trust the decision makers who have a "slight" intelligence edge compared to me and my CNN feed. And using my limited analytical ability based on the scarse information available, I think the course being pursued seems promising, and can save lives on both sides and help achieve the main objective to boot.

I just watched Rumsfelds presser from the Pentagon. He still stated that the four red lines put down by the US WILL be observed. If not by the new fallujah brigade, then by the Marines.

That is somehow heartening. Certainly Rumsfeld would be better off not making such statements if he did not intend to follow through.

Cheers.

[section9]

Nice try.

Everything I have stated has been confirmed to me by my source as having been passed through public briefings given at CENTCOM. They have given nothing away, and I strongly suspect that we have been a whole hell of a lot more successful on the ground than even you are ready to admit.

The services have been briefing the public as to the military dispositions on the ground. YOU simply haven't wanted to listen, simply because YOU thought that you could outthink the commanders on the ground. You want to believe that a catastrophic defeat is at hand when a lot of Marine officers, who know a whole lot more than you, have a clue as to how to handle Fallujah. You want a freaking bayonet charge when there's a smarter way out? Send your own kid.

Next time, try not to change the subject just because you haven't a freaking clue what's going on, as is apparent. Now get back in your armchair.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Patton@Bastogne]

.

KissMyConservativeButt


Maybe I missed something. This is what I get from this sentence and the entire post you made: the Marines would have fallen into a military catastrophe had they went into Fallujah, and thatnk God for the politicians getting involved?


The USMC decision to STAY-OUT of Fallujah immediately after the four Contractor's deaths/murders was NOT a political decision.

It was clearly a MILITARY decision.

The USMC general staff obviously smelled a Rat (in this case an Iraqi-Syrian ambush attempt, as opposed to other Rats such as Ted Kennedy, ad naseum).



There's another MAJOR point to be made regarding Bush and the USMC decisions to attempt some sort of "quasi-political" solution to Fallujah.


The entire Fallujah situation is "political" in nature, created by the Islamic Fascist Sadr and his "silent" Sunni/Shiite co-conspirators scattered from Damascus to Tehran.

Neutralize, blackmail, and otherwise defeat the Damascus-Tehran axis, and the "Fallujah Problem" is automatically solved. Period.

Except for a (very) few isolated comments, both Damascus-Tehran, and the Sunni/Shiite Top-Dogs have been noticeably quiet as of late, especially since the USMC announced their "retreat" from Fallujah (according to Reuters, those award winning military news reporters).


Why is that ? It's simple.

The Bad Guys are secretly getting their Poker-Faced-A$$es kicked around the Table by a stunning and winning combination of USMC sniper-team fire and political maneuvering by Paul Bremmer & Company.


What happens in the End Game ?

We Win.



Patton@Bastogne


.

[RinaseaofDs]

I have an idea . . .

From another thread today:

Islamofascist; Radical Islam is an insane death cult, and "moderate" Islam is its Trojan Horse in the West.

Deroy Murdock writes for NRO: "After being released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, former Afghan detainee Faiz Mohammed complained to the Washington Post : "The Americans treated me well, but they were not Muslims, so I didn't like them." The West should be so lucky as to confront nothing more than Mr. Mohammed's level of disdain. It gets worse.

Asked what he would say to the loved ones of the 197 people killed in last month's Bali nightclub bombings, Abu Bakar Bashir, leader of Indonesia's radical Jemaah Islamiyah, replied: "My message to the families is, please convert to Islam as soon as possible." Amrozi, a mononymous suspect in the blasts, said the carnage "delighted" him. He also pointed to Western reporters covering his November 13 appearance with police. Amrozi said: "Those are the sorts of people I wanted to kill."

Al Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf terrorists kidnapped six Jehovah's Witnesses in Jolo, Philippines on August 20. The next day, the decapitated heads of two of the male abductees were found. One victim also had his tongue severed. Military officials say that a note attached to one head said, "Those who do not believe in Allah will suffer the same fate."

Beyond hatred of non-Muslims, such murderers also embrace a pathological appetite for self-destruction. As al Qaeda's Mualana Inyadullah put it in the London Daily Telegraph last year: "The Americans love Pepsi-cola, we love death."

" We are more than determined to die here," Movsar Barayev, told Mark Franchetti of London's Sunday Times . "Our dream is to become shakhidi , martyrs of Allah." Barayev led the Chechen terrorists who seized a Moscow theater earlier this fall. He was killed when Russian authorities ended the assault October 26.

And look for a while at the words of Dr. Adel Sadeq, chairman of the Arab Psychiatrists Association and chief of the Psychiatry Department Cairo's Ein Shams University. In an April 24 interview on Iqraa TV, a Saudi/Egyptian satellite channel, he spoke of suicide bombing as the height of mental health

" When the martyr dies a martyr's death, he attains the height of bliss," Dr. Sadeq explained. "As a professional psychiatrist, I say that the height of bliss comes with the end of the countdown: ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one. And then, you press the button to blow yourself up. When the martyr reaches 'one,' and then 'boom,' he explodes, and senses himself flying, because he knows for certain that he is not dead," He continued, in a translation by the , Middle East Media Research Institute : "It is a transition to another, more beautiful world, because he knows very well that within seconds he will see the light of the Creator. He will be at the closest possible point to Allah."

[A Jovial Cad]

Once again, given the opportunity to moderate your bile and gracefully admit a mistake, your resort to the same old juvenile flame-baiting (*You want a freaking bayonet charge when there's a smarter way out? Send your own kid*; *Now get back in your armchair*).

*Next time, try not to change the subject just because you haven't a freaking clue what's going on, as is apparent*

Actually, I didn't "change the subject" a bit: my first post (which you have chosen to ignore) dealt with everything else of substance in your diatribe to me; but I felt the secondary issue--your incessant boasting of how you're practically in the informational chain-of-command with your "sources"--was so important that it deserved it's own post.
Apparently someone agreed, because the thread was yanked (though your fondness for profanity might have also had something to do with that).
In any event, your stated premises *then* where that I didn't know what I was talking about because you had "sources" that made you privy to all sorts of good info on the tactical situation. Now you claim that I simply am not watching enough news! (*The services have been briefing the public as to the military dispositions on the ground. YOU simply haven't wanted to listen, simply because YOU thought that you could outthink the commanders on the ground*)
Ha, ha, what a deal. You remind me of that Japanese Admiral in the movie *Midway*, who couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted his planes armed with torpedoes or bombs. You scurry back and forth between arguments and premises so frequently that it's like watching intellectual ping-pong, without the intellect.

*You want to believe that a catastrophic defeat is at hand when a lot of Marine officers, who know a whole lot more than you, have a clue as to how to handle Fallujah.*

Sheer nonsense, and more inky obfuscation. I've never stated any such thing. I believe the policy to date *has* been marked with *some*--mark the word, sir, *some*--confusion that, *at times*, has bordered on incoherence. I further believe that those decisions have *not* been made by Marine officers in the field, but rather by others high up in the chain-of-command who are sometimes trimming and filling to suit the day-to-day political landscape. That's no way to fight a battle, or ask young troops to die for a mission whose premises seem to shift with every news cycle. That has been my critique--not urging "bayonet charges" or any other such silliness.

*Now get back in your armchair*

Ha, ha...I'm in mine right now. As are you. You really believe such childishness insults me in some way? Ha, ha. Unbelievable.

[section9]

Look, what I'm saying is rather simple. You flamed me when I didn't deserve it, and then I gave you what you dished out in return. You didn't like it. I cited my sources (to the extent that I could). You didn't like that, then you created a non issue, asserting that I was passing on classified material.

That was b.s.. There is a little red tag down below where you post. It says "loose lips sink ships". I firmly believe in following that warning, just to set your mind at ease.

EVERYTHING I have posted is based on publicly available source material. In addition, my source basically confirms that what I am saying is pretty much on the mark. Fallujah is a tough nut, with perhaps 700 guys in there built around a core group of 300 jihadi (go here to Wretchard's latest for a good update of where things stand).

The fact is, you weren't looking at what was publicly available, not only here, but online at Wretchard's Belmont Club, and through other sources. So you accused me of passing classified information when I did no such thing, nor did my source, which is the most important thing to clear up. You were just too damn lazy to look things up when it was easier to condemn Bush or Bremer before the issue has been fully decided.

The next time you accuse someone of passing classified information, you damn well better have proof. You didn't, and you deserved the flaming you got.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[A Jovial Cad]

*Look, what I'm saying is rather simple. You flamed me when I didn't deserve it, and then I gave you what you dished out in return. You didn't like it. I cited my sources (to the extent that I could).*

Let's stop right there. First, I'm not going to get into the "he started it! no, he started it!" game--I gave that up around the sixth grade. But it is useful to be accurate: my "flame" was precipitated by an unsolicited post from you that basically told me I didn't know what I was talking about. Second, you are being dishonest. You spoke very specifically of your "sources", right down to saying one worked in "blank," and the other was a "blank" (not going to repeat the info you gave regarding them in the deleted post). I frankly believe that these "sources" of yours exist only in your own imagination, but let's put that aside. The bottom line is that you should (a) not have any military "sources" passing ANY kind of operational info on to you, period, unless you have a Need To Know, and (b) certainly none of us should be reading about it on a website open to the public even if they are. That is the heart of the matter.

*then you created a non issue, asserting that I was passing on classified material*

It's *not* a "non issue," for starters, but I never once stated that you were "passing on classified material." That, to be sure, is a lie. What I *did* do was point out that your "sources" should not be telling you or anyone else without a Need To Know *anything* regarding the immediate tactical situation on the ground. And certainly you shouldn't be bragging about your "sources" on a website for the whole world to read.

*So you accused me of passing classified information*

Another lie (see above).

*You were just too damn lazy to look things up when it was easier to condemn Bush or Bremer before the issue has been fully decided*

No, you were apparently too "lazy" to actually read what I've posted on the matter. I've condemned neither Bush nor Bremer, or even referred to them at all in the matter. Another lie.

*The next time you accuse someone of passing classified information, you damn well better have proof. You didn't, and you deserved the flaming you got*

Don't mind the flame, but I do mind the distortions and outright lied (and you did it again). That's what I mind, and anyone interested at all can go back and read my posts and confirm for themselves whose veracity needs to be questioned in this debate. They can see all of my posts, but they'll miss out on one of yours because it was rightfully yanked.
EOM.

[WOSG]

"I acknowledged many times that the Fallujah Brigade was a Marine creation."

oh, well then! I wasted lots of bandwidth disputing that impression you gave!