Article

2004-04-27 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-04-27 10:01:30 AM|| || Front Page|| [11123 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This guy is shouting it loud and clear. Is anyone in the administration listening?

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-04-27 10:23:37 AM|| 2004-04-27 10:23:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Ralph Peters has been talking like this for a while. I wish those in charge would listen.

Though maybe there is hope:

During the two-hour midday fight, in which at least eight U.S. troops were wounded, a Marine tank demolished the 150-foot-tall minaret of a mosque, from which machine-gun fire had been raining onto Marines 200 yards away.

Posted by growler 2004-04-27 10:25:48 AM|| 2004-04-27 10:25:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Jed Babbin, who I consider of similar quality to Peters, has a similar message today. His column includes a depressing email from a deployed officer.

Still, these 2 writers might be a bit too pessimistic. It appears there's more than meets the eye going on in Fallouja. Also, the military itself seems to acknowledge that the political context of actions must be taken into account and that restraint may be occasionally justified on this basis. Babbin and Peters seem to disagree on the degree to which we should go after Sadr's militias, which illustrates the complexity of the situation on the ground.

To me, the worst news is that the Whitehouse is injecting itself into tactical decisions. Hopefully that is overblown.

Bottom line is that it's a lot easier to tell what's wrong with our policies than what we ought to do to correct them. But, as Peters and Babbin imply, we should err on the side of being feared rather than loved.

Posted by JAB 2004-04-27 10:38:23 AM|| 2004-04-27 10:38:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The current diddle-farting about with ceasefires and "holy" cities and putting up with Brahimi's "negotiating" the shape-of-the-table twaddle reminds me of that last-ditch waste of motion when Bush tried the UNSC one last time before the war began.

I fully expect this arm-waving to yield the same dazzling results. And I then expect Dubya to issue orders to those with the brains to recognize what works, and what doesn't, when dealing with Arabs. There are only two options: force or failure. They are either at your throat - or at your feet. Pick one and follow through. How you follow through is where you can offer carrots: we'll stop our advance 24 hrs after you surrender every last asshole in [insert confrontation locale here]. All this laughable sensitivity and "holy" shit just lets the bad guys and their pet fools insert a billion shades of gray - where none actually exists in their own view. Arguments to the contrary are wasted on me, so don't bother. :-)

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 10:45:57 AM|| 2004-04-27 10:45:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 If we had met resistance like this when we first went in, would we still be sitting in front of Basra trying to negotiate? I have followed this website and many military blogs and Iraqi websites. My daughter just came home from Iraq after spending fourteen months there. I realize that most of Iraq is doing well and I am thrilled for them, but even they are complaining about the tactics in Fallujah(?). I see from a story here that the citizens of Najaf are themselves getting sick of Sadr and his men. Do you think that is what our plan may be in Fallujah, to wait for some kind response from the citizens themselves that they are ready to join the rest of Iraq? I am very patient and I see how our patience has paid off in the past, but I am beginning to lose perspective in this prolonged "cease-fire" that only allows the insurgents to continue their fantasies. Actions speak louder than words. I know this is a cliche but it is for a good reason. It is true. By our actions, the insurgents,I know, are bragging that they have stopped us and urge others to join them. I would sure appreciate some feed back from you guys as to what you think the battle plan is for Fallujah.

Posted by Carolyn 2004-04-27 10:49:44 AM|| 2004-04-27 10:49:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Carolyn, it's nice to see your comment. Thanks are due to your daughter for her service and to you for your support. Here at Rantburg we all find a pressure release valve to report, discuss, and speculate. Also laugh and grieve when we need to. Hope we see you in the comments more...and your daughter too! Welcome.

Posted by Seafarious 2004-04-27 10:56:25 AM|| 2004-04-27 10:56:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Carolyn,

1. We easily have the force to take out the 2000 baddies in Fallujah, and Sadrs boys in Najaf. We DONT have the force in Iraq to put down the a rebellion supported by 80% of the population. Wed need more like 300,000 or 400,000. Even if we could assemble that many ground pounders at this point(arguable) the US population wouldnt back it. Period. So it comes down to whether you think "taking the gloves off" however defined will result in a rebellion of 80% of the population. Certain posters here are convinced that it would not. Evidently Peters is convinced it would not also. Other people, some with experience in Iraq, arent so sure.

2. "They are either at your throat - or at your feet" The logic of this is that we shouldnt have gone in at all, since we arent going to put the force there needed to keep them at our feet indefinitely.

3. The USMC, afaict, is using the ceasefire intelligently - put the moral honus of breaking it on the insurgents, show theyre trying to work with the locals, and kill the baddies by the dozen whenever the baddies break the ceasefire. The USMC seems to put value on the "moral honus" part. Some here do not - "let them fear us, only way to deal with them" Those who say that dont have the responsibility of keeping order in Baghdad.

4. Najah aint holy to me. But it is holy to she Shiites. You cant deal with that fact, you should have opposed going in. We can beat Sadr in Najaf, and youre on the right track about how we will do it.

5. Brahimi is there to negotiate the make up of the transitional govt to take over on June 30. Do folks here not want there to be such a transitional govt?? Do they want the US military to run Iraq??? And to do so indefinitely?? I dont think the US military wants to do so.

By the way, I dont expect replies from anyone on whom argument is wasted - this is intended for those who take this war seriously enough to have open minds about strategy.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 11:08:30 AM|| 2004-04-27 11:08:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm beginning to see a gem of a set of tactics being used in Iraq. Lots of hotheads have been calling for immediate attacks in Najaf and Fallujah. No quarter for the enemy. Level the city, and all that. They demand the United States commit an atrocity as grim as any done in history. Why? Because they have forgotten why we are in Iraq.

We are there to create an Iraq that is stable, democratic, and not a threat to its own people or its neighbors. We are outside Najaf and Fallujah to restore control of these cities to the central government. Our actions, such as negotiation, are aimed as fulfilling these goals.

The terrorist enemy appears to have no patience. Repeatedly over the last several weeks they have attacked our troops in such a manner as to allow our military superiority to destroy them. There are reports of 100 killed here, 20 there, and so on, with no American deaths, or perhaps one or two. The enemy is coming to us.

That is the gem of a tactic. Exploit the enemy's lack of patience. Probe, prod, taunt and tease them. Then kill them when they attack.

House to house fighting would take a toll on our troops in far greater numbers than is happening now. If the enemy wants to come to us and die, we should be obliging them. Remember, they want us to fight house to house. Any tactic that prevents that foils their aims.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-04-27 11:10:56 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-04-27 11:10:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Oh, foo. This guy is an armchair general who doesn't have a clue what is going on, on the ground. The roach motel known as Fallujah is the perfect trap as far as the Marines who have been working it are concerned. A strong military axiom is to not stop the enemy when they are making a major screw up.

Wackos from the entire region flooded in there with the belief that "If you go to Fallujah you can kill Americans." What a golden opportunity! We surrounded the trap, and they ain't getting out. But to continue to demonstrate that we are the good guys, we have limited the fighting to an industrial area, away from residential areas.

Haw! The morons are sooo itchy to kill Americans that they come into the industrial area, to find little, puny and easily beat up Marine units they "hopelessly outnumber". The headlines next day is that a bunch of recalcitrants are now being greeted by Virginians. And maybe one Marine is wounded with a real sore trigger finger that his Gunny will have to kiss to make the boo-boo go away.

In other words, we're kicking seven bells out of the worst of them, and NOT killing civilians.

Even the diplomatic pauses work to our benefit, allowing us to firm up our positions and reinforce lines; while throwing the baddies into confusion, their "unified" opposition breaking down into a 'what do we do now?' mode of argument and infighting.

The bottom line is that every one of these eaters of pork and copulators of she-asses that we cap means that Iraq will be that much nicer a place to live in the future.

As far as Paul Bremer goes: he is truly a gift from Allah to Iraq--perhaps the most brilliant civil administrator of all time. Were the US to believe less in the character of the good Iraqis, well, let's just say that "Benjamin Butler" comes to mind.

In the short term, I look for al-Sadr to be having a US medic shine his flashlight into his mouth soon.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-04-27 11:11:21 AM|| 2004-04-27 11:11:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 what chuck said.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 11:22:13 AM|| 2004-04-27 11:22:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Well, I'm "shamed" by yet another armchair "strategy" wizard stalking an imaginary high-road posture. Been there, done that, have you? Right. I do admire the worst-case approach you take when anyone posts anything that differs with your extra-special unassailable opinion. And making it personal again. Tsk, tsk. For someone who seeks to portray himself as so civil and erudite can't you disagree without being an ass? You really are a, um, uh, piece of work, Lh.

I would much prefer Carolyn's daughter's critique of the situation than another of your predictable post-all-possible-outcomes CYA comments.

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 11:36:03 AM|| 2004-04-27 11:36:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 First: Carolyn, please thank your daughter for me for doing a brilliant job in Iraq.

Second:"#10 what chuck said." I second that.

Posted by Evert V. in NL 2004-04-27 11:40:06 AM|| [http://srv.fotopages.com/?o=935389&t=2] 2004-04-27 11:40:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 BTW, for those who have access to FoxNews - they've been running live video from a frontline Marine OP in Fallujah - an abandoned house - for about the last hour. It was recorded sequences at first, but has been live for the last 30-40 minutes.

It's the loudest ceasefire I've ever seen / heard. And the bad guys are making 95% of the noise. Remarkable footage.

Now off on some domestic politics story, but they'll bring it back soon because nothing is as riveting as combat. Certainly nothing focuses the mind in quite the same way.

Tune in, if you're able - it will make you proud beyond words to watch your Marines and see their faces and the fact that they don't fire without targets, which means they are watching and waiting most of the time. In effect, video such as this proves there's no wholesale random violence from our end.

Coming back on after this commercial.

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 11:57:56 AM|| 2004-04-27 11:57:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Decisive action is always the best course of action. When the enemy is on the run, you pursue him. When he is tired and out of breath, you kill him or capture him.

Some of you all are advocating Westmoreland's strategy. Put our units out there and let the enemy come to us. Flypaper. Graduated reponse. Carrot and stick.

It didn't work in Vietnam and it will not work in Iraq. Khe Sanh didn't defeat the NVA. Verdun didn't defeat the Germans. You must attack the enemy in depth with combined arms. You must destroy his will to resist, his ability to react. You have to attack his logistics, command and control, recruiting efforts, sanctuaries, etc.

Humans are remarkably adaptable. Whenever you give them breathing space, they will find a way to adapt, improvise and overcome. They will find better ways to kill you. Your tactical edge will dull as the enemy sharpens his.

Decisive action is also the most humane course of action. Fewer people -- civilian and military -- died in the invasion than during the occupation. It's a paradox: more violence causes fewer deaths. But it is the empirical truth as demonstrated in battle after battle.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-04-27 12:07:27 PM|| 2004-04-27 12:07:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 it did work in Vietnam, am serious, do your own research, note the # of dead Charlie vs. the # of dead Americans, apply some of that math you learned back in school and come back with the ratio, if you display that ratio and still claim the tactic was failure in Vietnam.. well we will know you are a diehard 'lefty'

our anti-spy capability is what failed us, kgb likes to brag these days about how they practically ran the peace movements during Vietnam (which was what ended the war)

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-04-27 12:18:22 PM|| 2004-04-27 12:18:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 dot com

I have reread my post for personal things. The only thing that was personal was that "I dont expect replies from anyone on whom argument is wasted" Which was a direct response to your saying that arguments would be wasted on you.

Yet you respond. Well, what is it?? Are you open to counter arguments, or arent you? I have no patience for people who say "heres what I think" and then say "oh by the way, i dont care what you think, im not listening, nyahh, nyahh, nyahh" If you want to have a polite discussion, fine. If you only want to vent, and dont want to have a polite discussion, thats your business, but dont expect me to treat your posts with respect in that case.

For someone who is so tough, youre damned thinskinned.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 12:28:36 PM|| 2004-04-27 12:28:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Dcreeper: Everyone here knows that I am not a die hard lefty. I just wrote several paragraphs saying we should hit the enemy harder for God's sake.

I think that we are arguing about two separate things. Tactically, we won all the battles. I never mention tactics in my screed above. My post was about strategy. Kill ratios do not win wars. Decisive action does. That by the way is US Army doctrine. If you don't believe me, go read FM 3-0, Operations. It's online.

If we had fought decisive battles in Vietnam instead of attritional battles, the KGB never would have had time to mount a successful antiwar measures because the war would have been over in 1967. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now?

Posted by 11A5S 2004-04-27 12:32:13 PM|| 2004-04-27 12:32:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Belmont Club has an encouraing take on the situation.

Posted by growler 2004-04-27 12:33:28 PM|| 2004-04-27 12:33:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I would much prefer Carolyn's daughter's critique of the situation

I would too. Unfortunately she didnt post one. Am i to blame for that?

than another of your predictable post-all-possible-outcomes CYA comments.

Sorry if Im predictible - I dont think I am more so than most posters here. And yes, there are many possible outcomes. Thats the point. War is risky. To advocate for a strategy, and to assume that all goes well, and to ignore the risks, is irresponsible. Hell, if I said lets get out of Iraq, and Saudi, and Afghanistan, and stop supporting Israel, and then the Muslims will be nice to us, I think youd be the first to outline the risks inherent in that strategy. And youd be right. Similarly a Bomb them all to hell strategy has risks, as does the current admin strategy, of being agressive but political. I think any intelligent discussion has to include the reasons WHY the admin is not bombing them all to hell. I think I outlined those reasons - I was neutral not for CYA, but because I did NOT want to start another A Priori filled argeument about whether its better to be loved or feared. Sorry if that strikes you as CYA.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 12:35:43 PM|| 2004-04-27 12:35:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 "Experts" warn that we mustnât alienate the hard-core Sunnis or the fundamentalist Shiaâs.

No, they warn that we mustnt alienate ALL the Sunnis and all the Shias.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 12:37:53 PM|| 2004-04-27 12:37:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Fox has clarified that the video they've been showing is from yesterday.

Dcreeper - regards your second point, agreed. Walter Crankcase and his peers did what Giap couldn't do: destroyed the public will. As for your first point, are you serious? You should clarify your point. The kill ratio wasn't the real point of 11A5S's post and nobody with a brain would say 11A5S is a lefty - unless he's baiting him.

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 12:40:45 PM|| 2004-04-27 12:40:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 11a5s

IIUC, we essentially killed the VC as force, essentially by attrition, by summer 1968. After that we were essentially fighting NVA. In Iraq there IS no equivalent to the NVA. We are essentially fighting the "VC" alone, and a smaller VC at that. What supply lines, etc do we get by hitting harder in Fallujah??? All we do is speed up the attrition, but at political cost.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 12:41:40 PM|| 2004-04-27 12:41:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 It will be intersting to some day find out about the command structure of the jihadies in Falluja. One chief or many with each keeping an eye out behind their back.

The main thing is not to let it end in a stalemate. It's turn in your weapons or die. It can't go on for to much longer is my gut feeling.

Saw the Jarines Dot. Pros.

Carolyn, high five your daughter for me.

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-27 1:00:45 PM|| 2004-04-27 1:00:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 .com. Thanks! How've you been?

Liberalhawk: But the point is, we lost the war. In the end, it didn't matter that the VC had been destroyed or that the NVA had had their asses handed to them at Khe Sanh. They won! Our attrition strategy allowed the Soviets the time and latitude to win the information war and turn the American people against the confict (dccreeper is right about that).

Attrition works if you are fighting against an enemy with no outside support. It worked against the Native Americans and the Moros. The war in Iraq does not not meet this criteria. There is money coming in from Saudi and Iran. Cannon fodder is being infiltrated from Iran and Syria. There are corps' worth of ammunition floating around the country -- of which the rebels have used only a small amount. The rebels have sanctuaries in Iran and Syria where they can rest, rearm and refit.

Wars of attrition last a very long time. The Roman war against Hannibal lasted over a decade, IIRC. This would probably be OK in a preindustrial society. But there is an information and propaganda war going on in parallel. As long as the Jihadis can continue to pump in cannon fodder and money, they can keep the information war going as the Vietnamese did.

Democracies don't fare well in information wars.

Let's look back past Vietnam to 1864. Lincoln was in bad shape politically. Unrest was rampant. The country was ready to seek a negotiated peace. It was Grant and Sherman's decisive military action that changed public opinion and allowed Lincoln to bring the war to a successful close.

As I stated before, more violence means fewer casualties. Operation Cobra was one of the most violent military operations ever. The alternative was a Verdun like slogging match while the allies struggled to build up combat power across tenuous supply lines. Seriously, I recommend that you read Grant's autobiography, anything on Curtis Lemay, Scipio Africanus' campaign in Carthage, and on Operation Cobra. It is truely a paradox, but if we were to destroy the opposition in Falljah and Najaf in a no holds barred attack, I predict that fewer would die and this war would end more quickly.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-04-27 1:15:08 PM|| 2004-04-27 1:15:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 11A5S - Your points and use of history to illustrate response possibilities and ramifications rock! And, for the edification of those who did not participate in the political fuckfest called Vietnam, they would do well to listen a bit closer! Obviously, no one advocated commiting any "atrocity" - nor did anyone advocate leveling the city. Fighting those who wish to fight us - employing our normal ROE - is certainly neither of those things. I appreciate your superior eloquence (jealous is more accurate) and much broader knowledge - please forgive me when I inadvertantly involve you! You certainly need no help in locating worthy debate nor assistance in advocating intelligent consideration in coalition responses!

Lh - "Arguments to the contrary are wasted on me, so don't bother. :-)"

Sigh. The little "smiley" obviously didn't indicate sarcasm to you, though that was my intent. No matter. I do, indeed, find a significant portion of your remarks to be couched on specifics from my post... But, but... Gosh, it must just be me, again - being thin-skinned and all! Lol! I love it - you're the #2 Artful Dodger of words in RB. Then, and I must take my hat off to you, you play the classic "Who me?" game. Kudos. I am in the presence of a master, a rarified air surrounds your posts and leaves me, well, breathless.

Regards the Sunni Triangle - it has never been militarily engaged in any real sense up until now. Your military recommendation, regards your response to 11A5S is what, exactly? Oh, never mind - disregard the question - he'll ask you himself, if he desires it.

Please, continue to counsel extremely active caution and extremely cautious action. I will continue to marvel at your posts. I'll cast aside all my experiences as they continue drag me down to the level of meeting challenge with strength (within the American ROE that's fire with fire, of course) as I learned from my Arab encounters. I am abased and abashed. And thin skinned, too - I'll work on that, thanks.

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 1:37:02 PM|| 2004-04-27 1:37:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 patience grasshoppers.

Maybe we will destroy them..give it time. I won't play armchair general - cause I really don't know what the best course of action would be, but maybe the real generals want enough time to dot their i's and cross their t's before they stomp on the roach motel.

It's too soon to declare that the ceasefire is a failure. If they do it today or tomorrow - isn't as important is it is if they just do it.

Nike.

Posted by B 2004-04-27 1:48:33 PM|| 2004-04-27 1:48:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 .com...please use caution when wielding your mighty word sword against LH. Oh sure, he's a liberal and as such sees things through goofy liberal eyes...but I like him because he reminds us how our (non-looney) left-brained liberal friends see the same events we do through very different eyes.

Don't go and scare him off now...he's probably the only sane liberal we've got. Your pen can be might sharp now...you be careful.

Posted by anonymouse 2004-04-27 1:58:16 PM|| 2004-04-27 1:58:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 anonymouse - Lol! That's about the most severely tongue-in-cheek post I've ever seen! Are you in pain?!!?!? Anbesol, bro / sis - that'll help!

Nay, I'm surrounded by eloquence, veritable virtual Blog Bards, methinks, so I know you could not be serious! Don't tease me like that! Lol!

Lh is a intelligent, articulate, and oh so careful poster. Only one other RB regular is his better (someone who claims NEVER to have EVER posted anything that wasn't factually correct, a no-shit fucking miracle, no? boggles...) and that's sure as hell not me. If he left me out of his magical tightrope object lessons, I'd give it a pass at least 99% of the time. Don't bait him, please, maybe he'll go chew on someone else!

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 2:17:24 PM|| 2004-04-27 2:17:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 I think LH forgot to consider that the best way to UNalienate Sunnis, Shias, and whoever else in Iraq is to stop the violence. Listen to any Iraqi on TV and you'll hear that their biggest complaint is the lack of security. Unfortunately, as long as American troops are there, they will act as magnets for all sorts of suicide bombers and exploding roadside Coke cans. But leaving is not an option either. So the best thing to do is to clean out the garbage already in Iraq, stop the inflow of more garbage from the neighbours, and establish some form of rule of law. The ceasefires and waiting did nothing except embolden the garbage to fight.

And about the supporters of "holy" clerics: the only way that people will understand that picking up an AK47 is wrong and illegal, is to give a good thumping to anyone who does this. A decision has to be made: either you allow domestic militias to run about the country, or you say it's wrong and stamp out the offenders, not letting anyone escape.

Otherwise you will not have any meaningful reconstruction of the country. And we might as well leave.

Posted by Rafael 2004-04-27 2:29:37 PM|| 2004-04-27 2:29:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 FoxNews showing IR view of Fallujah (about 10:40 PM there, I think) - lit up like a bonfire. Reporting very heavy fighting right now: cannon, gunfire, and 15-20 explosions.

Now Bret Baier reporting AC-130 gunship is in action, much of the fire / explosions are secondaries from ammo dump.

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 2:41:05 PM|| 2004-04-27 2:41:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Hey! .com - you really do wield a mighty pen! Looks like they took your post to heart.

Posted by B 2004-04-27 2:44:24 PM|| 2004-04-27 2:44:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 B - Lol! "They" being US Mil Cmdr on the scene? Ha! Fox earlier reported that he had been given the leeway to deal with the situation as he saw fit.

Today was the deadline for turning in the weapons. They didn't do it - so when an ammo dump and/or base was discovered, they acted. The IR view showing one main point - huge secondaries. Amazing - much like the famous Baghdad IR anti-air fire in Gulf War I.

It's REALLY blazing now. Huge secondaries and multiple locations. If you can get to it, turn on FoxNews.

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 2:57:58 PM|| 2004-04-27 2:57:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 "someone who claims NEVER to have EVER posted anything that wasn't factually correct, a no-shit fucking miracle, no? boggles"

Actually the only thing I've ever claimed in regards to this is that I have never *insulted* someone for correcting me on a factual mistake.

Here's the thread you are referring to: http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?D=4/11/2004&ID=30223&HC=Main and here's the exact sentence I used: "I will apologize to *everyone* whom I ever insulted because they corrected me on factual mistakes I made. But the number of these people is a big fat ZERO. I appreciate corrections and have never once in my life insulted people for offering them. Nor will I ever insult them."

Btw, I hope that people here have noticed how .com has tried to bait me with a lie against me in this this thread, even as he had tried to bait me with other lies in that one. Both times he's been successful ofcourse.

People have accused me of being a troll, but in reality he's the troll -- he simply chooses to bait select people rather than a whole group at once.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-27 3:07:01 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:07:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 we called a ceasefire, we gave the Iraqi pols and the local tribal chiefs a chance to yap, showing we respected them and all, and THEN, when the hostiles DIDNT turn in their heavy weapons, we gave the military commanders the green light to go after the baddies.

While at the SAME TIME allowing more low level ex-Baathists to get their jobs back, and allowing some ex-Baathist generals to join the new Iraqi army, (after suitable vetting, one hopes)

and we attack on one front at a time. In Najaf we carefully attack BETWEEN Kufa and Najaf, avoiding central Najaf, while allowing the locals to pressure Al Sadr.

Sounds very much like cautious action to me. Or active caution if you prefer.

We'd better have the patience for cautios action/active caution (how about CA/AC for short - I think we've got a new buzzword, a worthy successor to "Peshawar") if we're going to make this work - thats what "empire" necessarily involves.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 3:10:58 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:10:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 .com never mentioned Aris by name, did he?

Posted by docob 2004-04-27 3:20:09 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:20:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 "'i can call spirits from the vasty deep'
'but when you call them, wiil they come?'

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 3:27:01 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:27:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 docob> Nah, he didn't, which is even more shameful on his part. In Greek it's called "hiding behind one's finger".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-27 3:28:37 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:28:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 I don't think he was hiding behind a finger, I think he was, as we call it, giving one.

But hey! I could be wrong.

Posted by B 2004-04-27 3:31:29 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:31:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Otherwise you will not have any meaningful reconstruction of the country. And we might as well leave.

But NOT before declaring the official recognized existence of Kurdistan.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-04-27 3:32:59 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:32:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 It takes far less folks to defend a position than it does to attack an enemies position. A static army is far less likely to have a blue-on-blue problem with the stuff flying overhead. It's easier to embed reporters in a fixed position and easier to maintain supply and communications lines. And the problem of innocents getting in the way is a non-issue.

Just keep insulting them and egging them on and killing them when they charge. When they stop attacking our boys we still have the city surrounded and can change tactics.

Posted by ruprecht 2004-04-27 3:35:16 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:35:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Aw, I've offended. My finger is nowhere near wide enough. Of course I'm a troll: I know nothing and am always either off-topic or just wrong. Anyone disagreeing is obviously right. Please disregard all of my posts. Perfection isn't one of my flaws, so I'll readily admit I make mistakes. He who is not named is right, as always. :-)

BTW, has he hit the tip jar heavily to cover the incredible bandwidth and storage resources consumed? Just curious. 8-)

--30--

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 3:36:32 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:36:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 B> Nonetheless: It'd be more honest on his part if he would insult me by name, not through hints -- and even more honest if he could do it without the use of slander and lies.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-27 3:38:10 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:38:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 .com: You make me blush, really. You made a good point about the ROE. I never want to suggest that we violate the laws of war -- just that we fight to win.

I was thinking on the way into work today, what if we did take Peters' advice and level a mosque filled with gunmen? What if we invited Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya to film the whole thing? You and I and others here have speculated that Islam is a hollow log ready to collapse. What if we just took a big sledge hammer to all the magical thinking? What if we showed them that Allah ain't going to protect them?

Posted by 11A5S 2004-04-27 3:41:49 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:41:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 as for me

1. I DO make factual mistakes. I try to admit them when they occur
2. I confess to seeing many sides of every issue, and to listing many possible outcomes. Thats partly cause of why im here - im NOT here for ideological cheerleading, i could find that better at some more moderate sites like Tacitus. winds of change, or (my fave) oxblog. I come here to speculate about strategy, and that, to me, means discussing alternative outcomes.
3. I admit to getting personal occasionally - im sometimes a tad thinskinned myself (but then i dont claim to be the toughest hombre in town)
4.And i try to never go off topic.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 3:44:12 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:44:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 LH: "(how about CA/AC for short - I think we've got a new buzzword, a worthy successor to "Peshawar")"

How about "thinking strategically?" We take some risks now to make sure we have alliances and bases when we address the bigger targets to the east and southwest later.

Posted by James 2004-04-27 3:44:49 PM|| [http://www.idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2004-04-27 3:44:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 When they stop attacking our boys we still have the city surrounded and can change tactics.

The trick is to get them to stop attacking eventually. Otherwise it becomes another Palestinian-Israeli conflict but with different participants.

Posted by Rafael 2004-04-27 3:47:41 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:47:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 I hope that you're right, Liberalhawk. I'm done arguing for today. See you all tomorrow!

Posted by 11A5S 2004-04-27 3:50:46 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:50:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 in respone to rafs Israel-Pal analogy, and 11's Vietnam analogy, i think the situation is different here. Time is NOT on the side of the deadenders in Fallujah - while they try to attrit US into a VN type retreat, WE are putting a new regime in place in Baghdad, and finally doing a better job of vetting and training local Iraqi forces. The hostiles MUST win SOON, or they lose, and they KNOW it, which is WHY theyve come out in the open now.

Definitely different from Isr-Pal. And different (though more subtly) from VN.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 3:52:00 PM|| 2004-04-27 3:52:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Time is NOT on the side of the deadenders in Fallujah

I wholeheartedly disagree. In the long term (years), yes. But in the short term, any pause in the combat is a chance to resupply and reinforce.

And as soon as attention drifts away from Fallujah, the whole process starts over, with another "uprising" six months from now.

Posted by Rafael 2004-04-27 4:06:48 PM|| 2004-04-27 4:06:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 11A5S - Sorry - I shouldn't have put the ROE reference in the block posted to your attention (shit!) as it was meant as a generic response to others. Miscommunicated again! Arrrggghhh!

Aris - Get OVER yourself. I've insulted you? So fucking what? Who the hell cares besides you? Better yet, why would they? You whine and seethe like a veteran Paleo. Talk about thin-skinned - you're pure wimp. Fred can ban my ass from posting / viewing anytime he wants. I'll handle it.

BTW, socialist -- Have you donated to the upkeep of RB? C'mon, have you? Big time, verboseboy? You're the biggest single resource hog on the site. Be offended. Rant and rail - at me / the whole world. Post all you want and call the whole world idiot. It's become rather endearing...

BUT: Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is. Hosting your posts is not the honor you probably think it is.

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 4:08:42 PM|| 2004-04-27 4:08:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Raf

If we've got them cordoned off well enough they shouldnt be able to resupply. Or reinforce.

Of course it is possible they will try again somewhere else in 6 months. But the military is still saying that this largely ex-Baathists (in finite supply) foreigners (who can be cut off at the borders) and some locals (Fallujah being an extreme place even for the triangle, for a number of reasons)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-27 4:15:36 PM|| 2004-04-27 4:15:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Time is NOT on the side of the deadenders in Fallujah

This isn't Vietnam. I think time will have the opposite effect as Americans realize the nature of our Islamic foes. As each day goes by, the looney left gets more shrill and seems more looney and out of touch. And the Islamists get better understood.

It is a clash of civilization - not the North against the south. Each event just makes this more clear and brings more Americans on board.

Trying to relive the 60's is for retro wannabe's and grannies trying to relive the summer of love. Everyone else has moved on.

Posted by B 2004-04-27 4:22:09 PM|| 2004-04-27 4:22:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Ooh, ticked you off, .com, didn't I? That always happens to liars when their lies are exposed.

"Aris - Get OVER yourself. I've insulted you? So fucking what? "

No, you don't get it. You "slandered" me, not insulted me. So fucking what? The "so fucking what" is that whenever you slander me, I'll be posting the proof of your lies.

If that annoys you, don't lie in the first place.

"Fred can ban my ass from posting / viewing anytime he wants. I'll handle it."

Did I ever say you wouldn't? He can also ban mine, and I will also handle it.

"BTW, socialist"

I don't consider myself a socialist, even though I most recently voted for the socialist party. I'm more of a laissez-faire liberal myself.

"Have you donated to the upkeep of RB?"

I have no credit card, therefore I can't use Paypal. So no.

"Hosting your posts is not the honor you probably think it is."

I don't think it's an "honor". If the privilege of posting here is denied me, I'll go away without annoyance or bitterness. Fred's choice who he chooses to have post in his forum.

And frankly, if he doesn't want me posting here anymore he doesn't even need to ban me -- he can simply choose to tell me to go away and I will. Just say the word and I'm off.

But the fact of your own annoyance at being exposed for what you are, doesn't automatically make you a substitute for him. That's still Fred's choice to make, not yours.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-27 4:33:51 PM|| 2004-04-27 4:33:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Get a grip Aris. (BTW I've a goldie that knows exactly where the grip is)

Aris you got any relatives living in Leon County FL... I'd just remembered that Ken Katsaris was high sheriff awhile back. He also had an excellent mushroom pasture (or so I'm told) I think he was 3rd generation but I'm not certain.

Posted by Shipman 2004-04-27 5:01:46 PM|| 2004-04-27 5:01:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 LOL. I just read KK website. Holymoly I once took 3 lbs. of happy fungus off his ranch.

That was a long time ago and I don't suggest you try this at home.

Posted by Shipman 2004-04-27 5:06:08 PM|| 2004-04-27 5:06:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 Shipman> No relatives anywhere in the American continent, AFAIK.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-27 5:11:24 PM|| 2004-04-27 5:11:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Lol! You couldn't take yourself more seriously, IMO - and that IS just a statement of opinion! No one is ever merely incorrect or mistaken, nor do they ever merely misspeak or misquote... No, lol, no not if there's a difference with your opinions! No, indeed, they are liars and speak lies! Nothing can assuage such grievous harm in recompense for your imagined defamation except your factually perfect and righteous megaposts! *shiver!* No nit is too small to pick to death and no slight goes unnoticed! Blogging is, in the final tally, mere ego and verbal voyeurism - an extended Dangling Conversation. I hope you don't miss any (of my) posts or any buried potential slurs... I don't feel your pain, but that's just me! Lol!

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 5:28:35 PM|| 2004-04-27 5:28:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Oh, many things are merely incorrect or mistaken, and many people merely misspeak or misquote.

But in your case, you simply lie. Here's proof of that -- you keep on insinuating that I had ever claimed my posts were "factually perfect", even after being shown I never once claimed that.

Here's yet again in bold letters: I NEVER ONCE CLAIMED THAT MY POSTS WERE FACTUALLY PERFECT In fact I freely admit that I've made many mistakes in the past. Right now I don't remember a specific factual one in Rantburg (since my interaction here is mainly based on the level of opinions (and insults), not facts), but there's a ton of them in other forums and groups. You could probably google some of them up.

Anyway, when you intentionally repeat a so-called "mistake" even after being shown it's wrong, (as you've just done, in post #57 by insinuation and in previous threads also) that's a lie.

And since you have followed that tactic before, I don't need to give you the benefit of doubt anymore to call you a liar from the very first time.

(Ofcourse when especially ticked off, I sometimes accuse people of lying without first giving them the benefit of the doubt e.g. when Jen said I was constantly sympathizing with the Islamists, something I'd never once done. Sorry Jen!)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-27 5:46:46 PM|| 2004-04-27 5:46:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 TOUCHSTONE
Salutation and greeting to you all!

JAQUES
Good my lord, bid him welcome: this is the motley-minded gentleman that I have so often met in the forest: he hath been a courtier, he swears.

TOUCHSTONE
If any man doubt that, let him put me to my purgation. I have trod a measure; I have flattered a lady; I have been politic with my friend, smooth with mine enemy; I have undone three tailors; I have had four quarrels, and like to have fought one.

JAQUES
And how was that ta'en up?

TOUCHSTONE
Faith, we met, and found the quarrel was upon the
seventh cause.

JAQUES
How seventh cause? Good my lord, like this fellow.

DUKE SENIOR
I like him very well.

TOUCHSTONE
God 'ild you, sir; I desire you of the like. I press in here, sir, amongst the rest of the country copulatives, to swear and to forswear: according as marriage binds and blood breaks: a poor virgin, sir, an ill-favoured thing, sir, but mine own; a poor humour of mine, sir, to take that that no man else will: rich honesty dwells like a miser, sir, in a poor house; as your pearl in your foul oyster.

DUKE SENIOR
By my faith, he is very swift and sententious.

TOUCHSTONE
According to the fool's bolt, sir, and such dulcet diseases.

JAQUES
But, for the seventh cause; how did you find the
quarrel on the seventh cause?

TOUCHSTONE
Upon a lie seven times removed:--bear your body more seeming, Audrey:--as thus, sir. I did dislike the cut of a certain courtier's beard: he sent me word, if I said his beard was not cut well, he was in the mind it was: this is called the Retort Courteous. If I sent him word again 'it was not well cut,' he would send me word, he cut it to please himself: this is called the Quip Modest. If again 'it was not well cut,' he disabled my judgment: this is called the Reply Churlish. If again 'it was not well cut,' he would answer, I spake not true: this is called the Reproof Valiant. If again 'it was not well cut,' he would say I lied: this is called the Counter-cheque Quarrelsome: and so to the Lie Circumstantial and the Lie Direct.

JAQUES
And how oft did you say his beard was not well cut?

TOUCHSTONE
I durst go no further than the Lie Circumstantial,
nor he durst not give me the Lie Direct; and so we
measured swords and parted.

JAQUES
Can you nominate in order now the degrees of the lie?

TOUCHSTONE
O sir, we quarrel in print, by the book; as you have books for good manners: I will name you the degrees. The first, the Retort Courteous; the second, the Quip Modest; the third, the Reply Churlish; the fourth, the Reproof Valiant; the fifth, the Countercheque Quarrelsome; the sixth, the Lie with Circumstance; the seventh, the Lie Direct. All these you may avoid but the Lie Direct; and you may avoid that too, with an If. I knew when seven justices could not take up a quarrel, but when the parties were met themselves, one of them thought but of an If, as, 'If you said so, then I said so;' and they shook hands and swore brothers. Your If is the only peacemaker; much virtue in If.

JAQUES
Is not this a rare fellow, my lord? he's as good at any thing and yet a fool.

DUKE SENIOR
He uses his folly like a stalking-horse and under
the presentation of that he shoots his wit.

So "If" you weren't such an egregiously self-absorbed and pedantic asshole, I'd care. As it is, en guard, already!

Posted by .com 2004-04-27 6:10:04 PM|| 2004-04-27 6:10:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 someone who claims NEVER to have EVER posted anything that wasn't factually correct, a no-shit fucking miracle, no? boggles

you rang? im always fat checking myself its healthy and leads to good government

Posted by HalfEmpty 2004-04-27 6:27:52 PM|| 2004-04-27 6:27:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 .com> If you don't like the fish you caught, I ask you remember that it's you who trolled for me in this thread, not once but twice before I cared to respond.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-27 6:34:21 PM|| 2004-04-27 6:34:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 Greek dot com blossoms
Behind fat fingers grapple
Fierce bi-polar bears

Posted by mrp 2004-04-27 8:03:14 PM|| 2004-04-27 8:03:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 "He who hesitates" - is bossed.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-04-27 8:14:30 PM|| 2004-04-27 8:14:30 PM|| Front Page Top

09:44 muck4doo
09:35 raptor
04:03 Howard UK
01:55 Rex Mundi
00:06 BigEd
00:03 Pappy
00:01 Mike Sylwester
00:00 Old Patriot
23:57 Super Hose
23:52 Super Hose
23:52 Old Patriot
23:46 Barbara Skolaut
23:42 Pappy
23:38 Long Hair Republican
23:30 Super Hose
23:30 Pappy
23:20 Bomb-a-rama
23:16 Ol_Dirty_American
23:11 ruprecht
23:07 Anonymous4602
23:02 ex-lib
22:51 Infidel Bob
22:48 Phil Fraering
22:48 Super Hose