| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| BRAVERY, BLOOD & LIES |
| 2004-05-26 |
| Excerpt... ... Each confrontation has its own requirements in Iraq. In Fallujah, we had an opportunity to strike swiftly and eliminate several hundred terrorists. Instead, the decision was made to hand the city over to our enemies to achieve a "peaceful solution." The result? Ambushes and roadside bombs continue to kill Marines in the Fallujah area - Marines who fought bravely and well, only to see victory snatched from their hands by their own superiors. In the broader insurgency led by the renegade Shia cleric Sadr, the military task was more complex. With outbreaks of violence in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, as well as in a teeming Baghdad slum, the Army faced the risk of alienating the greater Shia population if sacred shrines were violated or civilian casualties soared. But our commanders on the ground also had advantages, which they seized. Sadr's thugs had no deep support - on the contrary, local people wanted them to leave their neighborhoods and stop misusing sacred sites. No senior cleric supported Sadr, a vainglorious junior mullah. And we had good intelligence - some of it coming from the population Sadr pretended to represent. The Army couldn't just blast its way into downtown Najaf or Karbala, given the religious sensitivities involved. Instead, troops from our 1st Armored Division, "Old Ironsides," methodically peeled away one layer of resistance after another. Shrines weren't violated. Civilians were spared. Damage was minimized. Yet, thanks to the skill of our soldiers and their leaders, Sadr's gangsters were slaughtered by the hundreds. In some Shia areas, Sadr's "uprising" proved to be much ado about nothing and swiftly collapsed. Elsewhere, fighting raged. In Sadr City, the Baghdad slum, our soldiers promptly moved to take control - recognizing that Sadr had drawn most of his recruits from its fetid alleys. Meanwhile, battalion task forces from the 1st AD cordoned the holy cities. With precision and patience, they avoided traps set by the militiamen that would have profaned the sacred tomb complexes. Fighting door-to-door and through a vast cemetery, they staged lightning raids in the hours of darkness, keeping the enemy under pressure. Whenever Sadr's militiamen made the mistake of coming out to fight, the soldiers from the "First Tank" efficiently helped them achieve martyrdom - with remarkably low friendly or civilian losses. As weeks of skillful fighting approach a climax, Sadr's thugs have been driven from Karbala, Najaf has quieted and our forces have punched deep into his stronghold of Kufa. His militia has been broken. His deputies have been arrested or killed. And Sadr himself is cornered, physically and politically. Now comes the most dangerous phase of the operation. With our troops on the verge of bringing Sadr to justice, the only thing we have to fear is yet another intervention by the guys in ties. If we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again by letting Sadr off the hook, we will throw away the textbook example of success our Army just delivered. Sadr needs to come out of his hiding place in handcuffs or in a shroud. Writing for my fellow soldiers 10 years ago, I warned that one of the consistent American weaknesses in the future would be the impulse of our own diplomats to rush to the rescue of our enemies just when our military had them on the ropes. It happened in Fallujah. We can't afford to let it happen again. Don't worry about making a martyr out of Sadr. Even his fellow Shias want him dead. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #10 Ralph Peters is crazy. Really. He sits at his NYPost desk in the comfort of NYC and yells at the generals for not using a "scorched earth" policy. (He's been critical of Rummy from Day One.) He and the Media have continued to play Falluja as a "defeat" and a "retreat" because the Marines didn't go in there GUNS BLAZING. I'm glad they didn't. Britain tried that against the Iraqis in 1921 and it didn't do them any good. Clearly, as President Bush stated the other night, we could have gone in there and wiped out the whole town, bombed it into the dust,but we chose not to. Our commanders thought it was preferable to work with the locals and talk it out. Even now, AFAIK, the Marines are still encamped around Falluja in case there are new signs of trouble. But you haven't heard of any IED attacks on vehicles or soldiers the last few days or even weeks, have you? The wise general picks his battles to win the war. Ralph Peters ain't a general and that's a good thing, as Martha would say. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-27 4:05:07 AM |
| #9 Chuck, during the "thunder run" of first assault on Baghdad, we whacked many of the jihadis that were willing to impale themselves on our amour. Unfortunately, the clowns in Fallujah have demonstrated the ability to plan and execute an effective ambush. It would be a mistake to walk away from Fallujah where some of them seem willing to stand and fight only to have the same clowns burying IED's someplace else in a week. In small numbers they can certainly leave the area over time. Full-fledged sieges would probably require more assets than we can spare with Sadr running loose. We will take fewer casualties in assaulting these clowns than in allowing them leave and pick their own time and place for the battle as they have been doing. While it may look like Pickett's charge, I would say that it's more like the Alesia, except the legions now have night vision. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-27 3:34:05 AM |
| #8 . . .one of the consistent American weaknesses in the future would be the impulse of our own diplomats to rush to the rescue of our enemies just when our military had them on the ropes. It happened in Fallujah." I think that's what he was saying. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-05-26 1:28:34 PM |
| #7 Somebody needs to explain to me how the loss of even one Marine in house-to-house fighting in Fallujah would have been worth rooting our the terrorists? Or, in other words, why would we ever fight the enemy on their terms and at their site and time? He's far too eager to needlessly kill Marines. On one hand he criticizes the Administration for not going in to Fallujah, and then praises them for not going in to Karbala and Najaf. Can't have it both ways. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-05-26 1:01:27 PM |
| #6 There are responsible journalists (truth tellers), and there are irresponsible journalists (the "whatever gets me my paycheck" hacks), the amoral journalists (the lie tellers) and then there are the "operative" journalists (the political messege gurus) who, straight up, use the media the way posters like "Antiwar" and "Gentle" and their gang attempt to use Rantburg. The operative types are bedfellows with the amoral journalists and occasionally use the irreponsibles to effect the outcomes they desire. The thing to remember is that none of them have any obligation to the American public aside from what they, as individuals, decide they have. It's all personal choice, and some of the journalists who do have their consciences intact, never make it to the "big time." The amoral, operative, irresponsible "culture" of the media shuts them up and drums them out. Nevertheless, a free press at least gives us a fighting chance that somehow, some way, we will hear the truth. If you have the opportunity to hear something that is based as objectively as possible on fact and truth, take the time to thank the writer, filmmaker, radio host, blog manager, etc. It means the world to them, and definitely helps the right side win the WOT. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-05-26 12:04:54 PM |
| #5 I think sending Sadr quietly to meet his virgins, would save everyone a lot of grief. I hope our special forces guys have something going towards that end. Of course, certain political forces would whine about the military silencing "legitemate voices". But I have two letters for those politicos (Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, et al) , F, and U. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-26 11:25:47 AM |
| #4 The endless orgy of coverage of the Abu Ghraib incident, for example, is insufferable. The successes and sacrifices of more than a hundred thousand soldiers go ignored, while a sanctimonious media focuses on the viciousness of a few ill-led criminals in uniform. The truth is that Abu Ghraib was the story big media longed for, a scandal journalistic vultures could turn into strategic roadkill. Press coverage of our military's many successes has been scant. Development projects go ignored. If soldiers don't complain, they don't get camera time. When our forces successfully target a terrorist hideout, the evidence doesn't matter. The media leaps to validate enemy lies that a "wedding party" was attacked. This is right on the money. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-05-26 10:21:51 AM |
| #3 Didn't the Marines yesterday give the "Fallujah Brigade" a list of 20 - 30 thugs that were to be arrested for the festivities on the bridge? Aren't the Marines still manning a cordon around Fallujah? Aren't the heavy weapons starting to be turned in? While it would have been much more satisfying to have bounced the rubble of Fallujah with a series of B-52 raids followed by a search and destroy sweep, the Marine's approach seems to be working. What's the problem? |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-05-26 9:38:06 AM |
| #2 SH,it sure looks that way.To my mind it seems to me that the Marines should have been allowed to clean-out that hornet's nest.Instead we have a SRG general taking over.Isn't that like setting the weasal to gaurd the hen house. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-05-26 9:36:23 AM |
| #1 Why is everybody assuming that the Marines intend to leave without the killers that tehy came for? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-26 3:06:08 AM |