Fallujah - Sunni Triangle

[ghuinness]

1235 GMT - Five non-U.S. soldiers with the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq were killed March 31 when a bomb exploded under their vehicle in al-Anbar province, west of Baghdad. In a separate incident, gunmen attacked two vehicles in Al Fallujah, killing at least two civilians. Crowds were seen dragging two burned and mutilated bodies through the streets of the town. In a third incident, at least 12 people were injured in a suspected car bomb attack in Baquba, north of Baghdad.

(from Stratfor).

[QRQ 30]

I heard a couple of interesting questions this morning concerninf the recent events:

1. Why do they do such things?
My answer: Because they don't like us very much.

2. How can we stop them?
My answer: Make them like us or exterminate them!!

[The Reaper]

From Fox News. Nine US deaths.

May be some buddies of ours.

RIP.

TR



Violence Strikes Iraq's Sunni Triangle

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

FALLUJAH, Iraq — The charred corpses of four coalition civilian contractors, all Americans, were pulled out of burning cars, dragged through the streets of Fallujah and hung from a bridge by rejoicing residents Wednesday. Five U.S. soldiers died in a separate bombing nearby.

Chanting "Fallujah is the graveyard of Americans," locals cheered during the grisly assault on two four-wheel-drive civilian vehicles, which left both in flames. Others chanted the more standard "We sacrifice our blood and souls for Islam."

The four contract workers were killed in a rebel ambush of their SUVs in Fallujah, a Sunni Triangle (search) city about 35 miles west of Baghdad.

The State Department is contacting the families of the victims. All four were men, said Sgt. 1st Class Lorraine Hill, a coalition spokeswoman.

Support for Saddam Hussein has always been strong in the area, and rebels often carry out attacks against American forces.

"It is not surprising that they are engaging in attacks as we increasingly make progress ... their strategic goal is to turn back the progress," Dan Senor, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, told reporters Wednesday. "Those aren't people we're interested in helping — those are people we have to capture or kill so this country can move forward."

In a separate incident in Malahma, 12 miles to the northwest of Fallujah, five 1st Infantry Division soldiers died when their M-113 armored personnel carrier ran over a bomb.

Also in Ramadi, a roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. convoy, witnesses said. U.S. officials in Baghdad could not confirm the attack.

On Tuesday in Ramadi, one U.S. soldier was killed and another wounded in a roadside bombing, said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt.

"We condemn these attacks in strongest possible terms," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters in Washington Wednesday. "We mourn the loss of life."

"Iraqis are realizing freedom is on its way. As we move forward, obviously there will be those who want to stop the progress, but there's no turning back," McClellan continued.

"These former regime elements, these terrorists and others who are making trouble, will be dealt with and will be defeated," Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters during a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Wednesday.

"We regret the loss of any life and I express my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives to date," he added. "But those lives are lost in the cause of freedom and the Iraqi people will be free. It will happen."

Another 'Black Hawk Down'?

The brutal treatment of the four contractors' bodies was some of the most graphic violence since the beginning of the American occupation a year ago.

It was reminiscent of Somalia in 1993, where a mob dragged the corpse of a U.S. soldier through the streets of Mogadishu (search), eventually leading to the American and U.N. withdrawal from the failed East African state.

Associated Press Television News pictures showed one man beating a charred corpse with a metal pole. Others tied a yellow rope to a body, hooked it to a car and dragged it down the main street of town. Two blackened and mangled corpses were hung from a green iron bridge across the Euphrates.

"The people of Fallujah hanged some of the bodies on the old bridge like slaughtered sheep," resident Abdul Aziz Mohammed said. Some of the corpses were dismembered, he said.

Beneath the bodies, a man held a printed sign with a skull and crossbones and the phrase, "Fallujah is the cemetery for Americans."

"If you think of a gangster mentality, that is exactly how Iraq was ruled for the past 35 years. It was only recently that efforts have been made to free the country," said retired Navy Capt. Chuck Nash, calling former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "the Al Capone of the 21st century."

"These people have the most to lose in a free Iraq because they have the most to gain under the gangsters," Nash said of the attackers in Fallujah. But "what we can't do is to ease off at this point. These people cannot gain from this activity."

APTN showed the charred remains of three slain men. Some were wearing flak jackets, said resident Safa Mohammedi.

One resident displayed what appeared to be dog tags taken from one body. Residents also said there were weapons in the targeted cars. APTN showed one American passport near a body and a U.S. Department of Defense identification card belonging to another man.

"Most of the people in Fallujah want to move on with their lives ... want to be part of a new Iraq. There's a small part of Fallujah that just doesn't get it," Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad Wednesday.

"They [attackers] have a view somehow that the harder they fight, the better chance they have" at restoring some of the pro-Saddam movement, Kimmitt continued.

Witnesses said the two SUVs were attacked with small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Hours after the attack, the city was quiet. No U.S. troops or Iraqi police were seen in the area.

"It's a horrifying site ... it's brutal and terrible and reminds you of 'Black Hawk Down,'" retired Army Maj. Gen. Donald Edwards told Fox News, referring to the book and movie depicting the Mogadishu disaster. "I think it's a harsh reality that these people are very unpleasant people ... It's an area that's going to be a problem, I'm afraid, for a long time to come."

Asked whether the attacks would cause U.S. military servicemen and women to question their missions, Edwards replied: "This will only strengthen their resolution. They're not going to quit."

[Radar Rider]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
2. How can we stop them?
My answer: Make them like us or exterminate them!! I don't think they'll be getting like us anytime soon. A few MOABs (or hell, even a nuke) in Fallujah might teach them bastards what the hell. This is unacceptable; they're are savages and need to be dealt with on their own terms! :mad:

[Smokin Joe]

RIP Gentlemen

[QRQ 30]

This is a case wherer "Hearts and Minds" means "Rip their hearts out and we'll control their minds."

I'm not a serious proponent of the "Scorched Earth" policy but believe this is one time we need to react quickly and violently. If we hurt some "neutrals" they will either join us or join the terrorists. Either way we'll know where they stand.

[The Reaper]

If that ever happens to me, I hope that when they see we are dead, and the crowd has us, they cut loose with an Apache (max load, 2.75" flechette) and Warthog clearance sale (GAU, CBU, and FAE mix) right down the middle of the street, and find some napalm to finish the job right.

Nothing better than showing up at the Gates with 500 bad guys you helped take out on the way.

There were no friends of the U.S. or anyone who is going to be converted in that crowd.

Hell's coming to dinner, now go get some payback.

TR

[D9 (RIP)]

I hope our response is forceful. And, it should be directed against the citizens of Fallujah at large, given the mob, rather than looking for the handful of individuals that did the original shooting. Unfortunately, from the interviews I have seen by CPA bureaucrats today, it sounds like they are sticking to the premise that this is just a few proverbial bad apples. I don't see how you can draw that conclusion rationally given what we all saw happen yesterday, but that appears to be the character of our response anyway.

It appears that on the premise that this is only a handful of "anti-democracy" types, we are going to proceed with a "surgical" response. But while the attackers may be the worst of the bunch, it should be clear that the general population of Fallujah needs to be taught a lesson.

Surgery may the right response to repair a wound on a person's foot if the tissue around the injury is not malignant with infection. But if the lower leg is consumed with gangreen, then the problem has to be dealt with more comprehensively. I think this is the appropriate lens through which to view a solution to the incident in Fallujah. Clearly, the general sentiment in that area is poisoned against our goals.

It's time to amputate. I would have no problem with laying seige to the city and shutting down every utility (water, power, etc) until every individual who participated in that animal mob and the attacks was hanging from the same bridge that our men were hanging from - or at least turned over to the American forces laying seige. Make Fallujah and example of the stick that will meet those who refuse the carrot.

[Sacamuelas]

I considered not typing a response to this one due to the raw emotions that all that frequent this site must be experiencing when viewing the results of yesterday's barbarism. I, too, experienced these feelings but I know my reaction cannot compare to some of you based on your backgrounds, personal relationships, and personal history with those directly involved in this mission and ones like it in the past.

IMO, The response should be focused only on the people that were responsible. Let me clarify quickly who I think that is before I upset to many of you. Anyone “at the scene� has contributed to this atrocity. Not just the actual participants in the ambush and subsequent attack, but also the relatively small % of the total population of the city that came out of their houses and celebrated the brutality. The punishment and retribution should be extreme, brutal, and definite.

That being said, I do not agree with the ideas that the entire town should be sanctioned/lay siege to it. That is exactly what the terrorists, extremists, etc want the US military to do in the wake of this tragedy. That is exactly why they tried to influence our foreign policy by their barbaric attempt to replicate the outcome in Somalia.

I think our military and the contractors still in the area responded very professionally by not simply rushing into the area with guns blazing once it was determined that the initial attack/disgusting follow-on brutality had already taken place and had dispersed before the adequate troops could arrive on scene to prevent or disrupt its occurrence. The time to do something was either rapidly(like TR's suggestion) while it was occurring (probably not logistically possible at the time for the current forces in the AO) or by waiting and performing subsequent surgical attacks and intelligence collection by "whatever means necessary" from the people in the video tape in the near future.
If our troops and/or contractors would have rushed into "the city" after the event was completely over, the scumbags would have already blended into the general population again and been using human shields/regular civilians.

It is much more effective to ensure their destruction by allowing our professionals to enter the AO and conduct operations against these swine on our operator’s terms and using the advantages our operators choose to utilize. The contract personnel in the area can perform this alone or with SF personnel and/or a joint effort.

I do not fault anyone for feeling more radical or extreme than my ideas on the topic. I just thought this viewpoint should be expressed into the thread.

RIP
Sympathy to the families and friends of those already lost while performing their duty in this honorable task:( ... and hopeful for absolute and swift justice/retribution for those that caused this atrocity.

[ktek01]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas

It is much more effective to ensure their destruction by allowing our professionals to enter the AO and conduct operations against these swine on our operator’s terms and using the advantages our operators choose to utilize. The contract personnel in the area can perform this alone or with SF personnel and/or a joint effort.


I think that should be a Military only mission, not a mission for contract workers. Contract workers play an important role with our downsized forces, and they are needed, but I wouldn't want to see us start using them for large scale direct action missions.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Anybody have an idea of what the population there is?

[Airbornelawyer]

Posted this on Socnet, might as well repeat it here:

Fallujah is a city of over 280,000. The core of the city is some 30 square kilometers. Taking it over will require planning and extensive resources. Unlike a lot of Middle Eastern cities, though, much of its roads and neighborhoods are laid out in grids, so cordoning is a little easier.

Here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/fallujah-map.jpg) is a map of the city (the map is about 2 megabytes and 1350x2000 pixels in size)

[NousDefionsDoc]

Thanks for that. If you were General Kimmett, what would your response be?

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Anybody have an idea of what the population there is?

Several thousand more today than there needs to be.

Don't tell me we couldn't have made an air strike on that party while it was underway. They took several hours to finish.

The perpetrators, and those who are complicit, do not respond to the carrot, let us show them the stick, and make an example of them.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Of course we could Boss. If we wanted to, we could turn it into the world's largest roller-skating rink in a day. But that's not going to happen.

280k doesn't seem like a lot of people to deal with.

[QRQ 30]

I feel the reaction shoul d be (er, should have been), swift and violent. It should also be controlled. The inhabitants need to be made to realize that we are reacting in kind to an act of violence rather than pure hatred against the inhabitants. When the people realize the results of terrorist activities, they will be more cooperative in turning in the terrorists. The consequences of "looking away" have to be more severe than the consequences of being a "snitch".

To react out of hatred for the people negates our reasons for being there.

Contractors should have the means of self-defense but not become mercenaries or vigilanties. We still have to keep our goals in mind -- which I thought were a free and self-determining nation of Iran.

Though this was much more violent than previous demonstrations, you will notice that the Middle Easterners love to dance in the streets -- for either side. Sometime pay close attention to the videos and you may recognize the same familiar faces-- almost always right in front of the camera. It is almost as if some of the demonstrators ar paid actors for the news photographerts.

My God!! some of what I see is over the hill. Should we have bombed Watts off of the map because of somewhat similar riots?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Its a mob with a mob mentality. Mr. Harsey's friend Col. Applegate did quite a bit of work with mobs over the years. A British technique used against the Boers also comes to mind. What I am thinking is separate the women and children (not teenagers), send them to a containment area. Then go through the place one door at a time. Shot fired, building disappears.

ID card the males over age 10. Use the videos from the incident to go after the ones needed for an example. Name a military mayor. Summary military tribunals out in the sunshine.

Make the guilty walk point and drive the vehicles in the convoys that are getting hit.

That sort of thing.

[Airbornelawyer]

Whatever is done needs to be done soon. An anniversary is approaching. On April 28, 2003, U.S. forces killed some 13+ Iraqis and wounded 75-100 in Fallujah in a controversial incident. It happened during a protest when marchers, including a lot of children (three of the dead were reportedly children under 10), marched on the base that the 82nd had set up in a school. According to CENTCOM, the U.S. troops opened fire when they received fire from armed men in the crowd, but the evidence is in dispute (one report says rocks being thrown by protesters shattered vehicle glass and was mistaken for automatic weapons fire). The Fallujis, naturally, claimed no one in the crowd was armed and the Americans fired on unarmed civilians. Makes more sense that fedayeen used the protest as a cover (or instigated the protest to get cover) to get close to U.S. troops and provoke the incident.

On the Muslim calendar, the first anniversary of that incident will be this April 16. On the Western calendar, of course, the anniversary is April 28. So both dates bear watching for efforts by agitators to start something again.

[QRQ 30]

Another solution which worked. CRS exactly but around 1966-67 there were violent anti-american riots in Panama City with the mob threatening to cross into the Canal Zone. About a half dozen snipers "neutralized" the leaders and the riots stopped.

A mob is comprised of 99% followers. Take out the kingpins and it disperses.

Of coursae I guess we could kill each manchild over the age of three!!

As a minor point, the British and French used "Scorched Earth" policies in North Africa and the Middle East. Guess how many of those countries still fly the Union Jack and the French Tri-color.

[pulque]

Originally posted by The Reaper Don't tell me we couldn't have made an air strike on that party while it was underway. They took several hours to finish.

would've been good.

RIP

[ktek01]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
Another solution which worked. CRS exactly but around 1966-67 there were violent anti-american riots in Panama City with the mob threatening to cross into the Canal Zone. About a half dozen snipers "neutralized" the leaders and the riots stopped.

A mob is comprised of 99% followers. Take out the kingpins and it disperses.



I really like that one, we should be doing a lot of that.

[Solid]

How do you think the Press would react to such an action? Is there any way to limit the ability of the press to know about such operations, let alone report them?

Thank you,

Solid

[lrd]

Coalition Provisional Authority Briefing: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040401-0575.html

Q General, there certainly didn't seem to be a pell-mell response yesterday. We spoke to the ICDC today who went and picked up the bodies. They said they didn't dare go near the bodies which were on the bridge until 8:00 in the evening, which would make it about 10 hours after the attack. Can you explain how it was possible that American civilians' bodies were dragged around a town which is guarded by thousands of Marines for a good 10 hours, left out in the street, and nobody did anything?

GEN. KIMMITT: Well, first of all, I don't know the exact time line. And second, it was the determination of the personnel in the region that by the time they would have arrived or could have arrived, those persons were already dead and they were being controlled by some of these insurgents. I think that there was a well thought-out decision on the part of the Marines that let's not rush headlong into there, there may be ambushes set up, there may be civilians being used as human shields. And at this point, while it was dreadful, while it was unacceptable, while it was bestial, a preemptive attack into the city could have taken a bad situation and made it even worse. We will be back in Fallujah. It will be at the time and the place of our choosing. We will hunt down the criminals. We will kill them or we will capture them. And we will pacify Fallujah.

Q Can I just ask one quick follow-up. Just does it not send out a rather dangerous message that these people can get away with this, pretty much do whatever they want? I mean, I was in Fallujah today and people were saying, "Yeah, the Americans were scared to come back in." Does that not send out a bad message of tolerance of violence?

GEN. KIMMITT: Ask them after the Americans have come back in.

[QRQ 30]

Originally posted by Solid
How do you think the Press would react to such an action? Is there any way to limit the ability of the press to know about such operations, let alone report them?

Thank you,

Solid

We can't let the press dictate our actions. They will always find or invent something to report. This is basically no different than SWAT operations. Most people realize that the death of a few to save the lives of innocents is justified. We see people crying for retalliation and then worry about a few snipers??

If we were to fire on the crowd in general, would we curtail or prevent the ambushes or merely the demonstrators?

[QRQ 30]

General Kimmet's remarks bother me: "Just wait!!!" I am sorry but if I am going to smack someone I'll do it right now and talk about it later. I hope we aren't going to start following Israeli tactics in the West Bank. You can see how successful they have been in bring peace to the area.

How many demontrators do you suppose there were.? In a city of 280,000 some want to punish the entire city. Isn't this like killing a man because he has an infected hand?

[NousDefionsDoc]

FALLUJAH, IRAQ: A previously unknown group claimed the gruesome killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, western Iraq, in revenge for Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, according to the AFP.

"This is a gift from the people of Fallujah to the people of Palestine and the family of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin who was assassinated by the criminal Zionists," said in the statement from the "Brigades of Martyr Ahmed Yassin."

"We advise the US forces to withdraw from Iraq and we advise the families of the American soldiers and the contractors not to come to Iraq," said the statement obtained by AFP.

The statement, entitled "Fallujah, the graveyard of the Americans," claimed the group's fighters killed "members of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Zionist Mossad," referring to Israel's intelligence agency.

It said the "blind violence" of Fallujah residents resulted from an increasing hatred of the Americans and was also in response to the "US aggression, raids on mosques and homes, the arrests, the torture of clerics and the terrorizing of women and
children."

[ktek01]

Originally posted by Solid
Is there any way to limit the ability of the press to know about such operations, let alone report them?

Thank you,

Solid

I can think of one way. ;)

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
General Kimmet's remarks bother me: "Just wait!!!" I am sorry but if I am going to smack someone I'll do it right now and talk about it later. I hope we aren't going to start following Israeli tactics in the West Bank. You can see how successful they have been in bring peace to the area.

I agree. Kimmet has said two things that really bother me. One is that we will strike at a time and place of our choosing. As The Reaper pointed out, common sense dictates that there could hardly be a more opportune moment to hit the bad guys than when they are out in the street beating the bodies of murdered Americans with shovels. This fact will not even be lost on the halfwits that comprised that mob. It seems analagous to a playground bully who walks up and punches another kid in the face. Afterwards, the kid runs away. Later, when the other kids find the victim sulking, they tease him. His response is that he's going to get that bully back one of these days, when he feels like it.

The other statement he is making is that we are going to strike surgically (or something to that effect, can't recall the exact term), yet overwhelmingly. Seems to me that if we go in surgically, it is going to be to grab/kill a few bad guys. I doubt this will overwhelm the city of Fallujah. In this instance, I think the concepts of "surgical" and "overwhelming" are our basic alternatives, and frankly I'm afraid that the descriptive term "overwhelming" is just supposed to put an intimidating wrapper on what is otherwise going to be a pretty low-key operation. I hope I'm wrong.

Originally posted by QRQ 30
How many demontrators do you suppose there were.? In a city of 280,000 some want to punish the entire city. Isn't this like killing a man because he has an infected hand?

I seriously doubt that all 280,000 people in the city knew about the attack. The question is, if they had, what would their reaction have been. As well as I understand, those who were in the area of the attack and were aware of it as it was happening joined in the barabaric parade (or at least a large percentage did). I do think you need to punish the entire city - they at least need to be made to understand that if they tolerate animals like that in their midst it involves a certain danger that when the Americans come for retribution, they may be confused as one of the bad guys.

It would seem to me that when you have a benign population who is more or less sympathetic and helpful to you, but within which a small contingent of goons operates, then it makes sense to appeal to the sympathies of the population and work to surgically remove the malignant element. It is analagous to a cancerous tumor which has not spread. You want to remove the tumor with minimal damage to the surrounding, benign, tissue. Once the cancer has spread throughout the body, however, a different approach is necessitated that attacks the whole body indescriminately. In cities like Fallujah and Samara, I think it is time to consider this approach.

Everyone I know who's been over there says that towns like Fallujah and Samara are infected to the core with the kind of anti-American sentiment that fueled these recent atrocities. We've tried the carrot, it's time for the stick IMO. If the population of these places will not voluntarily break ties with these monsters, then they must be made to do so coercively. This, IMHO, necessitates making the population at large feel the pain of this kind of treachery. There is a certain, psychological, value for us in having the people of Fallujah know that if the bad guys in their midst continue with their depredations, it will bring down our wrath on the whole city at large.

Same goes for Samara, Tikrit, and any of these other cities where the men of our military or CPA contractors have to take extraordinary risks to even drive down the streets.

[Surgicalcric]

I could not agree more D9.

It is time time to begin Chemotherapy.

[The Reaper]

To quote from a Batman movie:

"This town needs an enema."

We could hand out $100 bills and not make friends there. They hate us regardless, are constantly bombarded with anti-US propoganda, and the vast majority seem to support the terrorists.

Harsh times call for harsh measures. The best time to strike has been missed. We need to pursue those responsible via the limited means we have available, but prepare so that the next time it happens, the retribution is swift, merciless, and extreme.

If we cannot make them love us, we should make them respect (or at least fear) us.

I would not be beyond using bait to get them to attempt the same action again, and then pile on.

I suspect that if you did that a couple of times, the number of people who would attempt the hit would drop through losses, and the groups who would mutilate the bodies would lean through Darwinian selection that it was not a smart thing to do.

How about a remotely controlled vehicle with an explosive payload? Sort of a "Q-Ship".

Just a thought.

TR

[Kyobanim]

I like that idea.

I also like that quote.

[Solid]

IMO Machiavelli's The Prince comes to mind. These types, or at least their leaders (of which I think there are many, maybe not leaders but genuine activits) are A-Class dissemblers and should be treated not with the velvet glove but with the fist inside. I do not think that arrests will do any good, it has been said before that these people only understand force, much like the Soviets.

The danger, as Bard E. O'Neill pointed out, is that in the retributionary operations there is collateral damage to 'innocent' civilians. This will often cause the cancer to spread, as opposed to isolating and destroying it.

Therefore, it seems prudent that before any operations are undertaken, a full assessment is performed on the population so that only those genuinely guilty are attacked. However, an accurate assessment may be difficult to compile. Perhaps the best option is to wait for/ trigger another riot and then use lethal force?

Solid

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by Solid
This will often cause the cancer to spread, as opposed to isolating and destroying it.

The cancer would seem to have spread already. IMO, when civilians live in an area from which they know these kinds of attacks are staged, they have a responsibility either to get busy on their own rooting out the bad guys, or they have no place to bitch when someone else does it for them.

If somebody is shooting at you from your neighbors window, then your neighbor is morally obligated to either do something about it himself, or else get the heck out of your way while you do something. If your neighbor permits this to happen, and then puts the condition on your doing something about it that requires you to take addition risks because of his unwillingness to help, then he is no longer "innocent."

This is the analog of the situation of the citizens of Fallujah. Either they need to drive out those from their midst that threaten us, or if they prefer that we do it they need to take responsibility for making sure that they are out of the area and safe. They know what's going on. They need to secure the bad guys, secure themselves, or relinquish claims to "innocence."

IMHO.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I agree. At a minimum its passive support. And you know some of them hid weapons, scouted, hid the doers after the fact.

A methodical and overwhelming response conducted by grim faced and unsympathetic professionals is called for here. But it should have been done, as Reaper said, after the initial first response, which should have been swift and violent.

Cordon the thing off, pull out the women and kids and start busting heads and caps.

ID card everybody, controlled access in and out. Declare martial law with curfews, military mayor, etc.

[QRQ 30]

I agree with most of what NDD says. We must make it known that our actions are as a result the actions of terrorists and will only cease when the terrorists cease. Then the population may be more inclined to cooperate.

On the other hand we must demonstrate our ability to protect the population. If we can't they will not come forward.

Many of the statements about passive populace can easily apply to the Cabrini Towers in Chicago, East L.A. Detroit, etc.

Isn't it easy to judge from a throne?

[Footmobile]

I think this might have been the bad guys way of testing the newly arrived USMC forces and how they will handle things in the future in Fallujah.

Sadly it would appear that they now have a perception that the USMC is afraid to put the smack down like the 82nd had been doing prior to their arrival.

Sets a terrible precedent for the Marines in the area IMO.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by Footmobile
Sets a terrible precedent for the Marines in the area IMO.

Concur.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I don't know so much about that. But then I'm not over there. How would it look if they went running in there and lost a Battalion in an ambush? How would it look if we pulled out because of losing a Battalion?

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't know so much about that. But then I'm not over there. How would it look if they went running in there and lost a Battalion in an ambush? How would it look if we pulled out because of losing a Battalion?

I would be extremely disappointed in my boys if they went into Fallujah with a regiment of Marines supported by armor, arty, and air, and lost a battalion to those goons. I think the Marines could do alright against these clowns.

I think a greater danger is how emboldened the citizens of Fallujah become as each day passes without their being held accountable for their actions. I would imagine that the instigators of the attack are making full use of this time to plan, prepare, recruit, and propagandize the citizenry to the effect that America does not dare enter Fallujah. If I were the G-Chief, I would be taking full advantage of it.

Having said all that, obviously (and unfortunately IMO) I'm not over there either, so all of the above is based only on what I have gleaned from the news and from those I've spoken with who have experience in Fallujah and the surrounding areas.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I like Reaper's idea as a first response. AC 130 and Little Bird runs over the crisis site. Bust it up, then get the bodies back.

Then go in methodically and bust heads.

I'm sure the USMC could do all right against the goons as well. But underestimating your enemy is a cardinal sin.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I like Reaper's idea as a first response. AC 130 and Little Bird runs over the crisis site. Bust it up, then get the bodies back.

Then go in methodically and bust heads.

I'm sure the USMC could do all right against the goons as well. But underestimating your enemy is a cardinal sin.

At least for my part, that's what I am talking about. The fact that we didn't react that way while the Marines were on duty - especially with their much ballyhooed "hearts and minds" strategy :rolleyes: - hurts their credibility IMO.

Send in air and arty to level those mobs, send in the Marines to get the body's back and break something off of ayone left in the street. Our failure to do so was a mistake, IMHO.

I have a question for the UW experts: If you are dealing with an insurgency and the enemy scores a dramatic victory against you - even if by dramatic it is only for propaganda value - is there some maxim that it is best to strike back quickly to minimize time he can take advantage of the propaganda? It would seem to me that when dealing with an insurgency who depends on the civilian population for support, recruits, etc., it would be very important to maintain the impression in the population that the insurgency was doomed. Reason I ask is that I see this as the same type of situation. The insurgents are surely milking this dramatic attack, and the impunity with which they have carried it off thusfar, for all it is worth.

[NousDefionsDoc]

No, no maxim that I can remember. The govs that have done the best IMO, have in fact done what the Jarhead General is doing. Steady, calm, dispassionate and staying the course.

Our first reaction (to turn it into a parking lot) is actually probably exactly what they were hoping for. Escalation to repressive measures to turn the populace against us and for them.

If you're going to do that, the measures have to be so repressive as to wipe out the insurgents. IMO, they have studied us and think they know what has worked in the past. The Mog Strategy if you will. I hope they are underestimating POTUS' resolve. If he gets re-elected, they are screwed IMO. The Mog thing seems to be their one Grand Strategy. It worked against Spain, Russia in Chechnya (albeit for short terms) and has worked against us in Mog and Vietnam and Beruit before that. Its all about political will and staying power and they know that. They learned it from Vietnam, applied it against the Soviets in 'Stan, and it has been continually re-enforced against Islamic terrorists. Its actually a good strategy for them from their POV, unless you have a determined POTUS, then all you have to do is wait until he leaves.

Make no mistake about it, the things done to the bodies were designed for one thing - to increase opposition to the presence by using TV and the internet to bring it into people's living rooms.

I am old enough (barely) to remember Cronkite's nightly casualty lists from Vietnam. i see a lot of the same types of things now, especially on the internet.

We need to be prepared to either stay and fight this shit for the next 10 years (Brits in Malaya) or pull completely out and never go back. And if we're going to stay, we need to be prepared to get Medieval on their ass and take some casualties. They may be goons, but they're not messing around.

I also think it may be a mistake to learn to many lessons from the Israelis. They don't have the best track record in dealing with these people and the ones I have met are not, in all honesty, all that hot. I certainly think our troops are a cut above, especially now with two years of combat under their belts.

[D9 (RIP)]

I cannot disagree with steady, calm, and dispassionate, except to say that I would have hoped the actions those words characterize to have been more forceful, deliberate, and based more on our interests.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Well, it hasn't even begun yet, has it? There's still hope.:D

[NousDefionsDoc]

Its been 48, should we move the thread to terrorism?

[Surgicalcric]

Cuncur. A move would be in order.

[Airbornelawyer]

As I noted in regard to the upcoming anniversary, events in Fallujah should not be viewed in a vacuum. One reason for not going in until all the pieces are in place is to not have a repeat of April 2003, when a small number of paratroopers found themselves facing a large mob, and had neither the preparation or the resources to separate the agitators from the crowd.

Another thing to keep in mind when planning how to deal with the city: while our overall strategy for Iraq has been to try to make the various factions in the country - Sunni and Shi'ite Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, etc. - act like happy campers to each other, in this region we should be developing the intel and resources to play the Sunni tribes against each other. Saddam and the Ba'ath favored the Sunnis over other Iraqis, but within Sunni-land, they favored certain tribes, such as Saddam's own Tikritis, over others. There are bound to be plenty of Sunni Arabs looking for a little payback too.

The Rawi clan, for example, may have been Ba'athists and dislike Americans (Gen. Sayfuddin Fulayyih Hassan Taha ar-Rawi was the Jack of Clubs), but they hate the Tikritis. Within the Tikritis also were clans out of Saddam's favor at various times who may have scores to settle. In both the short and the long run, these rivalries may be worth taking advantage of (they also played a role in Saddam's betrayal and capture).

[D9 (RIP)]

I could see the value of the "play the tribes off against one another" approach if we were in a position of weakness. As it is, I don't see why a more assertive, martial approach along the lines of how they pacified Axis cities in WWII wouldn't work better.

Playing the tribes against one another would only seem to reinforce tribalism, which I think is part of the problem, and would probably involve pragmatic concessions to set these groups up against one another we may come to regret later.

[Solid]

IMH (and relatively uneducated) O, allowing tribes to attack each other without losing utter control of the area would be difficult, especially in an environment where families have traditional feuds (this is what I've heard, at least), and escalated tribal rivalries are likely to be passed down through the generations. It seems that a 'snowball effect' would occur.

IMO, at least.

Solid
EDITED- whoops! didn't see D9's post.

[Smokin Joe]

I sort of disagree with you Solid. In that you could use the rivilary between tribes to your advantage but on a limited scale. Use the intel they provide to you about who did what, granted they may be lieing there asses off but collect humint from a couple different tribes. I bet collective you come up with a good list of "usual suspects" Granted its not concrete evidence but its a good place to start.

Combine that with knowing the people in the mobs were not trucked in (atleast not that I know of). So they most likely walked in. Now be reasonable about your distance in determining how far one could/would walk to be apart of this demonstration. Combine that with the rumors you collect from other tribes, and I'll bet a dollar to a dime that you come up with a great idea on where these little f*ckers hang out and or live. Then go in and mercilessly deliver the STICK. Then leave calling cards stating that if this shit happens again the retaliation will be worse. I.E. we will not only kill you but every member of your family.

Although the last part about killing there family would most likely be a lie.

Just my .02 cents

[Airbornelawyer]

Here is an article from last July on the Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes and their loyalties: http://www.hnn.us/comments/14860.html I only gave it a cursory overview, but it appears to touch on a number of issues worth knowing in dealing with that region of Iraq. It does indicate that Fallujah is a stronghold of the Dulaym tribe. The 10 of clubs, Latif Nussayif al-Jasim ad-Dulaymi, captured last June, was from this tribe.

[Bill Harsey]

NDD, You are correct about Col. Applegate. If I learned anything from him it was that the study and control of mobs was a craft unto itself. The political implications always weighed heavy on the choice of action. I don't think human nature has changed much since the cold war days. That said, so far I read nothing here I disagree with. Remember, just a knifemaker here.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Remember, just a knifemaker here.

That's akin to saying the Team Sergeant is "just" a competent pistol shot, The Reaper is "just" an SF Trooper, Longrange is "just" a marksman, Greenhat is "just" an oppressor of the proletariat, I am "just" a communis...WAIT!

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
That's akin to saying the Team Sergeant is "just" a competent pistol shot, The Reaper is "just" an SF Trooper, Longrange is "just" a marksman, Greenhat is "just" an oppressor of the proletariat, I am "just" a communis...WAIT!
LOL!

[Solid]

Look! It's Sacamuelas trying to dance! LOL NDD :D

Smokin Joe: I didn't consider the use of tribal rivalries for intelligence. When it comes to creating 'regulated' small tribal wars, however, IMHO such wars would become difficult to control.

Solid

[echoes]

Originally posted by The Reaper
[B...I would not be beyond using bait to get them to attempt the same action again, and then pile on.

I suspect that if you did that a couple of times, the number of people who would attempt the hit would drop through losses, and the groups who would mutilate the bodies would lean through Darwinian selection that it was not a smart thing to do.

How about a remotely controlled vehicle with an explosive payload? Sort of a "Q-Ship".

Just a thought.

TR [/B]

Sir, I have a crazy idea, but it could work?
Just use me as bait!!! Hell, I'm single, lightweight, and will travel in full body paint!

Those Falluja pigs would never expect a devil possesed looking blonde woman to come screeching though their streets...just drop me out of a chopper, and once I get their attention, WHAM!
You Guys show up and blow them all back to the stoneage!

I am dead serious! If You need some unconventional bait, just let me know, and I will be there. The least a little civilian like me could do for what They did to Our own!

[QRQ 30]

I had mentioned snipers but, I just heard from a man who had talked to troops in Iraq and who have returned from Iraq and he says that without a doubt, the one thing that will cause all Iraqi to shit their pants then drop everything and run is the M-1 Abrams.

Perhaps what they need is an armored company or larger to roll right through Fallujah. I haven't experienced it but apparently the fire power of the Abrahms is truly awsome.

[NousDefionsDoc]

In Panama, it was the AC 130. They begged us not to call the "infra-rojo". Of course they never saw an Abrams.

[Solid]

Listening to first-hand accounts of tanker experiences in the invasion of baghdad, tanks might have some difficulty operating within the city, even with Bradley and Infantry support. At least Fallujah is relatively squared, as opposed to the Mog's haphazard design.

Solid

[QRQ 30]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
In Panama, it was the AC 130. They begged us not to call the "infra-rojo". Of course they never saw an Abrams. [SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]

I guess I'm showing my FOGdom. The Panama riots I referred to occured in 1964.At that time I don't believe even "Piff the Magic Dragon" (AC-47) had been put into service,

As for haphazard street layout, the reason Europaen streets tend to be so crooked was to cut down on fields of fire.

[Solid]

Are you sure?
I was under the impression that it was because new streets had to be added ad-hoc to make space for new houses, at least in the case of London. Man, those streets are a bastige to navigate.

Solid

[QRQ 30]

Originally posted by Solid
Are you sure?
I was under the impression that it was because new streets had to be added ad-hoc to make space for new houses, at least in the case of London. Man, those streets are a bastige to navigate.

Solid

Sure? Nah. It's just what some old school teacher told us. But it sounds reasonable to me.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Probably a combination of the two. I do remember reading where some changes were made because of urban combat after the French Revolution. Widened main avenues to make it easier to get troops down, so it makes sense they would have thought of the other as well. Rapid expansion always plays a role in screwing up a layout.

[Solid]

Roads were invented for the military. It makes sense, especially in the newer cities.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Several thousand more today than there needs to be.

Don't tell me we couldn't have made an air strike on that party while it was underway. They took several hours to finish.

The perpetrators, and those who are complicit, do not respond to the carrot, let us show them the stick, and make an example of them.

TR

I am catching up late, but agree with this strongly. It disturbs me that we still don't appear to have done anything, unless I am behind on my news.

[Solid]

Out of curiousity: do you think that killing everyone in that crowd (however it is acheived) will serve to:
1) consolidate the anti-US feelings in that area by giving the 'martyrs' families more of an incentive to fight the US;

or

2) maybe make everyone dislike the US more, but also fear them enough to not try something like this again?


Thank you,

Solid

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I am catching up late, but agree with this strongly. It disturbs me that we still don't appear to have done anything, unless I am behind on my news.

If you are behind, then so am I. I was hoping to hear of a major smackdown before we depart the country again (Turkey this time):

Terry

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Solid
Out of curiousity: do you think that killing everyone in that crowd (however it is acheived) will serve to:
1) consolidate the anti-US feelings in that area by giving the 'martyrs' families more of an incentive to fight the US;

or

2) maybe make everyone dislike the US more, but also fear them enough to not try something like this again?


Thank you,

Solid

In that part of the world, it is particularly important to be more feared than loved, although love is nice too. Some of those guys will never love us, so we should kill them and scare the $^(% out of the ones we don't kill.

[Roguish Lawyer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54125-2004Apr6.html

Marines Battle Enemy Fighters in Fallujah

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, April 6, 2004; 4:33 PM

FALLUJAH, Iraq, April 6 -- U.S. Marines seized portions of this volatile city Tuesday and vowed to remain here until they have rid it of Islamic extremists, Saddam Hussein loyalists and common criminals who they said operate freely here.

Operation Vigilant Resolve, which began early Monday morning, inserted more than 2,000 U.S. troops and hundreds of armored vehicles into this city of 300,000, which has been a frequent scene of anti-occupation violence. By early Tuesday, one Marine regiment had taken control of a large industrial zone in the southeast quarter of Fallujah and a second regiment was operating on the north side.

The fighting continued throughout the day Tuesday, with armored columns of Marines engaging insurgents as U.S. helicopters flew overhead.

Since the fighting in Fallujah began Monday, the U.S. military has said at least five Marines were killed in Anbar Province, which includes Fallujah and the volatile town of Ramadi, news agencies reported. But there were no immediate details on where and how they died.

"We are solidly ensconced in the city, and my units are stiffening their grip," said Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne, commander of the 5th Marine Regiment, which set up a command base in an abandoned soft-drink factory. "We are prepared for. . . everyone who wants to come out and fight us. We will break their backs. We will drive them out."

In addition to those killed, 11 Marines have been wounded since the operation began, Marine officials reported. At least 10 enemy fighters were reported killed and 15 captured, including several foreigners believed to be from Sudan.

Officials said the Marine units have encountered well-armed and orchestrated resistance by local guerrillas. Snipers fired repeatedly at patrols from rooftops and windows, and others lobbed mortars and rockets at military convoys and bunkers dug around the perimeter of the city, 35 miles west of Baghdad.

"As soon as we pulled up, they started shooting at us," said Lance Cpl. Jamil Alkattan, 23, whose unit entered the city at 2 a.m. Monday. "There were mortars, rockets and bullets flying everywhere. They were definitely waiting for us. It seemed like everyone in the city who had a gun was out there."

While Marine officials said they had taken control of the southeastern industrial zone, apparently outnumbered local fighters in residential areas waged hit-and-run attacks throughout the day Tuesday, firing in small scattered groups at U.S. patrols that spread through the otherwise deserted city in Humvees and on foot, searching buildings, taking positions on rooftops and engaging in running street battles.

One company commander said that as his squads moved through residential areas, they were fired on from inside a mosque, while snipers took potshots at them from numerous hiding places. Many enemy fighters were dressed in black and had scarves wrapped around their faces.

"As soon as we crossed the line [from the industrial zone] there was a huge change in tone in the people, a real uneasy feeling," the commander said at an early evening briefing. "Little kids made roadblocks and [insulted] us."

U.S. ground forces responded with barrages of machine-gun fire, and Cobra attack helicopters and AC-130 gunships fired down on small bands of guerrillas who immediately dragged away fallen comrades, making casualty counts impossible, U.S. officers said. Sporadic bursts of gunfire and the soft booms of mortar rounds continued all day and into the evening Tuesday.

Most shops were shuttered, but the patrolling Marines found one where machine guns were being fabricated. All schools and government offices were closed. The Marines imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew and banned all public gatherings.

"Some of the fighters are young guys, the equivalent of dope peddlers, who do this for money. Others are holy warriors willing to die for a cause," said Capt. Will Dickens, another company commander whose troops were fired on repeatedly. "The die-hard [suicide fighters] just stand up in the open, fire from the hip and stay there until they kill or are killed."

But Dickens and other officers said they were under strict orders to avoid inflicting civilian casualties and not to return fire until sources of attack had been pinpointed. "We are not using artillery or big guns," Dickens said. "We don't want collateral damage. . . . The way to win the war on terror is with your boots on deck."

The Marines' mission, although planned for weeks, was given new urgency and purpose by the March 31 slayings of four American security contractors, two of whose bodies were burned, hacked and hung from a bridge by jeering mobs.

"This is not retribution. This is not vendetta. This is about making the city livable so people don't have to live in fear of the thugs who have taken over the city," Byrne said. "This city has long been a haven for smugglers and bandits, a dumping ground for foreign fighters and bad guys. No one ever took the time to clean it out properly."

The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, which took over military responsibility for this area from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division late last month, arrived with the expressed intention of winning over the people of Fallujah and making the city safe enough for badly needed services, jobs and development could be provided.

Some Marines said that during regular patrols in the city in the past several weeks, residents had begged them for help and complained that they had no water or electricity and had seen no improvements under the U.S.-led occupation.

But Byrne said the March 31 slayings and several previous incidents, including an armed attack on a city council meeting attended by senior Marine officers, changed the nature of the Marines' strategy and made it imperative to root out the sources of violent resistance and crime.

Marine officials told journalists Monday at their base camp several miles from Fallujah that once they had established control of the city, they would begin selective raids in search of individuals and groups identified as terrorists or organizers of anti-American attacks, including the slayings of the US. security workers.

One Marine officer described that attack as a piece of "well-organized street theater" that was designed to "whip up a mob mentality." He said local Muslim clerics had issued an order saying the mutilation of the corpses was an offense to Islam, but that a locally made videotape of the attack was already selling in many shops.

Despite the fierce armed resistance to the Marine operation and the hostile attitude of some civilians, military officials maintained that the majority of Fallujah's leaders and residents are not opposed to the U.S. presence and are desperate for the services and investment that have been promised.

"We have a ton of money to spend in Fallujah, but we can't spend it until we have some security," said Capt. Edward Sullivan, a foreign-area officer at the Marine base near Fallujah. "The local officials are trying, but the thugs run the city. This isn't a backlash, but at some point you say enough is enough."

[Roguish Lawyer]

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2004/n04062004_200404066.html

U.S. Forces Conducting Raids in Fallujah
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 6, 2004 – U.S. forces have been conducting raids in Fallujah and have captured a number of high-value targets, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Norfolk, Va., today.

Rumsfeld and NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer held a joint press conference following a seminar at the headquarters for NATO's Allied Command Transformation.

The secretary said Marines have cordoned off Fallujah, a hotbed of anti- coalition activity and the site of the killings and mutilation of four U.S. security contractors March 31. "(U.S. forces) have captured a number of people over the past 36 hours," Rumsfeld said. "The city is isolated. A number of people have resisted and been killed. And it will be a methodical effort to find the individuals who were involved."

Rumsfeld said the Marines will be discriminating. "Clearly, all of the people of the city of Fallujah were not involved in what took place," he said.

The secretary said he will listen to the advice of coalition military leaders in determining whether to add more troops in Iraq. He said he will not second- guess commanders in Iraq from Washington. "Both the president and I frequently ask the military commanders if they have all they need -- if they have what they need not just in people, but equipment and support," Rumsfeld said.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, and Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of Combined Joint Task Force 7 in Iraq, have the ultimate responsibility for making recommendations to the civilian leaders of the military. "They are the ones whose advice we follow on these things," the secretary said.

About 135,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, due to the troop rotation occurring now. The plan was for some overlap "so that you would end up transferring the knowledge and the situational awareness that's so important," Rumsfeld said.

Commanders are using the excess forces created by the overlap, Rumsfeld said.

"They will decide what they need, and they will get what they need," he said. "At the present time they've announced no change in their plans. But they could make such a request at any time, and needless to say … we've asked them periodically if they feel they have the capabilities they need, and that's something that they review on a fairly continuous basis."

[Bill Harsey]

R.L., Thanks for your news postings. I don't have cable or satellite dish and the news "blackout" from what used to be the big three (ABC, CBS, NBC) is starting to drive me nuts. Bill PS, ABC means "Almost Being Clear", CBS stands for "Can't Be Sure" and NBC is "Never Biased Channel".

[Solid]

I absolutely agree. Like the Soviet Union, the M.E seems to respond better to the stick than the carrot.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Probably a combination of the two. I do remember reading where some changes were made because of urban combat after the French Revolution. Widened main avenues to make it easier to get troops down, so it makes sense they would have thought of the other as well. Rapid expansion always plays a role in screwing up a layout.
It was during the reign of Napoleon III. George Eugène, Baron Haussmann, was the urban planner and civil servant who redesigned Paris under the Emperor's direction. The wide crisscrossing avenues were partially designed to faciliate troop movements and to prevent the easy barricading of narrower streets during the city's all-too common riots.

Most older cities have narrow winding streets because they evolved to fill the geography of their environment. From the Renaissance through the Enlightenment to the modern bureaucratic era, in the Western World older communities tend to get torn down and planned grids put in their place. There has actually been a fair amount written in sociological and architectural literature, usually by leftists, about this as reflecting Western culture's desire to enforce itself on and control nature.

In the US, where most cities filled relatively empty space, the grids were there from the beginning. There are only some older cities in the Northeastern that don't share that legacy (at least in their old downtowns), such as Quebec City, Annapolis and the southern tip of Manhattan.

A fair number of Iraqi cities, especially those in the so-called Sunni Triangle that enjoyed huge growth in the Ba'athist era, are planned developments and don't look like typical older Middle Eastern cities.

[D9 (RIP)]

I find it frustrating that our "overwhelming" response to the Fallujahns seems to have included a unilateral cease fire on humanitarian grounds and to permit exploration of a political settlement. My jughead brothers seem to be using a pretty flimsy stick.:mad:

[Surgicalcric]

Originally posted by D9
...My jughead brothers seem to be using a pretty flimsy stick.:mad:

Are you sure its a stick at all? I am not.

[Airbornelawyer]

Vietnam is all the rage of armchair QBs of the Democrat/liberal/left variety, and Tet comparisons abound. But perhaps an analogy more on the minds of planners is Jenin. No matter how surgically and carefully the IDF acted, and how, conscious of the collateral damage issue, they exposed their infantry to street fighting rather than simply bombing the hell out of the terrs, Israel still got the negative press and propaganda. I understand the political considerations that appear to underlie this course of events, but I still think we are far more worried about making them like us (an effort which may be in vain) and too little concerned with making them fear us. I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but successful counterinsurgencies require a carrot and a big-ass stick.

This is also a legacy of the politics of the invasion, where we were so impressed with the quality of our technologies (and the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines wielding them) to strike surgically and avoid collateral damage, that we seem to have forgotten that the enemy's center of gravity is not his tanks and communications nodes, but his will. We left far too many Iraqis not feeling defeated, and our efforts during the occupation made us look weak in many eyes, and not magnanimous in victory, as we apparently hoped.

Also, because of the politics, especially domestic and international, we deferred on this fight and the one with al-Sadr's militias, until we absolutely had to (i.e., apparently, now). Now that the fight has come, it must be pursued vigorously, or our humanity and magnanimity will just bite us on the ass again.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Couldn't have said it better myself AL.

Another consideration is the Holy Week. I would imagine it will go up a notch after the pilgrims go home.

[echoes]

"Now that the fight has come, it must be pursued vigorously, or our humanity and magnanimity will just bite us on the ass again."

As a civilian, I can only pray that Our troops have been prepped. As the media would have us believe, it is a "Dooms-Day" waiting to happen. They seem to leave Us with the impression that Our Soldiers are in imminent danger, and nothing can be done?

Respectfully, could I ask if You all had any thoughts about how prepared We are for this insurgence of violence?

Holly

[Sweetbriar]

Will this Muslim holy week provide a red carpet for terrorists to reinforce? I can imagine at least hundreds of "pilgrims" remaining as fresh fighters. Someone please tell me I'm wrong.

[echoes]

Sweetbriar, I am right with you. This is a strange time, and I am fearful for Our brave Soldiers safety.

Holly:(

[The Reaper]

Well strap these comments from the Marines on for size if you are afraid:


"Dear Ladies, the last two days have been the hardest two days this battalion has faced in over 30 years. Within the blink of an eye the situation went form relatively calm to a raging storm. You've known that since arriving there has been violence; attacks have been sporadic and mostly limited to roadside bombs. Your husbands have become experts at recognizing those threats and neutralizing them before we are injured. Up to this point the war has been the purview of corporals and sergeants, and the squad they lead.

Yesterday the enemy upped the ante.

Early in the morning we exchanged gunfire with a group of insurgents without significant loss. As morning progressed, the enemy fed more men into the fight and we responded with stronger force. Unfortunately, this led to injuries as our Marines and sailors started clearing the city block by block. The enemy did not run; they fought us like soldiers. And we destroyed the enemy like only Marines can. By the end of the evening the local hospital was so full of their dead and wounded that they ran out of space to put them. Your husbands were awesome all night they stayed at the job of securing the streets and nobody challenged them as the hours wore on. They did not surrender an inch nor did flinch from the next potential threat. Previous to yesterday the terrorist thought that we were soft enough to challenge. As of tonight the message is loud and clear that the Marines will not be beaten.

Today the enemy started all over again, although with far fewer numbers, only now the rest of the battalion joined the fight. Without elaborating to much, weapons company and Golf crushed their attackers with the vengeance of the righteous. They filled up the hospitals again and we suffered only a few injuries. Echo company dominated the previous day's battlefield. Fox company patrolled with confidence and authority; nobody challenged them. Even Headquarters Company manned their stations and counted far fewer people openly watching us with disdain. If the enemy is foolish enough to try to take your men again they will not survive contact. We are here to win.

The news looks grim from back in the States. We did take losses that, in our hearts, we will always live with. The men we lost were taken within the very opening minutes of the violence. They could not have foreseen the treachery of the enemy and they did not suffer. We can never replace these Marines and Sailors but they will fight on with us in spirit. We are not feeling sorry for ourselves nor do we fear what tomorrow will bring. The battalion has lived up to its reputation as Magnificent Bastards.

Yesterday made everyone here stronger and wiser; it will be a cold day in Hell before we are taken for granted again."

Paul Kennedy and Jim Booker

[Bill Harsey]

Thank Ya Reaper for passing that on.

[Footmobile]

Thanks for posting that Reaper.

That's my old Battalion.

[echoes]

Thank you for posting that Sir. Our prayers are out, and thanks to Their superb training, I believe They will win the day!

If only more of us here at home could turn off the news, and llisten to those words. I think it could quelch the Fear that the local media is attempting to instill in Americans about our fight!

Stay Strong Brave Soldiers!

Respectfully,
Holly

[Roguish Lawyer]

I do not understand why we are pausing. Do we think the lies will stop after a cease fire? This just makes us look weak, it seems to me.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-041204iraq_lat,1,4269296.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Cease-Fire Not 100% But Holding, U.S. Says

By Nicholas Riccardi and Tony Perry, Times Staff Writers

FALLOUJA, Iraq — A patchy cease-fire remained in effect in this battle-torn city today as U.S. officials said they were seeking "political" solutions to pacify the area and, elsewhere in the country, disband a militia loyal to a virulently anti-American cleric.

The move to stress negotiations over military action marked a significant tactical shift for American officials here, who until the weekend had been vowing to crush the two insurgencies threatening Iraq's stability.

At a news conference today in Baghdad, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said the U.S. decision to suspend fighting has been fragile.

"It's tenuous, and we have over the course of the last two days have continued to take some attacks in there, but we have responded appropriately," Sanchez said. "Today, it seems a little bit better."

But Sanchez added the situation in Fallouja would have to become more stabile for serious talks to occur. "We are not negotiating at this point until we achieve some confidence building and a period of stability; then we would consider going into significant negotiations to end this battle," he said.

Also, a military spokesman said today that 70 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since April 1, when Marines launched their operation to regain control of Fallouja and militiamen loyal to cleric Muqtada Sadr began attacking police posts and government buildings in southern Iraq.

American officials also acknowledged during battles with Sadr's forces that an unspecified number of Iraqi security forces defected to his side, said Army Gen. John Abizaid, who is directing the war in Iraq.

"Clearly we know that some of the police did not stay with their post and that in some cases, because we've seen films of policemen with Sadr's militia in particular, that there were some defections," said Abizaid, who appeared at a news conference with Sanchez. "I think that these numbers are not large, but they are troubling to us."

The insurgents have in recent days used kidnapping as a way to raise attention to their demands. More than two dozen foreigners from at least 12 countries have been taken hostage, but two U.S. troops and seven employees of American contractor Kellogg, Brown & Root were still missing after an attack over the weekend west of Baghdad, Sanchez said.

Insurgents abducted more foreign civilians Sunday, with China's official news agency reporting that seven of its citizens had been taken hostage in central Iraq. Arab television showed a tape of masked men holding eight Indian, Pakistani and Turkish citizens who they said had been caught driving coalition supply trucks, but the gunmen said the captives would be released.

A spokesman for Islamic clerics who appealed for releasing the captives said nine hostages have been let go. The group included two Turks, three Pakistanis, a Nepalese, a Filipino, an Indian; the ninth was unknown, according to a wire report.

"We believe that nine were released last night or today," said Muthanna Harith, a spokesman for the Islamic Clerics Committee. Moreover, the fate of three Japanese civilian hostages remained unknown as the deadline for their release passed without Japan's military withdrawing from Iraq, as the kidnappers demanded.

"We know nothing about the Japanese," Harith said.

. . .

The continuing violence has brought to a virtual halt U.S. reconstruction efforts and work toward the planned June 30 transition to Iraqi sovereignty.

President Bush, visiting soldiers wounded in Iraq at a hospital at Ft. Hood, Texas, appeared somber and said that it had been "a tough week." L. Paul Bremer III, the top U.S. representative in Iraq, called the situation an "ongoing crisis." Asked on a Sunday morning interview show what kind of Iraqi government would take over in July, Bremer said: "That's a good question."

In Baghdad, military officials indicated that concern about public anger over their offensive operations — and fear that further backlash could worsen the situation — had prompted them to reconsider their tactics.

"The most important thing to understand at this point is that the coalition forces have suspended offensive operations. They are permitting the political track and the discussion track to go forward," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt.

In Fallouja, a week of intense fighting tapered off Sunday morning as the cease-fire, brokered overnight by two members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and local sheiks and clerics, took hold. The lead negotiator, acting council member Hachim Hassani, said late Sunday that the discussions were going well, and the cease-fire was extending into today.

For the moment, the focus was almost entirely on stopping the fighting; there was no talk of what the next steps might be, and it was unclear what terms would be acceptable to both sides. Forces hostile to the U.S. occupation have controlled the city for most of the last year, and a variety of U.S. approaches have failed to co-opt or uproot them.

The difficulty of resolving the Fallouja standoff was evident in the comments of Kimmitt, who said the U.S. was now hoping for "a political track to reestablish legitimate Iraqi control over that city" but added that U.S. troops there would stick to their positions and be ready to resume their offensive if talks failed.

"These are positions the Marines fought for and died for," Kimmitt said. "Those would be very good positions from which the Marines could finish the attack on Fallouja."

Kimmitt declined to say what the U.S. terms were in the negotiations, saying he didn't want to comment while discussions were ongoing.

U.S. officials have in recent days reiterated their demands that they be given custody of those behind the killing and mutilation of four contractors slain in the city 12 days ago, as well as any non-Iraqi fighters who might be attacking U.S. forces. City leaders have asked U.S. troops to withdraw from Fallouja.

Kimmitt said that not all the insurgents had honored the cease-fire, probably because they did not have a centralized organization that could order a halt to attacks. At least two Marines were injured by sniper fire Sunday, and four Iraqis were reported killed, but the city was much quieter than it had been in days.

Kimmitt and Dan Senor, the top spokesman for the U.S. civilian authority that runs Iraq, said they halted their fighting because of complaints from Governing Council members about innocent people getting caught in the cross-fire. Hospital officials in Fallouja have reported more than 600 deaths since Marines surrounded the city late April 4.

In a testy news conference Sunday, Kimmitt said that the widespread Iraqi perception that civilians were being killed indiscriminately in Fallouja by U.S. forces was based on irresponsible and inaccurate reporting by the two most popular Arab-language television channels, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya.

To Iraqis who were angered by the American actions, he said: "Change the channel The stations that are showing Americans killing women and children are not legitimate news sources."

But many people who have fled Fallouja in recent days have told U.S. news outlets, including The Times, that many noncombatants have been killed in the fighting.

As Sunday's cease-fire brought a measure of calm, Fallouja residents breathed a collective sigh of relief, children ventured into yards for the first time in days and some people who had begun the day trying to flee the city returned.

"It cannot get worse than it has been," resident Abbas Khidhir said. "What we have seen here is very bad We have made concessions in order to stop the violence and save the lives of our women and children."

Meanwhile, Governing Council members were also negotiating to persuade Sadr to disband his militia and surrender to an arrest warrant for allegedly helping kill a rival cleric last year. Last week's clashes between Sadr's gunmen and coalition troops were the first serious fighting between occupation forces and the country's Shiite majority.

On Thursday, Sanchez said a new military operation, Operation Resolute Sword, had been launched to remove Sadr's forces. Now officials at the U.S.-led occupation authority say they were prepared to give negotiators room to maneuver, although terms of any potential agreement remained unclear.

Senor said the coalition was seeking a "peaceful solution" to the standoff with Sadr, whose forces have seized control of at least two southern cities. But if those efforts failed, he said, the coalition would have no choice but to respond to Sadr's militia and Fallouja's unrest with force.

"What's the alternative?" Senor asked. "In all these situations, we have to ask ourselves, what is the risk of not acting? If we do not address these individuals and these organizations now, we will rue the day."

American officials had pledged over the weekend to refrain from military operations to capture Sadr as tens of thousands of Shiite pilgrims flocked to Karbala for a religious holiday.

Sadr remained defiant Sunday, holed up in the holy city of Najaf, where his black-garbed militia members remained in control. "There is no chance that the armies of occupation will reenter Najaf," a Sadr spokesman said. . . .

[The Reaper]

What part of shock and awe is this?

Must have missed the Sitzkreig part of Clausewitz's book.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Sitzkreig

LOL

[D9 (RIP)]

IMHO, this latest example of indecisiveness and hesitancy stems ultimately from our refusal to justify the war in terms of our own security. Of course, instead, the primary justification for the war offered was that it was a war of social service - to free the oppressed Iraqi people. The implication was almost that any benefit we would gain was incidental. Especially as the campaign against war gathered momentum in the UN, the moral justification offered was increasingly the plight of the Iraqi people, and how happy they would be once we rid them of Hussein. The cherry on top, of course, was the naming of the Operation as "Iraqi Freedom."

While I agree that this is all only mildly relevant to the conduct of the actual war, the consequences of the decision to de-emphasize our own interests in going to war are now being felt throughout the entire Middle-East.

In the first place, I think the characterization of the war as a selfless act of social service on America's part was responsible for the restrained ROE that we saw during the "combat phase" of the conflict. American forces behind cover taking fire from enemy combatants were they couldn't fire back for fear of hitting civilians became a familiar scene on the evening news. I think it is now clear that the first iteration of a critical message was delivered then, as regime loyalists dragged people out of their houses at gunpoint while America sacrificed our own soldiers to avoid putting Iraqi civilians into danger: of the two antagonists, the more ruthless and dangerous one is not the Americans.

As the combat phase of the operation ended, and the nation-building/counter-insurgency phase began, the consequences of our soft handed approach became clear. Enemy forces in Iraq - be they Islamic militants or regime dead-enders - were having no trouble operating within and among the civilian population. Although for a few months our forces appeared to be gradually rounding up the last troublesome elements, in the wake of the activity of the past few weeks it now appears more likely that we may have only been witnessing a proverbial quiet before the storm, as insurgent leaders planned and coordinated the mass attacks that we now see.

And one reason they have been able to do so is that the average Iraqi is far more afraid of being complicit with the Americans (for fear of reprisals by the insurgents) than he is of being complicit with the insurgents. We now have a country full of ostensible "innocent" civilians, who out of some mixture of general anti-Americanism and pragmatic fear of the insurgents, are providing the insurgents a comfortable medium from which to plan, coordinate, supply, and execute their activities. As far out of control as the situation has become at this point, I don't see any alternative but to seriously change our tone. We must go from being the "nice" guys, to the "tough" guys. The average Iraqi should be so afraid of American reprisals, that he is willing to do everything within his power to disassociate himself from the insurgents. At this point, the insurgents have taught us a lesson that we should never have overlooked: the way to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is by convincing them that you are the most dangerous group in the country.

At the macro level, this insistence that we are doing this only for the Iraqis has forced us to let them dictate certain terms of the post-war transition, such as the June 30th handover of power that everyone knows is ridiculous. So it is that this week, as the insurgents made a coordinated move around the country, we found ourselves in a crisis. The governing council, which must be kept intact if there is any hope of seeing the promised June 30th transition take effect, threatened to walk out unless our forces ceased offensive operations against Fallujah and allowed them to negotiate with the insurgent forces there. We allowed the same strategy to be forced on us with Moqtada al Sadr and his militia, and it now appears that we are willing to forgive this very dangerous individual if he will agree to "renounce violence." I think the connection between our obsession with appearing to be the Iraqi's social servants and the June 30th deadline, and the connection between that deadline and the "sitzkreig" policy of negotiations that The Reaper referred to, is all too clear.

All of this looks as weak-kneed and indecisive to the people of Iraq as it does to us here in America. They are starting to see that for all our tanks, Apaches, troops and fighter-bombers, we are no match for the unbridled brutality and ruthlessness of our enemies. Constrained by our own so-called "sensibilities" and a mawkish yearning to have the approval of the world, we are losing control of a situation that is well within our power to control. The Iraqi people, who have shown us nothing if not their willingness to submit to whichever authority is most ruthless, are seeing this picture clearly. And they are hearing it in their mosques: "the Americans will be gone someday, probably sooner that later, and we will still be here," is the message from behind the sinister smile.

The other day at a going away party for RAT (of SOCNET infamy), I had the opportunity to speak at some length with an American, originally from Jordan, who is now working as an interpreter with 5th and 10th SFG forces in Iraq. He had interesting comments that I believe are true and are certainly consistent with what one sees on the news. "The Iraqis," he said, "do not yet know how to be free. After so many decades, they still cannot get out of the mindset that they need to be led, and they need a strong leader. They are used to obeying those of whom they are afraid. We cannot win, until they fear us first. Then we can teach them to be free." I think there is great wisdom in that statement. We have used the carrot until is has been rammed back down our throats. When we have picked up the stick, as it we did recently in Fallujah, it was with a quivering hand and we quickly dropped it in favor of the carrot again. Our enemies on the other hand, have the stick. The population fears them, and it is becoming very obvious that this is not a population possessed of the kind of defiant individualism and independence to recoil against those who would wield sticks against them.

It is an unfortunate consequence of the situation, but in Iraq today we have to become as brutal as the insurgents until they are beaten down and ultimately submit. Then, and only then IMO, can we start talking again about offering the carrot.

[Footmobile]

Agreed. Good post bro.

[D9 (RIP)]

....after re-reading that I realize I didn't bring my argument full circle.

Speaking metaphorically, the only way we are going to justify picking up the stick as against the carrot is by reference to the fact that our primary interest in being there is not the happiness of Iraqis, but the stability of the region for the purpose of making life safe for Americans. To be successful, we must ultimately do this as part of a strategy of wider confrontation with other hostile regimes in the region - Iran foremost among them, but we must do this first to reassert ourselved in Iraq where our forces are now engaged.

As long as we continue to emphasize Iraqi happiness as our guiding principle, we cannot defend a forceful policy of the type needed. We need to rethink our entire orientation in this conflict in the direction of justifying it in terms of our own interests - which we shouldn't be embarrassed to assert - and on that principle we can formulate and execute an effective strategy for bringing Iraq under control and ultimately towards a stable, free future.

[NousDefionsDoc]

So, ideas and the words used to express them matter?

The "grammar" of conflict and strategy is important?

[shadowflyer]

That man D9 is one smart dude.

Scott I always learn so much ( not afraid to admit I learn something everyday) by reading your posts. I am honored to be serving with ya bro. I am glad you are on our side.


Jason

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
So, ideas and the words used to express them matter?

As I've been saying since the beginning, I think ideas are ultimately of paramount importance. And I think our floundering effort there, in spite of our obvious military superiority, is certainly evidence of this.

Sticking to the carrot and the stick analogy, I don't think the realization that we need to use the stick eventually is some kind of incredible insight. I think the majority of Americans, as exemplified by the commentary on the matter posted on this website, realize that a more forceful approach is needed. But why don't we see these ideas come to fruition? Because there is a contradiction in the ideas that form the basis of our policy.

When we watch the evening news, we feel frustration that our people are dying and Iraq is not turning into the kind of place that America would like it to be - a free, peaceful, friendly nation. But Iraq is turning into the kind of place that the Iraqis choose for it to be. It is breaking up along tribal lines, the citizens are lining up behind their respective tribal or religious authorities, and the stage is being set for a showdown as to who will rise to become the next autocrat as soon as America is far enough withdrawn. This is what the Iraqis are choosing on their own. And why is this taking shape? Why are we failing in our attempt to prevent it? Because the primary justification we offered up to the world for going in the first place was to make Iraqis happy.

We dressed the situation up in a cloak of selflessness because we thought that would make the mission more sexy when presented at the UN and to the world. The price we are paying is that it is impossible to claim to be acting as the selfless servant of the Iraqi people, while you forcefully change the culture in a process that, in the short term, will be painful and unpopular. When you tell somebody, "I'm only doing this for you," and they say, "go to hell, I don't want your help," you've got a serious problem. When you say, "this may hurt a little, but we're doing this for ourselves, and if you go along you will benefit from this also," then the moral force of your argument is not undercut by their, "go to hell."

So we have a contradiction. The American people want Iraq to turn into the kind of place that is going to help secure our rights: a free, peaceful, rights respecting nation. And Iraqis want to see whatever tribal or religious affiliation they subscribe to seize power and dictate. In a conest of ideas like that, the one that will win is the one supported by policy, and the one supported by policy will be the one given ideological and moral validity in that policy's justification. Our Iraq policy has been justified at home and abroad on the basis of the happiness of Iraqis. Our popularity with Iraqis is the foremost barometer in the media and in many people's minds of our success. If the primary basis for us being there was explicitly named and our policies justified in terms of American security interests, then I think forcing that region by whatever means necessary into becoming free and peaceful is the policy that would emerge.

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The "grammar" of conflict and strategy is important?

I don't think "grammar" emphasizes the right points. It is the content of one's statements, IMO, that make the difference, rather than their particular form. Eloquence, while nice, is entirely secondary to content. That is why I have to roll my eyes at those who criticize George Bush's style and lack of "polish." I always ask these people how, in the context of all that has happened since September 10th 2001, they can conceivably focus on something as insignificant as style as the central reason for liking or disliking our President.

[NousDefionsDoc]

When I say the grammar of the conflict, I am not referring to the

2 a : the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language b : a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language

but rather the

4 : the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>

definition I think. Hence the quotation marks.

I agree with what you say about their manner of speaking. I can remember, for example, the news casts of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, etc. in the 1960's-70s. They never said "Huh" "Ah" etc. We seem to have left that era. A shame, but not overly important to the content, I agree

I'll give you an example of what I mean - the current lull in the operations against Sadr. We now have actions and reactions practically in real time. We have propaganda from all sides. We are bombarded by Al Jeerzera, Fox, CNN, the networks with what is happening. We are also bombarded with "experts" offering opinions as to why and what is next, but:
1. Are they truly experts? Fox has a retired Air Force Colonel offering opinion on the ground war and counter-terrorism.
2. Do the recipients of the information - Joe and Jane - have the "grammar" of conflict in their backgrounds that allows them to decipher these opinions and make judgements - voting for President for example - that are informed and valid?

I think not. Most of the "experts" are decrying the lull. "Smash them! "Don't stop"! "Quagmire!' "Vietnam - Part II!

I think the days of "Do it because I said so" are pretty much over, even with the troops.

Has the USG done a good job of explaining to the public the reasons for being and staying in this conflict? For the lull? To the average Muslim or Iraqi? To the troops? To the currrent and potential coalition partners? In other words, have they achieved the "buying in" of the stakeholders?

I am all for protecting sources and methods - but are the definitions of "sources and methods" classified as well? Do Joe and Jane understand, truly, what sources and methods are and why we need to protect them? Or have they been left to conjecture and end with the opinion that it is merely CYA by politicians?

We have yet to define terrorism in our security community, yet we are in the Global War on Terrorism and wondering why there are doubters and nay sayers?

The grammar of conflict. Not the public speaking ability of the current administration.

[Roguish Lawyer]

NDD:

Interesting points. What are the solutions to the problems you identify?

That Air Force colonel always has annoyed me. I'd like to see them talk only to Hunt and Bevilaqua. They've been my favorite Fox analysts.

[QRQ 30]

I hear on the news that equipment and personnel are being smuggled into Fallujah. The USMC commander says he doesn't have enough personnel to check each and every vehicle. I say that is a crock. Even if there is only one inspector, nothing needs to pass unchecked. If the traffic is backed up to Kuwait or Syria or Turkey SO WHAT??:mad:

[NousDefionsDoc]

Solutions
1. Be right. If you're going to say WMD, produce WMD. If there's a doubt, don't bring it up. Let it be a bonus. If you're going to spend billions to set up the DHS, show results (feedback) on a regular basis. Justify the cost, let people know the good things.

2. Act, don't react.

3. Stay on message. I think the Bush team does a fairly good job of this actually. They need to reinforce this amongst the minions.

4. Tailor the talk to the audience. The 9/11 commission is not about the commissioners, its about the people watching on C-Span. The Alert system is another good bad example. They didn't test it with a smaller audience or anything to see if it would convey the message. I would have rolled it out to McDonald's register employees. If they can get it, anybody can.

5. Don't assume the audience knows what you know, cares about what you care about, etc. I would like to do a survey of those responsible to getting the message out to the Iraqis and others in the region in Arabic to see how many dfferent answers I would get to "What is the message?" LOL

6. Give them as much information as you can without compromising classified. And explain as much as you can about why you can't give what you can't give.

7. Don't worry so much about offending people. The attitude has changed since 9/11 IMO, PC is less important now days.

8. Mix up styles according to the situation. People get board with the same style. Example - Rumsfield way of dealing with reporters was a breath of fresh air when he first started - now its lost its charm I think. Have to keep the interest up. He's does a great job overall of dealing with them though I think. They did a walk through of his office on Fox the other day. he explained about the piece of the 9/11 plane etc. Showed a very human side. Good stuff.

Basically, it is the speaker's (presenter's) responsibility to ensure the audience gets the message and comes on board - not the listener's. Many people forget that, then wonder why they don't get the results they want.

Just my 2 pesos.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
I hear on the news that equipment and personnel are being smuggled into Fallujah. The USMC commander says he doesn't have enough personnel to check each and every vehicle. I say that is a crock. Even if there is only one inspector, nothing needs to pass unchecked. If the traffic is backed up to Kuwait or Syria or Turkey SO WHAT??:mad:

Good example QRQ. I'm with you. Don't tell me you have a problem. Tell me what you did to solve it. Better to have the question of "Why are those trucks backed up to Damascus?" than "Where did that bomb that killed 100 people come from and how did it get here?"

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
If the traffic is backed up to Kuwait or Syria or Turkey SO WHAT??

A perfect example. I'm sure that the commanders on the ground, if they did not fear political repercussions, would prefer to shut all traffic in and out of the city down. But that would be inhumane :rolleyes: , and would make the Iraqis angry, and the news would produce lots of human interest stories about how Abdul can't bring his tomatoes to market while people are hungry b/c the big mean Marines have shut down the roads. Unfortunately, since we've taken on to win a popularity contest among the Iraqi people, we won't do that kind of thing. I'd bet my last dollar that almost every Marine on the ground there would love nothing more than to bring fire and destruction down on Fallujah. Their restraint, in this example and others I have to believe, is a result of the overall policy.

I agree with you NDD. But do you see the need to change the context of the discussion? To reforge our policy on the anvil of self-interest?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Just my 2 pesos.

No, those were good. Easier in theory than practice, but I like them.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
No, those were good. Easier in theory than practice, but I like them.

Why easier in theory than practice? Like Nike says...

[D9 (RIP)]

Now a "leading human rights" group wants our actions in Fallujah probed to see if we used excessive force.

Excerpt:
A U.S. military offensive in Falluja last week in which 600 Iraqis may have died has raised concerns about excessive use of force and needs immediate investigation, a leading human rights group said Tuesday. Civilians who fled the fighting described the streets of Falluja as being littered with bodies, including women and children, and Iraqi politicians have accused U.S. forces of meting out collective punishment on the city's residents....

Article here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=6&u=/nm/20040413/ts_nm/iraq_falluja_rights_dc).

[NousDefionsDoc]

Now a "leading human rights" group wants our actions in Fallujah probed to see if we used excessive force.

NDD response - "Feel free to go right on in to Fallujah and start interviewing people, your security is your responsibility. If you are kidnapped or any other calamity should befall you, the USG is in no way responsible. Nor will we risk the life or limb of one trooper to rescue you. Due to OPSEC concerns, unfortunately, we will be unable to advise you prior to any operations we may be conducting or planning to conduct in the AO. If you find anything you feel is of substance, we will be more than happy to assign 2nd LT. Dufus Can'tReadAMap here as an LNO to assist you. Have a very SF Day."

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Why easier in theory than practice? Like Nike says...

I agree with the Nike approach, but you have oversimplified things a little in order to make your point. For example, with respect to picking the right audience, there almost always are multiple audiences with different needs. Target your message to one, and you may piss off another.

But this is fine-tuning. When I am elected Leader of the Free World, you will be SecState. LOL

[Roguish Lawyer]

From http://OpinionJournal.com

Best of the Web Today - April 13, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
One Cheer for Kerry http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6753-2004Apr12.html

In today's Washington Post, John Kerry weighs in with an article titled "A Strategy for Iraq." Our cheer is for this passage:

*** QUOTE ***

While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.

*** END QUOTE ***

We'll increase it to two cheers if Kerry criticizes by name the domestic extremists who are trying to divide America, sap American resolve and force the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops--most notably Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd.

Not everyone is persuaded of Kerry's resolve. A United Press International http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040412-031514-2639r dispatch from Baghdad quotes Ahmed, a pseudonymous member of the Army of Mohammad, a Fallujah-based Sunni group:

*** QUOTE ***

"God willing Bush will fall down by the hands of Fallujah," he says, combining military and political rhetoric. "If John Kerry wins the election and withdraws the Americans troops from Iraq, and maybe just leaves a few in bases, then we will not fight. But Bush we will always fight."

*** END QUOTE ***

And while Kerry's statement of determination is welcome, his "strategy" shows that he remains out of touch with reality. Its linchpin: "Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government."

No dice, says Secretary-General Kofi Annan http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10380&Cr=iraq&Cr1= in a statement today: "For the foreseeable future, insecurity is going to be a major constraint for us and so I cannot say right now that I'm going to be sending in a large UN team."

What Would We Do Without Kerry? http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-elect/2004/apr/12/041208798.html

"Kerry: U.S. Must Lead Iraq Military Effort"--headline, Associated Press, April 12

Florida Dems: Murder Rumsfeld, Give Money to Kerry http://www.drudgereport.com/rc7r.htm

Matt Drudge reports on an ad the St. Petersburg Democratic Club http://www.drudgereport.com/stp.gif has taken out in the Gabber, a local weekly newspaper in the Gulf Coast city:

*** QUOTE ***

Senator Edward Kennedy is absolutely right when he called Iraq "Bush's Vietnam." But it's not only Bush. It's his whole damn Bunch: Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Ridge.

They've tried to blame the Iraq war on bad intelligence, on Al

Qaida, on terrorists, on foreigners from Iraq and Syria. Bush doesn't even know who in the hell we're fighting. The Bush Bunch calls the Iraqis insurgents. Did you know that Britain called the American revolutionaries insurgents and traitors? The Iraqis aren't insurgents. They're Iraqi patriates [sic] who want us the hell out of their country, and we should get the hell out of their country now!

We have Marines and soldiers being killed by the dozens with many more wounded. How many have to be killed before the Bush Bunch is satisfied? How many burial services of our Iraq dead has Bush attended? Any? How many military hospitals has Bush visited to talk to our wounded who have lost arms, or legs, or their eye sight, or combinations of these--how many?

And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq "We have our good days and our bad days." We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say "This is one of our bad days" and pull the trigger. Do you want t salvage our country? Be a savior of our country? Then vote for John Kerry and get rid of the whole Bush Bunch!

Please make a donation of ANY amount of money you can afford and send it to John Kerry for President, Inc. . . . Do it NOW. Thank you.

*** END QUOTE ***

Suppose a local Republican club placed a newspaper ad soliciting donations for President Bush and urging the assassination of a prominent Democratic official. Would it not be national news? Why have we heard nothing about this ad--which appeared last Thursday--until now, and only from the Drudge Report?

Weasel Watch http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20040413/D81TVH3G1.html

There's a joke going around the Internet that France has increased its terror alert level from "run" to "hide." Perhaps in response, the French government is making clear that the level is still at "run," as the Associated Press reports from Paris:

*** QUOTE ***

France urged its citizens Tuesday to leave Iraq, calling a series of abductions of foreigners there "totally unacceptable." . . . France first issued its warning on Friday. In a statement, the foreign ministry said that the "risk is high that French citizens would be confused with those of member countries of the coalition."

*** END QUOTE ***

Actually, plenty of noncoalition countries' citizens have been kidnapped in Iraq, including Chinese, Germans and Russians. But the terrorists seem to be especially eager to grab people from countries whose governments joined the coalition amid widespread popular opposition: Italy, Japan, South Korea. It's a reasonable surmise that the terrorists in Iraq were inspired by the apparent success of the March 11 Madrid attacks in changing Spain's government.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I never said "pick the right audience" Very rarely do you get to choose the audience, and then it is preaching to the choir almost always.

I said basically "Pick the right delivery method for the audience you have"

Agreed, the message will have to overlap to various audiences. That's where the nuance comes in. The basic message is always the same, or should be.

[pulque]

Originally posted by D9
I agree with you NDD. But do you see the need to change the context of the discussion? To reforge our policy on the anvil of self-interest?

American people are definately divided over whether or not the action is needed for security reasons (self-interest). It IS divided, and no hopeful thinking is going to change that.

So in essence, the policy proposal is that it doesnt matter if all the of people are on board. I dont think you will ever get that policy change with the current political system.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
NDD response - "Feel free to go right on in to Fallujah and start interviewing people, ....Have a very SF Day."

Uhhhh, I have to warn you: if you tell them that, they are likely to start a probe into whether or not your comments were too meanspirited.:D

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
So in essence, the policy proposal is that it doesnt matter if all the of people are on board. I dont think you will ever get that policy change with the current political system.

With the current political system or the current political climate? It is the job of our President to do what is necessary to secure and protect the rights of Americans as guaranteed in The Constitution, from threats foreign and domestic. It is not to drift with the tides of public opinion. So I don't see anything about the form of our government, so much as the cultural and political climate, as the primary impediment to a rational policy.

[NousDefionsDoc]

You can't ever get everyone to agree, hence the 80% solution, but I think in this case, the admin could do better than what they have with a little change in delivery.

I agree with you NDD. But do you see the need to change the context of the discussion? To reforge our policy on the anvil of self-interest?

Sorry, I missed this somehow. Well, according to the chants of those not on board, the context of the discussion on Iraq was WMD. Since WMD has not been produced, they feel vindicated. Granted, there will always be a point of contention, if not WMD then something else. granted, alot of this is about the man, not the situaiton. Granted, their point is invalid as far as I'm concerned. I think he had them and I think we will find them.

My point is, how did WMD become the context of the discussion?

Grossly oversimplified example:

Message - We are taking out Sadaam Hussein
Audience/Delivery:
1. Libs - we are taking out Sadaam Hussein for the same humanitarian reasons Clinton went in to Kosovo and Haiti.

2. RW - we are taking out SH because he is a terrorist aider and abettor and may have WMD.

3. Shiites - we're taking out SH because you, as a minority, have no voice and he and his sons were killing your people. Start thinking about what you want. No Sharia state and Iran is next if you can't get right.

4. Sunnis - we're taking out SH because he was a secular tyrant, but you will not have a Sharia law state. Start thinking about what you want.

5. Kurds - we're taking out SH. Start thinking about what you want - Kurdistan ain't on the table and we won't protect you from the Turks.

6. England - we're taking out SH because he gave all the oil contracts to the Phrench. Tell BP to get ready, but they have to hire one Iraqi for every Brit they send over. OBTW, he may have WMD and he is aiding and abetting terrorism.

7. Israel - We're taking out SH. Stay out of it.

8. Syria/Iran - We're taking out SH because of the same kind of shit you're doing. Get involved, move up on the list. North Korea is none of your fookin' business.

9. EU - We're taking out SH. Shutup.

10. UN - We're taking out Sh. Shutup. Or we'll put the FBI on the Oil for Food program and revoke your diplo parking permits and immunity.

11. All - We're taking out SH. Everybody that voted no, give us one good reason why not so we can start investigating your links to his regime.


Now, this is pretty much the way it went. Except for a couple of groups. You can't sell WMD to the left, because they don't think anybody but the US would ever actually use them. The message never changed in the example. Just the focus on a cause.

[pulque]

Originally posted by D9
With the current political system or the current political climate? It is the job of our President to do what is necessary to secure and protect the rights of Americans as guaranteed in The Constitution, from threats foreign and domestic. It is not to drift with the tides of public opinion. So I don't see anything about the form of our government, so much as the cultural and political climate, as the primary impediment to a rational policy.

Well, lets say you really want a policy change that reflects a patriarchal/constitutional approach. What do you think you need to do to get it?

What creates the current cultural and political climate?

isolated events (9/11)?
long term polarization between people of very different dispositions?

In the postmodern day, the president wants to keep people supporting him, because he needs the swing votes. He doesnt get to be the protector of all, because there are extremely different notions going around of what it means to be patriotic and american.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by D9
With the current political system or the current political climate? It is the job of our President to do what is necessary to secure and protect the rights of Americans as guaranteed in The Constitution, from threats foreign and domestic. It is not to drift with the tides of public opinion. So I don't see anything about the form of our government, so much as the cultural and political climate, as the primary impediment to a rational policy.

I agree with climate. I think after President Bush wins the next election and we don't have all the "Selected not elected" crap, the climate will improve. At least I hope it does.

[Roguish Lawyer]

LMAO! F'ing brilliant, NDD. Yes, State is perfect for you. Tell 'em what they want to hear, but no BS. LOL

[pulque]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
My point is, how did WMD become the context of the discussion?

Grossly oversimplified example:

Message - We are taking out Sadaam Hussein
Audience/Delivery:
1. Libs - we are taking out Sadaam Hussein for the same humanitarian reasons Clinton went in to Kosovo and Haiti.

2. RW - we are taking out SH because he is a terrorist aider and abettor and may have WMD.

3. Shiites - we're taking out SH because you, as a minority, have no voice and he and his sons were killing your people. Start thinking about what you want. No Sharia state and Iran is next if you can't get right.

4. Sunnis - we're taking out SH because he was a secular tyrant, but you will not have a Sharia law state. Start thinking about what you want.

5. Kurds - we're taking out SH. Start thinking about what you want - Kurdistan ain't on the table and we won't protect you from the Turks.

6. England - we're taking out SH because he gave all the oil contracts to the Phrench. Tell BP to get ready, but they have to hire one Iraqi for every Brit they send over. OBTW, he may have WMD and he is aiding and abetting terrorism.

7. Israel - We're taking out SH. Stay out of it.

8. Syria/Iran - We're taking out SH because of the same kind of shit you're doing. Get involved, move up on the list. North Korea is none of your fookin' business.

9. EU - We're taking out SH. Shutup.

10. UN - We're taking out Sh. Shutup. Or we'll put the FBI on the Oil for Food program and revoke your diplo parking permits and immunity.

11. All - We're taking out SH. Everybody that voted no, give us one good reason why not so we can start investigating your links to his regime.

Now, this is pretty much the way it went. Except for a couple of groups. You can't sell WMD to the left, because they don't think anybody but the US would ever actually use them. The message never changed in the example. Just the focus on a cause.

D9's policy change would mean that the only stated reason would be #2 and 8. Even if the real reason at the time were #1 or #3.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
Well, lets say you really want a policy change that reflects a patriarchal/constitutional approach. What do you think you need to do to get it?

"Patriarchal?" Is that your anthropology background talking? ;)

It is my impression that we still have a Constitutional Republic. I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Originally posted by pulque
What creates the current cultural and political climate?

Concisely, the intellectual leadership. Always has been. Look at who is ensconced in American academia today, and source of the great contradictions in our culture is obvious.

Originally posted by pulque
He doesnt get to be the protector of all, because there are extremely different notions going around of what it means to be patriotic and american.

No, he does get to be the protector of all so long as he fulfills the lawful obligations of his office - which are to protect the individual rights of all Americans. His mandate is to do so, irrespective of public opinion, or whether or not majority of the electorate agrees with him at a given point in time.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
D9's policy change would mean that the only stated reason would be #2 and 8. Even if the real reason at the time were #1 or #3.

Without going item by item, I agree I would not use #1 or #3 as those are not morally legitimate reasons to send our military anywhere IMO. However, I do think it is fine to point those out as incidental benefits to the appropriate audience.

If, for instance, you are going over to Iraq because you think WMD is a big threat to American Rights, but in the process the Shi'ites will benefit if they place nice, then I have no problem pointing that out.

But I do not think you should ever be embarrassed about the fact that your interests are the primary motive in your policy. At a tactical level, I can imagine there are some situations where deception and ruse are valuable options. At a strategic level, I think it is completely self-defeating.

[D9 (RIP)]

Maybe we should make a new thread about this, given the change in focus from Fallujah to Casus Belli.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Without going item by item, I agree I would not use #1 or #3 as those are not morally legitimate reasons to send our military anywhere IMO.

You don't think stopping genocide or massacres is a morally legitimate reason to send troops to an AO?

[pulque]

Originally posted by D9
"Patriarchal?" Is that your anthropology background talking?

yes, I'm not as disgusted by academia as some here. but enough about that.. :munchin

if I were to use Occam's razor on this, I would say that contradictions exist in public because contradictions exist in individuals. (note, I said individuals, not warriors).

back to the topic..

No, he does get to be the protector of all so long as he fulfills the lawful obligations of his office - which are to protect the individual rights of all Americans. His mandate is to do so, irrespective of public opinion, or whether or not majority of the electorate agrees with him at a given point in time.

regardless of the job of the president, he is still acting like a politician. why?

answer: the constitution is not a dead document, nor is the law petrified and stuffed. we all enjoy the "protections" of being americans, and this is why I feel sorry for the executive branch. all they have to pursue for their lives is power.. and it is not surprising that it appears corrupt.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You can't ever get everyone to agree, hence the 80% solution, but I think in this case, the admin could do better than what they have with a little change in delivery.

Sorry, I missed this somehow. Well, according to the chants of those not on board, the context of the discussion on Iraq was WMD. Since WMD has not been produced, they feel vindicated. Granted, there will always be a point of contention, if not WMD then something else. granted, alot of this is about the man, not the situaiton. Granted, their point is invalid as far as I'm concerned. I think he had them and I think we will find them.

My point is, how did WMD become the context of the discussion?

Now, this is pretty much the way it went. Except for a couple of groups. You can't sell WMD to the left, because they don't think anybody but the US would ever actually use them. The message never changed in the example. Just the focus on a cause.

You sold me, Doc.

I like your logic.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

:D

[echoes]

Wednesday, March 31, 2004
FALLUJAH, Iraq — The charred corpses of four coalition civilian contractors, all Americans, were pulled out of burning cars, dragged through the streets of Fallujah and hung from a bridge by rejoicing residents Wednesday.

WASHINGTON, April 6, 2004
U.S. forces have been conducting raids in Fallujah and have captured a number of high-value targets, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Norfolk, Va., today.

As NDD says"
"I said basically "Pick the right delivery method for the audience you have"...

I have chosen to say that I know Those responsible for this brutality against those Brave Men WILL BURN IN HELL FOREVER!

Holly
:mad:

[ghuinness]

April 13 2136 GMT - Several blasts -- probably from mortar shells -- were heard in An Najaf, while U.S. combat aircraft and helicopters flew over the city April 13. About 2,500 U.S. troops have approached An Najaf, preparing to storm it. There is some Iraqi police presence in the city, but there are also an unknown number of Shiite radical militia led by Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the current Shiite uprising



Assault on al-Sadr started?
Thoughts and prayers are with you guys.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You don't think stopping genocide or massacres is a morally legitimate reason to send troops to an AO?

Not on its own, no.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
answer: the constitution is not a dead document, nor is the law petrified and stuffed. we all enjoy the "protections" of being americans, and this is why I feel sorry for the executive branch. all they have to pursue for their lives is power.. and it is not surprising that it appears corrupt.

I disagree with the "living document" interpretation. But we're getting a little far afield of Fallujah.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by D9
Not on its own, no.

De Oppresso Liber

[pulque]

ok, nevermind the living document for now

Originally posted by D9
If the primary basis for us being there was explicitly named and our policies justified in terms of American security interests, then I think forcing that region by whatever means necessary into becoming free and peaceful is the policy that would emerge.


Maybe the Iraqi people are breaking up along tribal lines because they dont have a good idea of "free and peaceful" yet until they build it. Don't be so quick to assume that the provided force won't be enough! And if its not enough, then does your policy have a set point where enough is enough for those neccesary means? As much as we accept propoganda, alot of the "we will win at any cost" is not meant to be policy, but inspiration.
just 2 cents.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
Maybe the Iraqi people are breaking up along tribal lines because they dont have a good idea of "free and peaceful" yet until they build it. Don't be so quick to assume that the provided force won't be enough! And if its not enough, then does your policy have a set point where enough is enough for those neccesary means? As much as we accept propoganda, alot of the "we will win at any cost" is not meant to be policy, but inspiration.

I wish I could say I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately I do not. Perhaps you could put it more simply for me.

The only part I think I understand is your statement, "Don't be so quick to assume that the provided force won't be enough!" Let me say that I think the force - in the sense of the men and materiel there - is enough. I'm talking about the ROE and overall strategy.

[pulque]

Originally posted by D9
I wish I could say I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately I do not. Perhaps you could put it more simply for me.


Bwahaha I have not had any coffee yet.

Sorry D9!

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
De Oppresso Liber

I think that is a fine motto for a unit, and there are certainly times when helping others redounds back to the defense of our own rights. In those cases, I'm all for it. I like the Marine Rifle Creed as well, insofar as it applies to the Marine Corps' mission, but I don't want it to be used to chart the course for the nation at large. That's the context in which I answer "no" above.

But in cases where there is no conceivable benefit to the US and we have no interests whatever in the conflict, I do not think it is morally appropriate for our government to intervene. It is my opinion that the only legitimate function of gov't is the protection of the rights of Americans.

[D9 (RIP)]

Originally posted by pulque
Bwahaha I have not had any coffee yet.

LOL, I never post before coffee. ;)