« Cure For Cancer? | Main | A Qualified Defense of John Ashcroft »
Shocking!
American forces press into the heart of Falluja with mercifully few US casualties and discover "that many of the senior rebel leaders, including the Qaeda ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had fled before the city was sealed off." Boy -- guerilla force flees rather than stand and be slaughtered by better-armed foe. Who could have predicted that except every goddamn person on the face of the earth. In a couple of days, things should settle down, the civilian population will return to their now-wrecked homes and places of business, no doubt extraordinarily grateful to the foreign army that got them wrecked. American forces will be reduced somewhat in number. US and Iraqi forces will come under sporadic insurgent attack. US and Iraqi forces will prove unable to provide day-to-day security to the local population. At best, Falluja will be like Baghdad. More likely, it will look like what Samarra looks like today within three or four weeks. Zarqawi will be somewhere else. Someday we'll capture him and it'll turn out that, just as with Saddam, capturing him doesn't actually solve any problems.
November 9, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1391292
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Shocking!:
» Surprise, Surprise from According to Levi
So we made it to the middle of Falluja and found that the insurgents, including Zarqawi had fled. As CNN reports, military officials "acknowledge many [insurgents] may have slipped away amid widespread reports that an offensive was coming." Wow. What... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 7:08:51 PM
» Red Fish, Blue Fish from Craig's Thoughts, Theories, and Tantrums
So here is my point, I wish the press would stop trying to polarize the nation. Second, Bush did not whoop the democrats. He won by about 2-3%. That ain't a whooping, that ain't a mandate, that ain't nothing but... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 8:07:52 PM
» This Ticks Me Off from Centerfield
Matthew Yglesias, a self-described "proud member of the reality-based community" had this to say earlier today:American forces press into the heart of Falluja with mercifully few US casualties and discover "that many of the senior rebel ... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 9:28:08 PM
» Special Report: The Battle of Fallujah from Winds of Change.NET
As many of our readers know, there's a very significant battle going on in Fallujah right now. Here's a pretty full collection of links to help you understand how we got here and what's going on, in depth and in detail. [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 10, 2004 4:57:26 AM
» In The News from Pacific Views
Kevin Drum takes a look at inevitability of Congressional incumbency and proposes an end to gerrymandering. Not the first such proposal, hopefully not the last, either. Wouldn't we all be better off if our Congresscritters really had to talk to... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 11, 2004 5:22:16 AM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 1:48:02 PM
Comments
They wouldn't have fled without this action. Fallujah can now be secured. But nobody expects you to understand this, so carry on. --s
Posted by: j.scott barnard | Nov 9, 2004 4:25:30 PM
I'll add, it wasn't the postman and the nurse who've been firing at U.S. forces for the last few months from inside Fallujah.
Posted by: j.scott barnard | Nov 9, 2004 4:26:59 PM
Fallujah is secured only until we have to storm (insert Iraqi city taken over by insurgents), leaving Fallujah or (insert another city) open to be taken over.
If we can hold Fallujah without leaving other cities open like this, that would be a positive development.
Posted by: Stacy | Nov 9, 2004 4:27:38 PM
They advertised this invasion for weeks before the city was ever enclosed!
I remember seeing the headline just a few days ago that the city had finally been closed off by friendly forces, and I thought "What the hell are they doing?!!"
If it was an effort to allow civilians to get out, fine, but that effectively kicks the whole operation in the balls does it not?
As predicted ad nauseum before the war, Iraq has become a guerilla engagement, but worse than that, we are fighting this guerilla engagement so that Iraqis can have a democratic style election where they return a Shia majority government who in turn installs a theocratic state.
We sho picked a good'un
Posted by: Harold Babar | Nov 9, 2004 4:35:33 PM
God, this is an asinine post.
So, some of the terrorists fled. And some stayed and fought. Matthew, in case you were not aware, that's the same as every other battle ever fought in the history of the world.
I mean, is it really some kind of revelation to Matthew that some left and some stayed? Does his think that our military is so completely stupid that they don't realize this would occur?
I think it's time for Matthew to relinquish that claim on being part of the "reality-based community"...
Posted by: Al | Nov 9, 2004 4:51:59 PM
it wasn't the postman and the nurse who've been firing at U.S. forces
Give it time.
Posted by: Toadmonster | Nov 9, 2004 4:52:10 PM
You're not surprised, are you?
Does Falluja look like Berlin in May 1945 yet?
Posted by: raj | Nov 9, 2004 4:52:43 PM
They advertised this invasion for weeks before the city was ever enclosed!
I didn't understand that part, either. But then it occured to me we had no choice if we didn't want to slaughter thousands of civilians.
There's the real nub of the problem. It's not our inability to take casualties. It's our fear of inflicting them. Powell is right. We've no business being involved in wars where we're not prepared to use overwhelming force. We're clearly not prepared to do so in Iraq.
We might have a fighting chance if they can continue to up the number of trained Iraqi forces, but those reports of insurgent infilitration of Iraqi government units are a bad, bad sign.
Posted by: October Surprise | Nov 9, 2004 4:54:54 PM
Note the photos of dead insurgents wearing fancy new bulletproof vests.
Posted by: praktike | Nov 9, 2004 4:58:00 PM
Look, I'm telling you, the chief purpose of this exercise was to deny the "insurgents" a location where they could securely organize. Sure, killing some of them is a nice bonus, but just scattering them accomplishes a great deal of the objective, and at lower cost in innocent lives.
You might not think that's a worthwhile objective, but you're not plotting our war strategy.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 4:59:46 PM
Denying the insurgents use of Fallujah is something of a tactical success, but the fact that so many have apparently escaped is something of a strategic blow to our fortunes.
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Nov 9, 2004 5:05:41 PM
If Republicans move the goal posts and no one hears, does it make a sound? "Flypaper" doesn't work too well if the flies run right off of it.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Nov 9, 2004 5:07:28 PM
Look, I'm telling you, the chief purpose of this exercise was to deny the "insurgents" a location where they could securely organize
Yep. As we can see, denying the Chechen rebels the city of Grozny as a staging point in which to organize worked like a charm. The right wingers were clamoring for us to "level" Fallujah. If this is such a great idea, why didn't it work when the Russians leveled Grozny? Did they miss a spot, or something?
Posted by: Constantine | Nov 9, 2004 5:18:08 PM
Caution: low signal to noise ratio alert for this comment.
You're right, it doesn't really solve any problems, but what does? Really, I'm serious.
The problem is angry Islamic terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and other targets with intention of killing us.
We would like to prevent something like this from happening. Okay. What do we do to solve this problem?
Posted by: Slothrop | Nov 9, 2004 5:23:44 PM
On the contrary, if the purpose of flypaper is to keep the flies away from where YOU live, it scarcely matters whether they get killed, or just keep flying in circles around it.
I agree, it would have been better if we could have killed the insurgents... In which case people here would be screaming about civilian casualties instead. The existance of tradeoffs does not equal failure.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 5:25:26 PM
Slothrop: Nothing we can do prevent terrorism will probably work, so we should support everything that is done that is called "anti-terrorist".
I realize that snarky sarcasm loses us votes, but Jesus, Lothrop, quit making me do that.
Posted by: Zizka | Nov 9, 2004 5:35:04 PM
You make a good point, Brett. As things stnd now, no one is likely to scream about civilian casualties.
Posted by: Dan | Nov 9, 2004 5:35:09 PM
Well, that's where the study I pointed to at the Bellmont blog comes in. There's a quite strict upper limit on the size and degree of internal communication a terrorist organization can achieve, before SOMEBODY gets turned, and the whole thing crashes and burns. And it's quite a bit smaller than the size Al Quaeda needed to pull off 9-11.
Denying them safe havens where they can mass and organize in relative security, means that they can only pull off small stuff. It's the key advantage we got out of taking out the Taliban.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 5:36:46 PM
Slothrop
I don't remember hearing about any Iraqi insurgents flying airplanes into buildings. If you have heard of this, perhaps you could enlighten us when it happened.
Posted by: Bender Rodriguez | Nov 9, 2004 5:39:59 PM
What do we do to solve this problem?
We know the left-wingers' proposed solution: surrender.
Posted by: Al | Nov 9, 2004 5:40:21 PM
is this supposed to be a joke, cause i dont understand it one bit
Posted by: apple | Nov 9, 2004 5:42:00 PM
Al: 15 yard penalty for use of a straw man.
Posted by: Constantine | Nov 9, 2004 5:43:19 PM
I don't remember hearing about any Iraqi insurgents flying airplanes into buildings. If you have heard of this, perhaps you could enlighten us when it happened.
Actually, all 19 of the people who flew those planes into the buildings ended up dead. So I guess, according to Bender Rodriguez, we really didn't need to do ANYTHING after 9/11.
Posted by: Al | Nov 9, 2004 5:43:45 PM
Al, you don't have a solution. You are making things worse. Bush wiil strike a deal in the near future.
Posted by: McAdder | Nov 9, 2004 5:48:05 PM
Oh my god! A freakin' tragedy! Zarqawi and the boys aren't lining up to get their heads blown off by 155 arty.
This thread is ridiculous.
Posted by: Warthog | Nov 9, 2004 5:48:53 PM
Brett Bellmore said: *You might not think that's a worthwhile objective, but you're not plotting our war strategy.*
Is he?
Slothrop said: *The problem is angry Islamic terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and other targets with intention of killing us. We would like to prevent something like this from happening. Okay. What do we do to solve this problem?*
Let's see. Invade a country that wasn't being run by militant Muslims and had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 in the hope that it will deter terrorism rather than provoke even more.
I wonder if that accords with Brett's war strategy.
Posted by: mike | Nov 9, 2004 5:51:27 PM
On the contrary, if the purpose of flypaper is to keep the flies away from where YOU live,
it isn't. it's to kill them over there. i know this because Bush keeps saying it.
Posted by: cleek | Nov 9, 2004 5:54:37 PM
old and busted: flypaper
new hotness: whack-a-mole
Posted by: Brian | Nov 9, 2004 5:57:18 PM
As things stnd now, no one is likely to scream about civilian casualties.
well, the civilians themselves might scream.
Posted by: cleek | Nov 9, 2004 5:57:28 PM
Here's what one hypothetical insurgent, Ali Oop, has to say about the current attack on Falluja:
"I go. I come back."
I imagine he'll be carrying more than feelthy pictures with him also.
At somepoint, a counter-insurgency has to be, well, a counter-insurgency. Until it is demonstrated that the Iraqi government's forces can actually hold a city *after* the American troops depart, what makes this anything more than another U.S. exercise in blowin' things up real good?
Posted by: David W. | Nov 9, 2004 6:01:37 PM
Mismanagment of this ill-conceived war continues to be the soft underbelly of the VRWC. Yes, Kerry should have run at Bush from right like the first JFK. This strategy would have had the advantage of actually being correct (Kerry did make some efforts in this regard, but they he should have really hammered Bush, and never really did).
Anyway, if Lincoln had mismanaged the Civil War with the same degree of ineptitude as Bush, Lee would have been in Hartford at a similar point in that war.
Posted by: October Surprise | Nov 9, 2004 6:02:42 PM
Now that we're officially no longer a reality based country maybe we should just give up intelligence gathering to find the scattered insurgents in Iraq, and Osama Bin Laden wherever he is (are we still looking? just curious) and hire psychic John Edward to find them instead. Hell, I suspect a double digit percentage of Americans didn't know the difference between him and Senator John Edwards anyhow.
Posted by: Snarkbot | Nov 9, 2004 6:04:41 PM
I think we should just surrender to Al Qaeda. That's what Matt wants us to do anyway.
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Nov 9, 2004 6:09:37 PM
You want to know what else is shocking? I haven't heard one word out of you Fifth Columnist bloggers about the racist genocide and massacre of innocent unarmed civilians in Ivory Coast.
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Nov 9, 2004 6:12:09 PM
To ass to Brett's good points, what we all are missing here is that, in addition to trying to deny the insurgents a sanctuary, we are ALSO trying to prepare for elections in January. Indeed, I think that, in the grand scheme, success in the elections is even more important than the denial of a sanctuary.
To the extent that insurgents are scattered and cannot carry out large scale attacks denying the ability to implement the elections, we HAVE succeeded, even if we didn't kill or capture every last one of them.
So, to those who say that all we are doing is chasing the insurgents away so that they'll come back at some later time, the response is: if they come back after the election, so be it. By then, we'll have had an election, and they'll have lost the ability to deny it to the Iraqi people. And THAT is what is going to thwart the insurgents much more than any differences in tactics by our military in the battle for Falluja itself.
Posted by: Al | Nov 9, 2004 6:18:09 PM
You want to know what else is shocking?
hey, your party's in charge. go fix it, if that's what you want.
Posted by: cleek | Nov 9, 2004 6:18:54 PM
"add" not "ass". *snicker*
Posted by: Al | Nov 9, 2004 6:19:27 PM
Al, as I distinctly recall, holding elections in the Republic of South Vietnam didn't thwart the Viet Cong. So how would just holding elections in January thwart the insurgents in Iraq? Is a ballot supposed to be some sort of magical incantation that will consign insurgents to a Bag of Holding that gets squirreled away in Abu Ghraib?
Posted by: David W. | Nov 9, 2004 6:25:19 PM
Define "success" in the elections.
Posted by: Harold Babar | Nov 9, 2004 6:25:35 PM
The problem is angry Islamic terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and other targets with intention of killing us.
We would like to prevent something like this from happening. Okay. What do we do to solve this problem?
Invade Mexico!!
Posted by: tex | Nov 9, 2004 6:37:42 PM
From the report I heard on the BBC this morning, a surprising number of insurgents had dug themselves in and were intending to commit suicide by standing and fighting. I'm sure their bosses are long gone, but some of them are getting killed there.
Of course, the bigger question is why are we in any part of Iraq in the first place? We're trying to kill people who were not plotting to kill us pre 3/03. Most of these people are fighting to rid Iraq of its "occupiers" -- which is a cause we created for inexplicable reasons.
Posted by: pj | Nov 9, 2004 6:38:51 PM
Of course, the bigger question is why are we in any part of Iraq in the first place?
To punish Saddam for knocking over the towers, dummy.
Posted by: October Surprise | Nov 9, 2004 6:48:37 PM
Can someone please explain to me why terrorists could not be plotting against U.S. as well as being blown up in Iraq? We're not talking about a single group of folks with one gameplan here. If you were a terrorist, where would you rather be? Why do these outcomes have to be mutually exclusive?
How can this possible be a rational talking point by the Republicans? Are you really saying we invaded Iraq to give terrorists a bigger target?
Posted by: govols | Nov 9, 2004 6:51:10 PM
Just a couple of questions: Do we really know that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a "senior rebel leader", or that he was even in Fallujah recently?
The mercurial Mr. Zarqawi seems to be an awfully convenient bogey-man, showing up with timely missives on "terrorist web sites" whenenever there is some US need to put a face on bad news, wearing a mask to chop off someone's head even though he supposedly gives his name while he is doing it and knows his mug is broadcast on the news every day - even cooperatively "declaring allegience to al-Qaeda" in the final weeks of a presidential campaign as the president's critics are hitting him with the charge that there were no al-Qaeda in Iraq.
I think Bush, Allawi and company just think the resistance needs a name, so their publics have someone definite to hate. Allawi was the name Bush and Co. drew out of the hat on the eve of the invasion to promote the idea that there was a terrorist presence in Iraq, and to attach a diabolical mastermind to that presence, and they have just rolled him over several times during the occupation for similar purposes. Allawi, in particular, is anxious to paint the insurgency as all the work of foreign trouble-makers, not a homegrown movement.
I heard the Pentagon brifing today and it was very noticable how uncomfortable and fumbling they were when talking about Zarqawi. One had the clear impression that they never expected him to be there to begin with, and that he was a side issue, at best.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Nov 9, 2004 6:53:54 PM
Can someone please explain to me why terrorists could not be plotting against U.S. as well as being blown up in Iraq?
terrorists are lazy, simple-minded folk.
sorry, it was the best i could come up with.
Posted by: cleek | Nov 9, 2004 6:57:45 PM
Where I said:
"Allawi was the name Bush and Co. drew out of the hat on the eve of the invasion to promote the idea that there was a terrorist presence in Iraq..."
I meant:
"Zarqawi was the name Bush and Co. drew out of the hat on the eve of the invasion to promote the idea that there was a terrorist presence in Iraq ..."
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Nov 9, 2004 6:58:21 PM
Invade Mexico!!
No. Invade Morocco!!!
Ooops, sorry, that was FDR's response to Pearl Harbor. My bad. For some reason, I was under the impression that those nasty Moroccans had nothing at all to do with Pearl Harbor, but luckily you lefties have proved me wrong.
Posted by: Al | Nov 9, 2004 7:05:42 PM
Um, they can't be doing both, because 9-11 took a lot of organization, and they haven't got anywhere safe to sit and plot anymore. Whereas giving us trouble in Iraq just requires sneaking over the border, and looking for somebody to kill.
Sure, if we weren't doing anything anywhere else, they'd be able to do both.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 7:06:03 PM
Brett,
It's a big, big world. Why, they might be sitting down at the local Mickey Dee's plotting your demise at this very moment.
Posted by: modus potus | Nov 9, 2004 7:16:46 PM
Isn't it immoral to invade a country and reduce it to chaos just so terrorists can attack us there instead of here?
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Nov 9, 2004 7:23:17 PM
But probably aren't. If it were that easy, they could have headquartered in New Mexico, not Afghanistan.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 7:26:30 PM
It certainly would be, Walt, if that country weren't already under the heel of a murderous tyrant. As it is, we can serve our purposes, AND leave them better off in the end.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 7:28:09 PM
But suppose we don't leave them better off, but in fact worse off (the only thing worse than Saddam would be chaos, which we are in danger of achieving).
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Nov 9, 2004 7:30:48 PM
"Um, they can't be doing both, because 9-11 took a lot of organization, and they haven't got anywhere safe to sit and plot anymore"
Try Pakistan. Wasn't that UBL that showed up just recently looking quite comfortable in his golden robes? If he has time to make speeches and video-tapes just guessing he has time to be plotting.
Posted by: sofia | Nov 9, 2004 7:44:23 PM
She has a bias, but if anyone has a right...
I read the others, like Healing Iraq. He is not so happy anymore either tho, for despite being Pro-Bush, he is a Sunni working in Basra. His future so bright he gotta wear shades...
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 9, 2004 7:45:20 PM
Al--
Morocco: controlled by the German Afrika Korps.
Iraq: controlled by an enemy of Osama.
See, it's not generally too smart too attack the enemy of someone who poses an imminent danger to you, until that danger is disposed of. That's why we didn't attack Stalin in 1941. Of course, the unspoken variable is that FDR wasn't a moron.
Posted by: Social Scientist | Nov 9, 2004 7:53:56 PM
At the cost of sounding like a raging moderate, the rightish commentators are right (along with Rumsfeld) that you can't allow an insurgent 'green zone' within Iraq to openly oppose the CPA. But OTOH the timing of the operation stinks, as it comes hours after the US election, and the punch was so telegraphed it lost a lot of its sting. If its so important to deny time and space to Zarqawi why didn't we clean out Fallujah months ago? Because of Sistani? Sadr?
Posted by: cynical joe | Nov 9, 2004 7:55:27 PM
OMG!! Civilian Casualties! Quagmire! Somebody alert Kofi Annan!
Posted by: Al | Nov 9, 2004 8:04:42 PM
At least "objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved" according to Ashcroft in his resignation letter... sweet.
Posted by: Craig Press | Nov 9, 2004 8:10:42 PM
We're making progress. So what if there's no objective signs of progress. So what if the government has no control over anyplace in Iraq. So what if Iraqis want us out. We're doing what's best for them. What we say is good is good, because we're good. I'm good. None of this means we're not making progress. You have no faith in freedom.
Posted by: Free Lover of Freedom and Free Liberty | Nov 9, 2004 8:19:42 PM
Uh, guys? Were you aware that invading Iraq reduced the opportunity cost of killing Americans?
See, instead of having to figure out a way to get in our country and scrounge up enough money to live on while they plot against us, they can just hop on over to Iraq and start killing Americans right away!
And Iraq is great for terrorist recruiting! Remember, we can kill all the people in the world who were terrorists before 9/11, but we're still not better off if they recruit twice as many to replace them.
Posted by: M. | Nov 9, 2004 8:23:56 PM
Yeah, M. It reduced the opportunity cost of killing Americans who have tanks, M-16s, body armor, and training on how to deal with killers. It increased the opportunity cost of killing unarmed civilian Americans working in high-rise office towers.
Posted by: Al | Nov 9, 2004 8:27:55 PM
Al has a point in his last post...although, it seems frighteningly amoral to utilize the iraqi's to accomplish such a transfer of risk.
Posted by: Glenn Bridgman | Nov 9, 2004 8:35:53 PM
I absolutely agree, Al. Allowing more terrorists to participate in killing Americans is a great idea. Because after all, once you kill one, they never recruit any others. Considering it only took 19 of them to pull off 9/11, I feel so much safer.
Especially since we can't check all containers coming into this country. Where are we going to get the money for that?
And Al? I think we should reduce the opportunity cost of terrorism even further by sending them our blog trolls.
Posted by: M. | Nov 9, 2004 8:40:35 PM
"Yeah, M. It reduced the opportunity cost of killing Americans who have tanks, M-16s, body armor, and training on how to deal with killers. It increased the opportunity cost of killing unarmed civilian Americans working in high-rise office towers."-Al
Actually, it only did the first. It is still just as easy to do the latter as before the Iraq war. All we did was give the terrorists more options.
Posted by: Njorl | Nov 9, 2004 8:55:32 PM
Thanks Dan for being a respected voice and asking the Zarqawi question. I agree that he does seem to be a convenient bogeyman for the U.S. to reference whenever they feel the need to justify a military action or strategy.
Posted by: Windhorse | Nov 9, 2004 8:57:24 PM
...There's a quite strict upper limit on the size and degree of internal communication a terrorist organization can achieve, before SOMEBODY gets turned, and the whole thing crashes and burns. And it's quite a bit smaller than the size Al Quaeda needed to pull off 9-11.
Denying them safe havens where they can mass and organize in relative security, means that they can only pull off small stuff. It's the key advantage we got out of taking out the Taliban.
This sounds good. But it also sounds exactly like Kerry saying that we cannot totally defeat terrorists, but we can reduce them to a very low nuisance level. Dick Cheney expended a lot of wind ridiculing this goal.
So I guess the strategy is to let the front men, the cheerleaders, engage in Rambo-like muscle-flexing during the election to satisfy the rubes. But back in the real world -- the world the military has to deal with -- we set realistic goals that look a lot like Kerry's and not much like Bush-Cheney's.
Posted by: S. Anderson | Nov 9, 2004 9:06:21 PM
To be fair, Bush said much the same thing before Kerry, and got crucified for it. All Kerry got was his serving of "sauce".
But, no, I think there were substantial differences between the two, and the chief difficulty I had with Kerry was his exagerated notion of what could be accomplished with diplomacy.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 9:17:10 PM
As usual Al has it right and Matt has it wrong.
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Nov 9, 2004 9:30:10 PM
But back in the real world -- the world the military has to deal with -- we set realistic goals that look a lot like Kerry's and not much like Bush-Cheney's.
Exactly, but it doesn't read like a movie script so it doesn't sell on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Harold Babar | Nov 9, 2004 10:07:27 PM
Well now I know you liberals will say anything to dis the prez's war efforts. You're all still mad about the election. You calously question the prez's war tactics in Falluja without examining your own hate-filled pretentions. So let me help you out.
Think about it: announcing a major invasion of a rebel city a month before the invasion happens gives civilians time to leave. It's not only humanitarian, it's totally smart. Everyone knows terrorists and guerrilla fighters never ever leave their combat positions to hide out and strike again later. It wouldn't be honorable. So we're in the position to pick 'em all off easy now. Freedoms on the march, baby.
So I'd recommend you skeptical liberals get over your Michael Mooreish pre-election Bush bashing attitudes. It's time you put aside your hate and just trust the prez. He knows what he's doing. What would give you reason to think he doesn't?
Posted by: KC | Nov 9, 2004 11:09:51 PM
Everybody here is grossly misusing the term "opportunity cost" as if it means the same as "cost." Opportunity cost of a choice is the optimal value of what you could have accomplished instead of what you chose to do (with the same time and resources). For a terrorist, the opportunity cost of killing Americans isn't really meaningful because we have no idea what other goals they have besides killing Americans.
But here's a better usage example: invading and occupying Iraq had a high opportunity cost because now we cannot use our military to invade or threaten to invade countries that pose a bigger threat to us, like Iran and North Korea.
Posted by: fling93 | Nov 9, 2004 11:10:06 PM
So KC, being skeptical now, where exactly are those tons of WMDs that Bush said were a such dire threat to us that we had to invade and short circuit the inspections that were taking place in Iraq?
There are certainly other reasons why I'm skeptical about claims that Bush knows what he's doing, but that's a start.
Posted by: David W. | Nov 9, 2004 11:21:18 PM
If they all just discovered the saving power and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ they would lay down their arms and work to bring His Second Coming to Earth. This is a Holy War, like that fought by our forefathers in this very same land. Islam is a religion of wickedness and perversion. Our American soldiers are undertaking a most Blessed Mission to save for our Christ the wayward souls of Babylon. Those who profit from blasphemy and sin have no reverence for this sacred mission by our true Christian warriors.
Posted by: James Dobbins | Nov 9, 2004 11:33:27 PM
"totally smart"
Posted by: jackie t | Nov 9, 2004 11:57:31 PM
Its not about freedom, its not about Democracy, its not about making us safer from terrorists, its not about god, its about $$$$$$. Hundreds of billions of $$$$$$$$$$$. Oil and military contracts. In the end, thats all it is. Really
Posted by: riz | Nov 10, 2004 12:06:48 AM
Am I the only person who thinks that Al, Brett, & Modern Crusader are the weirdest rightwing blog-haunting team yet? Maybe they need a reality show-- it would tie in with the site's tagline, after all.
The problem is angry Islamic terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and other targets with intention of killing us.
We would like to prevent something like this from happening. Okay. What do we do to solve this problem?
We decide that all the terrorists that matter are living in a mostly secular dictatorship that is also full of UN inspectors and is under constant surveillance. They were drawn there from their posts worldwide because no one would have ever suspected that they would be welcome there, naturally. We then invade this country and decide that everyone who dislikes such actions is a terrorist, which not only justifies the original invasion, but also boosts our terrorist kill/capture numbers as a sort of bonus. Since all the terrorists who matter are in this occupied country, we are naturally safe in assuming that they are too busy with their formerly part-time jobs as insurgents to develop and execute any more plots against the United States.
Problem solved.
Posted by: latts | Nov 10, 2004 12:25:11 AM
It's pretty weird when you get to the point where you can't tell the difference between satire and what's said in all seriousness.
I'd think hard about shorting my stock in The Onion if I had any.
Posted by: David W. | Nov 10, 2004 12:49:48 AM
Isn't it immoral to invade a country and reduce it to chaos just so terrorists can attack us there instead of here?
Morality shmorality.
Posted by: October Surprise | Nov 10, 2004 1:19:30 AM
Sorry, guys, but this is the reason I couldn't vote for Kerry in the end. He categorically ruled out tactical nukes and if there was ever a case that demanded them it was Fallujah. I mean, this place was a hellhole even when Saddam was in power. Some of these places have to be removed from the Earth.
Posted by: Joe from Ohio | Nov 10, 2004 1:25:00 AM
And there it is. ^^
Posted by: Harold Babar | Nov 10, 2004 2:11:45 AM
Damn that Kerry! Doesn't know when to nuke a bunch of ragheads when they deserve it!
You tell 'em, Joe.
Posted by: jimBOB | Nov 10, 2004 3:16:42 AM
Tactical nukes ... fair enough, but the tactic is to achieve which strategy in the aim of which goal.
Excellent, here we go ...
First we nuke the ragheads.
Then ... then we nuke the sand people.
Then ... then we nuke the Koreans.
and then ...
It's such an excellent strategy, I think we should just go ahead and throw all the nukes at everyone, and then there won't be any more terrorists.
I'm a genius ... someone make me president !
Posted by: Mark B | Nov 10, 2004 6:24:52 AM
Sunni tribal chiefs who did not cooperate with Allawi will find a smoking pile of rubble where their neighborhoods and businesses used to be, and those that did cooperate will prosper and move ahead. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Posted by: Warthog | Nov 10, 2004 7:30:26 AM
"Exxtreme Democracy" - leveling a city so its surviving citizens can vote...
In any case, elections after 60 days of martial law can't be "successful"as there can have been no campaigning, no?
what's the mission? a stable Iraq? We had that before we started (and they even had "elections"....)
Posted by: webfoot | Nov 10, 2004 7:50:31 AM
Look, the important thing to remember is:
We no longer have an unelected, american backed strongman killing Iraqis in Iraq.
We have reduced the threat of a chemical or nuclear attack by securing all the dangerous materials.
We have introduced the rule of law, sorry, martial law.
And all at the cost to us of only about a thousand americans.
We're not sure of the civilian casualties because we feel that that isn't an important metric when exporting freedom and democracy.
All in all, a huge success by any measure.
Posted by: Kevser | Nov 10, 2004 8:54:46 AM
I think that one may need to destroy great many towns and villages to deny safe haven to the iraqi insurgents...
And in the arab/muslim world.... and in the third world...
Because this method rather bread terrorists all over the world.
Posted by: Attila | Nov 10, 2004 8:55:23 AM
You know, I thought you guys might, you know, chill out a bit after the election was over. But instead, if anything you're getting more hysterical.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 10, 2004 9:05:31 AM
Brett, if the Bush administration's strategy made sense and was actually seen to be making progress towards 'Iraqification' rather than just upping the body count, I suspect we'd all be happy campers. But I'm old enough to have been there and seen that, and that strategy is still not worth doing well.
The elections will be held in January, with each political faction in Iraq already being promised it's share of the results. Whether that translates into political power and a workable government is another matter. The fact that the U.S. election is now over doesn't change that either.
Posted by: David W. | Nov 10, 2004 9:14:25 AM
Brett,
It is Joe, Bush supporter, that is talking tactical nukes!
I think a bit of hysteria is warranted.
Posted by: theCoach | Nov 10, 2004 9:18:58 AM
Brett - I for one have not been complaining about the war just to score points in an election year - I honestly think it is both wrong and a debacle and the election has nothing to do with those assesments.
In any case, you know, on a day when 10 soldiers were killed to I don't know what end, does "chiling out" seem right to you?
Posted by: webfoot | Nov 10, 2004 9:22:05 AM
Why are we in Fallujah? James A. Marks, a retired major general and the senior intelligence officer during last years invasion, explains it all in an op-ed in today's NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/opinion/10marks.html?pagewanted=1&oref=login
Some highlights:
Marks opens his piece by reassuring the reader that our military is being led by officers who cut their teeth during the successful "unconventional" battle for Panama City back in '89.
He goes on to alert us all what the future holds: a "lilypad" strategy, in which our troops are airlifted or travel by convoy to a "contested area," kill insurgents, then return to a fortified base.
Marks concludes by clearly spelling out what we have to gain in Fallujah and beyond: "Over time, the coalition will take away the insurgents' home court advantage and turn each city, town and stretch of road into a neutral playing field."
So there you have it. A battle plan drawn not from the experiences of the French in Algeria, or the Israelis in Lebanon, but from our takedown of Noriega. And don't get the impression this will be another Vietnam -- we're pursuing a lilpypad strategy, not a strategic hamlet strategy.
And when all else fails, just wrap your head around homey sports metaphors.
If this piece honestly reflects our military's leadership, we're in deeper shit than I thought.
Posted by: Thomas | Nov 10, 2004 9:24:34 AM
"The elections will be held in January, with each political faction in Iraq already being promised it's share of the results."
Right. Which is not true, full blown democracy. It's more like democracy with training wheels. Which is, I think, what's appropriate at this point, if we don't want the classic, "One man, one vote, one time."
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 10, 2004 9:25:21 AM
"the chief difficulty I had with Kerry was his exagerated notion of what could be accomplished with diplomacy."
The chief difficulty I had with Bush was his exagerated notion of what could be accomplished with armed force.
"You know, I thought you guys might, you know, chill out a bit after the election was over. But instead, if anything you're getting more hysterical."
Before the election, we were worried that you guys were about to lead the country over a cliff. Now, we get to watch you do it. Of course, we're hysterical--any sane person would be.
Posted by: rea | Nov 10, 2004 9:33:28 AM
and in what sense is the transofmation of Iraq from dictatorship to chaos an accomplishment either way!
Posted by: webfoot | Nov 10, 2004 9:37:36 AM
Brett, a coalition government (of sorts, anyway) may be more acceptable on the face of it than Allawi's provisional governement, but it doesn't resolve the major differences between the various Iraqi factions either. So I wouldn't call it democracy with training wheels, I'd call it an ad hoc confederacy with the mullahs more or less in charge of the Sunni and Shiite areas, and the Kurdish Peshmurga having it's own enclave within Iraq.
Posted by: David W. | Nov 10, 2004 9:46:34 AM
"A battle plan drawn not from the experiences of the French in Algeria, or the Israelis in Lebanon, but from our takedown of Noriega."
Pardon me but "chuckle, snort" that's a ridiculous comparison!
And considering the number of civilians killed when Saint Ronnie ordered the Air Force to try out their new stealth toys on Noriega's HQ (they missed and hit a slum, remeber?) is similar to the kind of damage being caused by the use of aerial bombardment in densely populated parts of Iraq I'm not seeing that they've learned anything...
The whole idea of fighting radical Islamist terrorism by overthrowing a secular Arab government (detestable as that government was) was absurd from the beginning. In fact, it was just was Osama (remember him?) could have imagined only in his wildest wet dreams...the whole Iraq adventure was a gift to the terrorists.
Posted by: A Hermit | Nov 10, 2004 9:52:47 AM
Mock it all you want, guys, but we need to drain the swamp here. Make Fallujah uninhabitable. Force them out of that hellhole and whack them when they show their face. War ain't pretty, people. If you don't want the terrorists attacking AMERICA again then get over the squeamishness about killing them over THERE.
Posted by: Joe from Ohio | Nov 10, 2004 9:53:44 AM
riz wrote:"Its not about freedom, its not about Democracy, its not about making us safer from terrorists, its not about god, its about $$$$$$. Hundreds of billions of $$$$$$$$$$$. Oil and military contracts. In the end, thats all it is. Really"
There are many beliefs as to why we are in Iraq. The ones riz mentions are among them. I do, however, think it is narrow-sighted to believe it is only about $$$$.
Posted by: Michael | Nov 10, 2004 9:56:59 AM
Joe - I know I shouldn't bother to respond to you because yu are just writing to rile people but...
Falouja is a city of 2 or 300,000 people none of whom ever attacked us on our soil. Be clear - it is WE who are attacking THEM on THEIR soil. We have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, many more civilians than Bin Laden killed here in the US. And with no more purpose.
Think before you advocate murder.
Posted by: webfoot | Nov 10, 2004 10:01:18 AM
"why we are in Iraq" - to enforce UN resolutions re: weapons of mass destruction. - Because Saddam represented a "threat to the world" or to pre-empt attack...
all of those reasons were lies...
one other possibility is that it could be irrational - why did the Japanese attack the US? Why did Hitler go into Russia? Why did Saddam go into Kuwait? sometimes because of internal political or institutional contradictions powers will act AGAINST any rational interest - What if, for example, if Japan's invasion was brought about by elements of the military acting to strengthen their prerogatives vis a vis other organs of the state rather than in any national or untimately even their own institutional self-interest?
The invasion of Iraq could be similarly irational from a "national interest" pont of view....
Posted by: webfoot | Nov 10, 2004 10:08:42 AM
I suspect 'Joe from Ohio' is making mock. Just a thought... :-)
Posted by: David W. | Nov 10, 2004 10:10:05 AM
In Rabbit Redux, Harry, trying to make sense out of Vietnam, says "Beneath her patient bombers, paradise was possible."
Sums up perfectly Al, Brett, and the other trolls infesting this thread.
Posted by: g-lex | Nov 10, 2004 10:15:38 AM
Gosh David, after all the crap I've heard this week I guess there's nothing I wouldn't believe! hard to have a sense of humor when hearing all the battle-talk on NPR... sorry for venting...
Posted by: webfoot | Nov 10, 2004 10:15:40 AM
There you go. NPR. There is an unbiased, subsidized source. Whatever!
Posted by: Michael | Nov 10, 2004 10:31:25 AM
NPR is at least informative, which is more than one can say for Fox News.
Posted by: David W. | Nov 10, 2004 10:36:21 AM
My vibe on Joe is that he's for real. Dumb as a post, but for real.
Posted by: jimBOB | Nov 10, 2004 10:52:20 AM
Where did all these trolls come from? Must be Fallujah.
So much for the flypaper theory.
Posted by: abb1 | Nov 10, 2004 10:56:23 AM
Somehow, the action in Falluja reminds me of a phrase from the Vietnam War era: It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.
Posted by: raj | Nov 10, 2004 11:07:54 AM
Al should check out the chickenhawk database (via www.awolbush.com) to see how many cowards HE voted for before he shows his stupidity with remarks like "the left's solution is to surrender." Particularly when the right-wing's solution is to "shoot yourself in the foot, as long as you're shooting someone, galldang it!"
And remember, this isn't a guerilla war. Rummy said so!
Posted by: Larry Dean | Nov 10, 2004 1:10:26 PM
Simple question: if your alternative is to kill 2000 terrorists along with 5,000 civilians or 500 terrorists and 500 civilians , which alternative better suits winning an insurgent campaign assuming either way you take the terrorist sanctuary?
Nontrivial question.
Posted by: Mark Buehner | Nov 10, 2004 3:16:57 PM
"Simple question: if your alternative is to kill 2000 terrorists along with 5,000 civilians or 500 terrorists and 500 civilians , which alternative better suits winning an insurgent campaign assuming either way you take the terrorist sanctuary?"
A classic example of moral relativism, if I've ever heard one. 'The ends (of hundreds of innocent lives) justifies the means.'
Posted by: DavidY | Nov 10, 2004 5:06:39 PM
I know some of you guys haven't been listening in the recent past, but you will have a few years to ponder this one:
killing civilians and destroying their property tends to make their survivors hate you
That is why we are determined to go get Osama and his gang, right?
'Collateral damage' is not free; it increases the recruiting pool for your enemy.
Posted by: TomR | Nov 10, 2004 6:50:19 PM
Why in Iraq?
Reasons that are NOT significant factors:
Graft for Halliburton (makes Cheney happy)
Mlitary bases (make neocons/PNAC happy)
Test out/prove out value of RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs, aka "Transformation - Rumsfeld wet dream)
Get control of oil (make various yabos happy)
Above reasons are bullpoop
Real reasons:
Give George Bush a chance to feel macho manly as big time "war president."
Jack up GWB approval ratings (make Karl Rove happy)
Reasons that interest Bush and Rove are the ONLY ones that matter.
There is a corollary: Bush needs an external enemy, preferably complete with a war, for the same reasons as Slobadon Milosevic. Success in Iraq means we would need to progress to Iran or Syria or wherever. Perpetual war for perpetual whatever.
Posted by: liberal elitist | Nov 10, 2004 8:10:07 PM
"A classic example of moral relativism, if I've ever heard one. 'The ends (of hundreds of innocent lives) justifies the means.'
Posted by: DavidY | November 10, 2004 05:06 PM"
That's what real war is, all you guys that love it so much. Real generals make those sort of calculations ALL THE TIME.
Posted by: liberal elitist | Nov 10, 2004 8:18:22 PM
The neocon's strategy in Iraq is right on schedule. The situation there could not have been screwed up so completely by accident. A fairly peaceful, sorta democratic country MAYBE could have been done within six months after "end of major combat operations" if things had been done correctly: keep the Iraqi Army intact, keep the civil structure intact, gaurd everything that should have been gaurded etc.
Then, the "coalition" would have been required to leave. Peaceful, democratric country, "Americans go home now."
Iraq was and is a large aircraft carrier for US and other's use. Iran and Syria are the next likely targets. First Israel will take out Iran's nuclear works then the war will widen into a regional conflict. Without those forward bases in Iraq that are built already or close to finished, the mideast would be a tougher nut to crack.
It has been an objective of the US foreign policy to control the resources of the mideast for decades. Check out PNAC. Scary stuff
Keep your head down and your powder dry
Posted by: Ace | Nov 10, 2004 8:49:07 PM
In other news, the elements of the Imperial Grand Fleet under the command of Lord Vader completely destroyed a major Rebel installation in the Hoth system. "Things are going, I think, as planned. We've got about 70 percent of the system under control," Admiral Piett, the recently-promoted admiral of the Grand Fleet, told GBS television.
"There have been hundreds and hundreds of insurgents who have been either killed or captured," he said.
But while Imperial troops fought for the upper hand on Hoth, insurgents on the Spinward planet of Bespin set police stations ablaze, stole weapons and roamed the streets.
Residents said Boeus Sector's third most-populace planet seemed to slide out of control as energy blasts and blaster fire rang through empty streets and smoke billowed from two burning police stations.
Rebels attacked Imperial guards controlling a bridge in the city center, killing five of them, witnesses said.
Posted by: moonbiter | Nov 11, 2004 9:21:04 AM
Modern Crusader said, "You want to know what else is shocking? I haven't heard one word out of you Fifth Columnist bloggers about the racist genocide and massacre of innocent unarmed civilians in Ivory Coast."
Um, that's because we are only truly responsible for our own govt's actions. If the U.S. Marine Corps were in Ivory Coast 'suppressing' the locals, then you'd be hearing a whole lot about it.
Posted by: DavidY | Nov 11, 2004 3:14:27 PM
I have to agree with the earlier commenter: this is an asinine post. Perhaps you should stick to topics you have some passing knowledge about?
Posted by: Steve K. | Nov 11, 2004 6:37:58 PM
Hallelujah. Thank you for stating the obvious. Anyone with half a brain certainly predicted the fleeing of the insurgents- as if "sealing the borders" of the city was going to stop them from escaping. Add to that this small point- anyone with half a brain at the Pentagon might want to realise sometime this century that OPENLY DISCUSSING FUTURE MILITARY ACTIONS IN THE NATIONAL MEDIA FOR WEEKS ON END MIGHT ACTUALLY GIVE THE ENEMY A LEG UP!! It's not rocket science people! Put your thinking caps on!
Posted by: rocket scientist | Nov 12, 2004 2:36:03 PM
Let's give the US military a little bit of benefit of the doubt.
They couldn't attack earlier because of the election. Politics trumps strategy, as it has in this war from the very beginning.
The purpose of attacking Fallujah wasn't to kill terrorists. If that had been the purpose we would have had to kill a lot of civilians.
The purpose wasn't to remove an insurgent base. We gave them time to build a dozen alternative bases, and no doubt they did. Removing one such base hardly matters.
The purpose wasn't to remove a "nogo" area. Fallujah will always be off-limits to US forces that aren't strong, unless we somehow get a bunch of Fallujans who decide they like us after all. And this operation is unlikely to promote that. We can move into Fallujah in force whenever we want to bring the force to bear, and that's when it isn't a no-go area.
No, the purpose of invading Fallujah was to show the US public that we've taken Fallujah. We had a bunch of citizens who were upset that we started to do it and stopped. Now they'll be satisfied. We don't look weak because we backed down, we didn't back down, we took the city. Everybody should be happy now. That's why we did it, to keep those people happy. Also to keep the marines happy who were upset that they got stopped last time.
Posted by: J Thomas | Nov 13, 2004 12:54:45 AM
mortgage http://www.my-mortgagerates.com
Posted by: mortgage | Oct 17, 2005 12:50:51 PM
cash advance http://www.cashadvance-x.com
Posted by: cash advance | Oct 18, 2005 8:05:11 AM
grear
Posted by: payday loans | Nov 28, 2005 12:33:19 AM
, Payday loans , No Fax Payday Loan
Posted by: payday loans | Dec 24, 2005 3:26:43 AM
The enlightened mortgage loan frees up a mortgage company so a home mortgage is attainable. The right to left faxless payday loan evades a payday cash advance. The over powered no faxing payday loan. Carefully, the payday loan online or the no fax payday loan. The interesting pay day loan perfects the auto loan catches the online mortgage upstages the home equity loan tries , a mortgage quote labors for the adjustable rate mortgage extends paperless payday loan responds to the bad credit personal loan. Outward appearances of a fast loan without having to utilize a signature loan, payday cash loan or a payday advance loan. The student credit card are saddened by the chase credit card listens to business credit cards motivates people who apply online for credit card while people orchard bank fries
guitar lesson is natural like low apr credit card is like the best of the worst. The gas card . The hess gas card is superb. home improvement loan, mortgage company reveals second mortgage classifies the payday loan no faxing.
while saving acne treatment or going to eharmony loses cheating wives look bad like the cheating spouse, or cheating husband with jealousy, used car donation so learn about the lemon law, motorcycle loan and an unsecured personal loan or a payday loan company. home loan, mortgage refinancing makes obvious the car loans assist everyone. A car donation, the bad credit home equity loan
Posted by: payday loan | Mar 25, 2006 4:36:37 PM
Excellent blog, very helpful, thank you for sharing, keep up the fine effort and excellent job. Click out: mortgage calculator and loan calculator or mortgage refinance or debt consolidation
Posted by: mortgage loans | Jun 13, 2006 11:45:02 AM
Most excellent, Dude! Thanks!
Posted by: debt consolodation | Jun 21, 2006 9:57:48 AM

