| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Signs Point to Imminent Showdown in Iraq |
| 2004-10-28 |
| An uptick in airstrikes and other military moves point to an imminent showdown between U.S. forces and Sunni Muslim insurgents west of Baghdad _ a decisive battle that could determine whether the campaign to bring democracy and stability to Iraq can succeed. American officials have not confirmed a major assault is near against the insurgent bastions of Fallujah and neighboring Ramadi. But Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has warned Fallujah leaders that force will be used if they do not hand over extremists, including terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A similar escalation in U.S. military actions and Iraqi government warnings occurred before a major offensive in Najaf forced militiamen loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to give up that holy city in late August. And U.S. and Iraqi troops retook Samarra from insurgents early this month. Now U.S. airstrikes on purported al-Zarqawi positions in three neighborhoods of eastern and northern Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, have increased. And residents reported this week that Marines appeared to be reinforcing forward positions near key areas of the city. Other military units are on the move, including 800 British soldiers headed north to the U.S.-controlled zone. The goal of an attack would be to restore government control in time for national elections by the end of January. However, an all-out assault on the scale of April's siege of Fallujah would carry enormous risk — both political and military — for the Americans and their Iraqi allies. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #18 |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-10-28 10:46:02 PM |
| #17 Indications are that a bunch of them are willing to make a more intelligent choice among their available evils this time. Regardless of whether it was or wasn't a wise move to pull our punches previously, Fallujah cannot be allowed to escape a thorough cleaning out on the second go-around. It HAS to be done, and the sooner they get on with the task, the less painful the consequences will be for all. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-28 10:38:05 PM |
| #16 As you can tell Tony, having a written constitution is no guarantee there will be no disagreements about what it says. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-28 6:57:24 PM |
| #15 Iran would not in the absence of any Congressional authorization or an attack by Iran. Actually that's not true. If, for example, Bush is defeated but determines between the election and a hypothetical Kerry innauguration (shudder) that Iran presents a threat the the US, he could choose to use force against Iran immediately and remain well within the bounds of the historical powers of the President. No President has ever been required to seek Congressional approval for the short-term use of force when he believed said use was in the best interests of the United States. A most likely scenario / justification would be a few days of airstrikes on Iranian WMD & ballistic missile assets in an attempt to set them back far enough to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them to North America during a Kerry administration. Longshot? Yep, but not at all out of the question and very clearly not unconstitutional. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-28 6:50:30 PM |
| #14 Oops, I'm a slow typist and overlapped Mrs D's post. Sorry to have repeated some of that comment. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-28 5:43:06 PM |
| #13 Tony (UK) - "Is this constitutional?" He is the CINC until the moment the other guy take the Oath on Jan 20th... So yes. Would he start serious military actions knowing he could not finish them - and his opponent would undoubtedly not endoerse them? I do not believe that - even for a minute, although it would be par for the course for an alGore or a Skeery to do so. In fact, to everyone here's dismay, I believe this is precisely why some items that badly need attention have not been attended to - Bush is not an asshole. If circumstance force him, something extreme and in the national interest or involving national security, such as a new nasty bit of intel on the Mad Mullahs readiness to deliver a nuke, then he would be failing his Oath of Office not to act. I believe it would have to be of great consequence, however. This is one of those defining issues - the character of the man or woman would accurately predict their actions. So he could, but won't unless forced, IMHO. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-28 5:40:49 PM |
| #12 No, he won't do either, unless circumstances demand it. Fallujah would be constitutional and may already be planned, Iran would not in the absence of any Congressional authorization or an attack by Iran. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-28 5:35:49 PM |
| #11 Question: Assuming Bush loses on Nov 2nd (which I am *not* rooting for), will he then cry havoc and try and kill all the bad guys in Fallujah *and* settle the Nuclear issue in Iran before the administration change-over? Is this constitutional? |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-10-28 5:29:21 PM |
| #10 AzCat I agree. Everytime a read an article by Ralph Peters I have my doubts but my logical mind says giving the Fallujians a taste of the Taliban type administration their quasi allies are fighting for would change a lot of hearts and minds, and also give Allawi a chance to be the hero in the Iraqi minds. I'm willing for the US to be the bad cop once in awhile if it serves our goals. This time I think it does. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2004-10-28 12:18:17 PM |
| #9 Permanent Z-Z-Z-Zs for the Z-Man. How can one sleep in Hell? |
| Posted by: Steve from Relto 2004-10-28 12:17:38 PM |
| #8 Permanent Z-Z-Z-Zs for the Z-Man. |
| Posted by: John Q. Citizen 2004-10-28 11:38:08 AM |
| #7 an all-out assault on the scale of April's siege of Fallujah would carry enormous risk — both political and military This is a risk al-right -- the MSM allies, the terrorists, might get killed and Zowie blown to bits. The MSM does not want that to happen! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-10-28 9:33:20 AM |
| #6 1. War is ALWAYS attended with risk. Count this as both a defense of what AP said, and a criticism of them (for implying otherwise). 2. WaPo this AM had a very interesting story - similar facts, less negative spin. Talks go on with the locals, but it really doesnt seem like the locals are strong enough to take out the Zarqis even if they can be pressured to a deal themselves. The Iraqi govt (VP Jafari is quoted) seem resigned to a military solution. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-10-28 9:26:02 AM |
| #5 A series of policy mistakes by the U.S. military and the Bush administration have transformed Fallujah from a shabby, dusty backwater known regionally for mosques and tasty kebabs into a symbol of Arab pride and defiance of the United States throughout the Islamic world. Doncha love it when our fifth column press slips in leftist editorial remarks in an AP "news" story? However, an all-out assault on the scale of April's siege of Fallujah would carry enormous risk — both political and military — for the Americans and their Iraqi allies Lessee 1) Fallujah is surrounded, check. 2) Fallujah is surrounded by Marines, check. 3) Terrorists been mown down at astronomical kill rates, and not just by non-Iraqis, check. 4) Since the investment of Fallujah, bombings and attacks have been down quite a bit, check Now what was that about 'enormous risk' for the USA and its allies? Help me square reality with this "news" story. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-10-28 4:48:20 AM |
| #4 I'm not entirely certain that it wasn't a good plan to let the Fallujahans (?) stew in the pot with the terrorists for a while. Indications are that a bunch of them are willing to make a more intelligent choice among their available evils this time. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-28 3:04:03 AM |
| #3 However, an all-out assault on the scale of April's siege of Fallujah would carry enormous risk — both political and military — for the Americans and their Iraqi allies. And right after this last sentence, the beginning of the next paragraph reads: A series of policy mistakes by the U.S. military and the Bush administration have transformed Fallujah from a shabby, dusty backwater known regionally for mosques and tasty kebabs into a symbol of Arab pride and defiance of the United States throughout the Islamic world. WTF? Well what are we supposed to do? Clean it out, or hold back/think of something else because doing so carries "enormous risk"??? Damn, these MSM-types just can't be satisfied. The reason why Fallujah ended up this way is because WE PULLED OUR PUNCHES THE FIRST DAMN TIME. We DIDN'T take the baddies out then. We didn't sweep it clean. And look what happened. Now shut the hell up and leave our guys - political and military alike - alone to do what needs to be done. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-28 1:35:16 AM |
| #2 Win or lose Bush has to order the attack and break the back of the terrorist scum operating in Iraq. It's probably even more critical if he loses as US support for Iraq will only continue through 20 Jan. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-28 1:18:01 AM |
| #1 an all-out assault on the scale of April's siege of Fallujah would carry enormous risk — both political and military Doubt it. What it would do is kill more terrorists, perhaps even Zarqman himself. And that, Martha, is a good thing. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-10-28 12:39:20 AM |