View Full Version : Faluja 9/13/04

09-13-2004, 01:32 AM


Kev Smyth
09-13-2004, 01:41 AM
So he would have preferred the soft touch. I thought that was what we were using, relative to what it will take on the part of the 3 major interests here to win a victory. The U.S., the Iraqis, and the mainline Muslims will have to work together to annihilate the opposition to win.

09-13-2004, 01:54 AM
How do you interpret his statement as advocating a soft touch?

"The Marine assault on Fallujah in April ended abruptly after three days. Conway expressed displeasure at the order he received from Sanchez to cease offensive operations, a decision that culminated in the formation of the Fallujah Brigade.

"When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that," he said. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed."

09-13-2004, 02:02 AM
a related article


Kev Smyth
09-13-2004, 02:43 AM
Here's my take on the situation. The average Iraqi fears the insurgents and Muslim extremists, so he speaks against the U.S. The Iraqi government fears its inability to control the insurgents/extremists, as well as for the lives of government officials, so it moderates responses. The U.S. fears being seen as politically incorrect- in Iraq, and at home. The opposition at home isn't helping. So it keeps backing off/down.

The insurgents/extremists fear NOTHING. NOTHING!! Except freedom and peace for Iraq. So their side continues to advance the causes of Muslim extremism and a lack of unifying control.

When all affected realize there is no middle ground, and that an overwhelming, consistent, never-ending response is the only way to peace and freedom, then good things will happen. But it might be 10 years before the will develops.

When peace loving Muslims rise up against their radical brethren, that's when the corner will be turned, and peace and resolution possible.

09-13-2004, 09:03 AM
Interesting take on things. Here's some more c&p related to political control of the military. Conrad, look at the civilians who put together this war,,and the politically correct (American Enterprise Institute politics) parameters placed by Rumsfield/Wolfowitz. Look at the political advisors Rumsfield had in Richard Perle.

(March 30, 2003 -- 10:49 PM EDT // link // print)
More food for thought ...
What [the Iraqis have] got going for them is that our maladroitness politically and diplomatically has put us in a real bind. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is an unpopular guy in Iraq, but he's running against George Bush. If you're an Iraqi, you've gotta decide who you're going to vote for here.

I hate it when military plans are made with optimistic assumptions of that kind. I never made a plan that relied on the courage of my own troops. You hope that -- and they generally will -- fight bravely. Your plan ought to be predicated on more realistic assumptions.

And if we sent the 3rd Infantry up there naked, by themselves, because somebody assessed that they'd be throwing bouquets at us, that's the worst thing you could say about political leadership, is that they made optimistic assumptions about warfare.

Michael Moore? Dan Rather? Phil Donohue?
Nope. General Merrill A. McPeak, former Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force 1990-94, from an interview which appeared in the Thursday edition of the Oregonian.

-- Josh Marshall

09-13-2004, 10:06 AM
Kevsmyth,,speaking of politically correct,,have you followed the correct path for assembling experts that provided the basis for WMD in Iraq?