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."

[section9]

Yeah, except for the fact that at the time Bremer called off the attack, we were facing a revolt in our rear. Al-Sadr's people, remember?

Nothing's "going great" in Fallujah. But the place was wired up for explosives to a far greater degree than Jenin ever was, and, given the fact that the Iraqi "army" is almost certain to be a grand failure, we'll have to go in and finish the job. One other thing; at the time we were going to go in, jihadist strength was at its height. Now, not so strong.

I don't get this information from a reporter, btw, but from people in the military.

Fallujah is not over.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[lentulusgracchus]

Yeah. Bremer is Bush's mandarin, his wide-and-deep Wise Man who's got his Harvard creds and his mandarin background that guarantees that we'll get it right.

But, wait. Guys like that ran the Vietnam War, didn't they? And Korea.

Hmmmm.

[CasearianDaoist]

Our general Saleh is now replaced by Gen Latif, because we might have installed the wrong gen Saleh in the first place!

Saleh was never placed in command - execpted by the media. Get a grip. What is wrong woth you people? This thread reads like DU.

[expatguy]

Why is there a fuss about the reality that any option in Iraq is difficult, complex, and has many ramifications?

It is not difficult and it is not complex.

War is simple. Beat your opponent into submission and the war is over.

It's a dirty business. People get killed. If you don't have the stomach for it then it's best not to get involved.

[elfman2]

"Even if it is, why would the Iraqi Governing Council and Paul Bremmer not have a say on a strategic decision "

They should have a say, but such a dramatic say in this case is troubling considering our record of allowing the say of wobbly politicians to cripple our military.

[vbmoneyspender]

So then the story is incorrect in that Bush would have had to have been the one to call off the Marines. I think I'll reserve judgment on what happened until more information comes out.

[lepton]

but halting the attack on Fallujah like this is indicative of the crippling restrictions behind tragedies in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.

Well, no. Not really. This was a decision to engage politics, not one to describe in detail how the Marines were to fight.

[PokeyJoe]

Some time ago, I pointed out that the cease fire had the same ring as LBJ saying, "The US Air Force can't bomb a $hithouse in N.Vietnam without my knowing about it."

Some laughed. I didn't.

[mrsmith]

It's a hoot to see such worshipful acceptance of the media on Free Republic.

[Anti-Bubba182]

I'm not sure at all that the President has much to do personally with what is going on in Fallujah now. It is more likely these decisions are comming from the area commanders. There is no doubt that Bush will pay a political price for what happens there as it affects the larger picture in Iraq.

What concerns me is how they have backed away from their original objectives. First they back off demands for the turn over of the contractor killers. I doubt if they would get them anyway because they could have left before they cordoned of the area. But it is different with the foreign fighters. They are going to be able to blend in with the Iraqis and fade away into the larger population or other areas.

I doubt if we see either a big turn over of heavy weapons or a Marine assault as long as the new forces don't start shooting at us.

The problem with this is that it gives the insugents something to point to as a victory. This is in a country where most people are sitting on the fence looking to join the side of the winner. They will be paying careful attention because their decision is a matter of life or death.

The insurgents, if left alive and a presence in Fallujah, can say that they were not dislodged by a superior Marine and US force. It does not matter how many casualties they took. If they hold the ground, they win.

In the first Gulf War, when the Iraqis stood, they were distroyed. You will recall there was much less resistance by the Iraqi Regular Army or Republican Guard in this war because they learned they can't win. They learned because they were shown. We are offering no such lesson in Fallujah.

[Normal4me]

Do you believe all 130,000 are actually walking around carrying weapons and riding in tanks? I believe a great majority are in the background doing logistics, medical, desk jobs, etc. We have lost approximately .00046875 % of our military in Iraq in a war that is over a year long. Think about it...

[lentulusgracchus]

Fallujah is not over.

I would definitely like to believe you know something I don't. I hope you're right.

Give 'em every chance. Then screw 'em.

[squidly]

"In war, there is no substitute for victory." - Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Spin it any way you want, but in Fallujah, we settled for something else, and I don't see how that's arguable.

[expatguy]

The need has arised, and what did we do. Yes, we "handled" them with our military alright until the media, public opinion and fear of angering the "arab street" caused us to stand down.

We are a superpower that in the mind of many Muslims is impotent and becomes frozen with fear at the prospect of harming "innocents". This is our Achille's heel. The "equalizer". All of our technological superiority, our Stealth bombers, our ICBMS, become useless. Our enemy has adapted and has learned from Vietnam how to bring a superpower to it's knees.

We never once had control of Fallujah, our enemies have and have always maintained control there. Our enemies took a stand in Fallujah and vowed to fight to the death. We vowed to find those responsible for the atrocities and bring them to justice. A month later we stand down after being chastized by Kofi Annan, the media and the "Arab street" et al. Mission unacomplished and yet we walk away from the fight and have the audacity to proclaim victory.

You and many others mention how this is all part of our grand strategy in Iraq to have the Iraqis handle this problem in Fallujah. Why? Is it because we can't handle the problem ourselves? That is exactly what the "arab street" thinks and what Al Jazeera is reporting to Muslim countries worldwide. In minutes the "message" that gets out worldwide is that the Americans don't have the stomach for war. They don't like to get their hands dirty. Make it dirty and messy for them and they retreat with their tail between their legs. Given faith in Allah and courage the infidels can be beat. Only with 'divine intervention' could David beat Goliath.

It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that letting religious fanatics think that God is on their side only increases their numbers and makes them stronger. Sadr's hand in Najaf is now strenghened by what transpired in Fallujah and not weakened. The "holy city" of Najaf is now shielded by the hand of Allah. The infidels know this and fear Allah knowing that he will smite and crush them should they even consider to attack the city. Ultimately it is Satan who fears God.

We need to come to the realization thta there are no "innocents" in Fallujah. The innocents left when the fighting started, what remains in Fallujah is sympathizers, lookouts, human shields and those feeding, housing and supplying the 'holy warriors' defending Fallujah.

The solution was simple. Surround Fallujah. Demand that those responsible for the atrocities be handed over. But nothing happened. The next step would have been to drop leaflets and announce in Arabic that those true "innocents" wishing not to get hurt to leave the city immediately. Not to broadcast rock music or stupid stuff like "you people fight like goat herders". My gosh, just imagine how poor little 'Abu the innocent goat herder' feels about that - you insulted him now and chances are he will join the ranks of those opposing us.

Give them one week to clear out and then level the city. They can all have a secure job later rebuilding their town with new improved and modern sand huts. In fact, they will be so busy rebuilding their town that they won't have the time nor the energy to even think about causing trouble. Any hatred they have will be directed at the dead 'holy fighters' who obviously did not have Allah on their side and not the Americans. They will be happy and friendly later because they have nice new mud huts to live in.

A simple solution really and the message then that gets out to Najaf, The cleric Sadr, Al Jazeera, Syria, Pakistan and any others contemplating the same is that America is here and we mean business. We mean what we say. You mess with the bull and you get the horn.

Oh and the old regime, the generals returning is complete stupidity. These are the same people who imprisoned and tortured these people. They need to be put on trial and dealt with. The last thing we need to be doing is giving these old Baathist weapons and putting them in charge. If anything they need to be given a shovel and hoe and get to work.

Telling ourselves and trying to convince ourselves that we are winning is complete nonsense. We need to be telling and convincing the Iraqis and the rest of militant Islam worldwide that we are winning. So far we are not doing this.

[Last Dakotan]

Why believe some reporter over military spokesmen?

If you have a consistent statement from a Military spokesman, please post. So far they don't seem to know what to say either.

[elfman2]

"This was a decision to engage politics, not one to describe in detail how the Marines were to fight"

Perhaps. And I think that’s what lost us Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.

[LS]

"Un-contradicted information?" Like Abazaid runs around trying to counter every report out there by a USA Today reporter? Come on. This is getting ridiculous.

But let's say it's true: Let's say the Iraqi governing council said, "This is a good opportunity for us to show the people of Iraq that we are in charge, and that we can start to handle some of our own security." And let's say that over the next 3-4 weeks, lo and behold, we start getting bad guys turned in. At some point it depends on what the mission is: is the mission JUST to kill bad guys, or is it to establish a self-governing pro-American state that can take care of these types so we don't have to?

Every war involves numerous political considerations. We are all familiar with Eisenhower allowing fuel and supplies to go to Montgomery to clean out the V-2 firing positions, which came at the expense of Patton's tanks. Political considerations are not wrong just because they are complex.

[hobson]

What is wrong woth you people?

I seems as though they have taken a giant gulp of USA Today koolaide.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Civilians are always at the top of the chain of command-nothing new, except that they used to be on the same side as our troops.

[Ranger]

Slightly off topic but do you think breaking Iraq up into 3 countries makes sense? Its probably better from a democracy standpoint than appointing our own strongman to rule the place.