PDA

View Full Version : Crushing Fallujah won't end war


Whois
11-10-2004, 11:28 AM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/198898_fallalujah10.html

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Crushing Fallujah won't end war

By PATRICK COCKBURN
BRITISH COLUMNIST

The belligerent trumpetings of the U.S. Marines bode ill for Fallujah. Sgt. Maj. Carlton Kent, the senior enlisted marine in Iraq, told troops that the battle would be no different from Iwo Jima. In an analogy the Pentagon may not relish, he recalled the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968 and added: "This is another Hue city."

American voters last week never seemed to take on board the extent of the U.S. military failure in Iraq. The rebel control of Fallujah, half an hour's drive from Baghdad, was the most evident symbol of this. It was as if a British government in London had been forced to watch as an enemy force occupied Reading for six months.

The U.S. Army ceded control of much of western Iraq during the Sunni uprising last April. Its failure to recover fully from this setback underlines the extent to which the United States as a military power has proved itself much weaker than the rest of the world had assumed before the invasion of Iraq.

There is no doubt that the United States can recapture Fallujah, if only by blowing most of it up. But this is unlikely to have much of an effect on the guerrilla war in central and northern Iraq, which continues to escalate. It is still unclear how far the rebels will stand and fight against the massed firepower of the Marines and the U.S. Air Force. They know they are far more effective in launching pinprick attacks with roadside bombs and suicide bombers.

The recapture of Fallujah is likely to be as disappointing in terms of ending the resistance as was the capture of Saddam Hussein last December or the handover of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government at the end of June. Each event was billed as a success that would tip the balance towards the United States. Instead the fighting got bloodier and more widespread.

There should be no mystery about why this is happening. All countries object to being occupied. Foreign invasions provoke nationalist resistance. This has happened with extraordinary speed in Iraq because of the ineptitude of the U.S. civil and military commanders, but in the long term it would have happened anyway.

The United States in Iraq has always behaved as if foreign powers or adherents of Saddam Hussein fomented the resistance. A lesson of the ground war last year was that few Iraqis were prepared to get killed for their old leader. Earlier this year I asked U.S. helicopter pilots operating from a base near Fallujah whom they thought they were fighting. They said firmly that they were at war with "FFs" and "FRLs." These turned out to be foreign fighters and former regime loyalists. One of the pilots added nervously that there seemed to be a third somewhat shadowy group "who want us to go home."

The United States and the British are trying to seize Fallujah and the central Euphrates cities. These may have been the original heartlands of the rebellion, but today there are guerrilla attacks in every Sunni region in Iraq. U.S. and interim government control of Baghdad is limited.

One of the strangest justifications for the attack on Fallujah is that it will allow an election to take place. This would be true only if the Sunni rebellion was a mirage and was entirely the work of FFs and FRLs oppressing a local population yearning to break free. A much more likely result of an increase in the fighting is a boycott of the election by the Sunnis. Even if they do vote there is no reason to suppose that the guerrillas will stop fighting any more than the IRA laid down its arms despite numerous elections in Northern Ireland in the '70s and '80s.

The election will take place in January and voting will be heavy because Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shiite religious leader, wants the Shiite to show at the polls that they are 60 percent of the population. The Kurds, who total 20 percent, will also take part. But Sistani has made clear ever since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein that he is against the occupation and has steadfastly refused to meet U.S. officials. The Sunni, another 20 percent of the population, have shown that they are strong enough to destabilize Iraq just as long as they want to. (The Kurds, with a similar proportion of the population, were able to destabilize Iraq for almost half a century.)

It is worth remembering that the elections are taking place largely because of armed resistance. Until guerrilla war started in the summer of last year, U.S. officials in Baghdad were speaking airily of a U.S. occupation going on for years. It was only as the military situation deteriorated by the week that the United States suddenly decided to appoint an interim government and hold elections. Many Iraqis say quietly that the only way to get concessions from the Americans is to shoot at them.

The French failed to hold Algeria against a nationalist revolt despite fielding an army of half a million. With similar numbers the United States failed in Vietnam. With a much smaller army in Iraq, it will fail again. As in Algeria and Vietnam, the war in Iraq will cease only when an end to the occupation is in sight.

Patrick Cockburn writes for The Independent, which is published is Britain*.

* That island thingy place Gizmo Sr. and Jr.

ASsman
11-10-2004, 11:30 AM
Dude, Mission Accomplished.

Get with the program.

Whois
11-10-2004, 11:32 AM
Dude, Mission Accomplished.

Get with the program.


I'm sorry :(

Ali
11-10-2004, 11:34 AM
So, first time it was Saddam is in bed with Bin Laden, then he had WMD's, then he was a bad guy, now Saddam's gone and they are STILL invading towns and fighting Iraqis!

What's the reason now? Elections? Like HELL the result of any US-sponsored election is going to be taken seriously!

I bet you the residents of Fallujah are missing Saddam.

infidel
11-10-2004, 11:45 AM
What I've been wondering is after Fallujah is leveled to the ground do the US taxpayers have to pay Halliburton to rebuild it?

Whois
11-10-2004, 12:20 PM
What I've been wondering is after Fallujah is leveled to the ground do the US taxpayers have to pay Halliburton to rebuild it?

But of course...and the 100ft tall statue of LittleBush granting them their freedom.

Bush reminds me more and more of Stalin (cult of personality).

Rosie Cotton
11-10-2004, 04:43 PM
Maybe they can just stick Bushy's head on that Saddam statue that was toppled.

Whois
11-10-2004, 05:09 PM
Maybe they can just stick Bushy's head on that Saddam statue that was toppled.

Even better, take one of those old Stalin statues and put Bush's head on it.

The gift that keeps on giving...like radioactive waste.

HEY! Why not hollow out the statue and fill it with waste from Hanford?!?!

brendan
11-10-2004, 05:35 PM
heellllooo..."major combat operations in iraq are over." this fallujah thing proves that the liberal media hates america. the mission has been accomplished...pull your heads out of your asses. freedom haters.

Echewta
11-10-2004, 05:40 PM
Yea, these are just a few rag tag ex saddam loyalist who are outside foreign rabble riftrafts and thugs who are causing trouble. I mean honestly, its common for 10,000 troops to take a few days to take over a city full of trouble makers. This isn't a major battle. Tanks and armored transports? Please, its called keeping the peace.

brendan
11-10-2004, 05:47 PM
thank you. these people wouldn't know what peace was unless it bite them on the ass. sometimes you have to kill a shit load of people for peace. freedom isn't free, if you don't throw in your buck o' five...who will? who will?

god bless your heart.

Whois
11-10-2004, 05:51 PM
Please, its called keeping the peace.

Yeah, like General MacArthur kicking the asses of those communist First World War vets in 1932!

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snprelief4.htm

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues03/feb03/bonus_army.html

Rosie Cotton
11-10-2004, 05:54 PM
thank you. these people wouldn't know what peace was unless it bite them on the ass. sometimes you have to kill a shit load of people for peace. freedom isn't free, if you don't throw in your buck o' five...who will? who will?

god bless your heart.

There's a hefty fuckin' fee

infidel
11-10-2004, 06:39 PM
We have been bombing these people for quite some time and all it
seems to be doing is irritating more people. It seems obvious that the
people doing these things don't care about how strong our military is. Yet
we constantly drop bombs, thus further reinforcing their preconceived
notions about us being "evil".

How far does it go? I mean, we can drop bombs all day long but do you really
think it changes everything? We kill a few here, a few there, but do you
think terrorism will just go away? And what kind of "possitive socioeconomic
environmental change on the region" have we really imposed? Afghanistan is
still in the gutter. Except for being the #1 opium producers again, they
aren't what I would consider a good example.


The logical thing, in my opinion, would be to prove the people, who teach
others in that region that we are evil, wrong. Prove to them that we don't want to
take over their land. Prove to them that we aren't evil. Prove to them that
this isn't a holy war. Teach them how democracy and freedom can work,
without bombing them into the stone age. I mean, do you think these people
who see American jets flying over them, dropping bombs, sit and think to
themselves, "wow, Americans are awesome, thank Allah they are dropping bombs
and causing mass destruction to "free" us. Man, they really do care about
us, I mean, look at that bunker buster that just killed half of my family"
or, "hey, America must care about me, they liberated my arms from my body.
Thanks America!"

My point is that we have never tried anything other than using brute force
with them and demanding they cooperate. When we do that we prove the people
who are vilifying us, right. It just seems, that if we want the people in
the Middle East, to stop trying to kill us, that maybe we should change
their idea of us, by just listening to what they have to say, and try to
figure out a way to <gasp> compromise with them. We can't just impose our
will without giving them something in return. I mean, it's fine and dandy to
believe that "forcing" change on them will improve relations, but put
yourself in those shoes for a moment. Would you really want someone who
knows nothing about you telling you how to live your life and that
everything you know is wrong?

Punishing the people who carried out the attacks is one thing, but punishing
the whole region for the acts of a few bad people will only incite more
anger and hate and further proves to them that we aren't good guys.

If we are as "civilized" as we claim, then we should be able to come up with
a less violent solution to this problem

brendan
11-10-2004, 08:16 PM
why won't these people take there freedom?

ASsman
11-10-2004, 08:22 PM
Because Marry Poppins is currently busy.

And, The Fellujah Theme, and subsequent remixes.
----------

Fellujah, Fellujah, Fellujah is on fire.
We don't need nothin' but the weed and a lighter, and a lighter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fellujah, Fellujah, Fellujah is on fire
We don't need matches real smokers use lighters

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fellujah Fellujah Fellujah is on fire
Fellujah Fellujah Fellujah is on fire
Fellujah Fellujah Fellujah is on fire
We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn
Burn motherfucker burn

Ali
11-12-2004, 06:50 AM
We have been bombing these people for quite some time and all it
seems to be doing is irritating more people. It seems obvious that the
people doing these things don't care about how strong our military is. Yet
we constantly drop bombs, thus further reinforcing their preconceived
notions about us being "evil".

How far does it go? I mean, we can drop bombs all day long but do you really
think it changes everything? We kill a few here, a few there, but do you
think terrorism will just go away? And what kind of "possitive socioeconomic
environmental change on the region" have we really imposed? Afghanistan is
still in the gutter. Except for being the #1 opium producers again, they
aren't what I would consider a good example.


The logical thing, in my opinion, would be to prove the people, who teach
others in that region that we are evil, wrong. Prove to them that we don't want to
take over their land. Prove to them that we aren't evil. Prove to them that
this isn't a holy war. Teach them how democracy and freedom can work,
without bombing them into the stone age. I mean, do you think these people
who see American jets flying over them, dropping bombs, sit and think to
themselves, "wow, Americans are awesome, thank Allah they are dropping bombs
and causing mass destruction to "free" us. Man, they really do care about
us, I mean, look at that bunker buster that just killed half of my family"
or, "hey, America must care about me, they liberated my arms from my body.
Thanks America!"

My point is that we have never tried anything other than using brute force
with them and demanding they cooperate. When we do that we prove the people
who are vilifying us, right. It just seems, that if we want the people in
the Middle East, to stop trying to kill us, that maybe we should change
their idea of us, by just listening to what they have to say, and try to
figure out a way to <gasp> compromise with them. We can't just impose our
will without giving them something in return. I mean, it's fine and dandy to
believe that "forcing" change on them will improve relations, but put
yourself in those shoes for a moment. Would you really want someone who
knows nothing about you telling you how to live your life and that
everything you know is wrong?

Punishing the people who carried out the attacks is one thing, but punishing
the whole region for the acts of a few bad people will only incite more
anger and hate and further proves to them that we aren't good guys.

If we are as "civilized" as we claim, then we should be able to come up with
a less violent solution to this problem Banzai! You should run for office!

drobertson420
11-12-2004, 07:09 AM
Because Marry Poppins is currently busy.




....Voting Democrat in Ohio.... ;)
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/20/loc_fraud20.html

It's The Cinncinati Enquirer, Not The Other one.....

ASsman
11-12-2004, 08:40 AM
Yah saw a news clip about their investigation.