Oh, they stand still and let you have a good look at them, do they? They don't hide behind things like doors, walls, members of the population, that sort of thing. Ooh, Ooh - I've got an idea. Maybe we could ask them to wear hats - y'know, like in the John Wayne movies. Black ones for them and white ones for us. That'd make things easier wouldn't it. My brother in-law spent many years in the British army including quite a few stints in Northern Ireland - maybe you should get a clue before regurgitating some of the crap the military mind, (such as it is), comes out with. Often you can't even be sure exactly where fire is coming from. He said that on more than one occasion he had troops under fire who didn't even realise they were being fired upon.
Apparently you're some expert. I tell you what, read Mao's book on guerilla warfare, then come back and give your interpretation of the insurgents' plan and our plan. After that, make your decisions on the success or lack thereof. All I can tell you is the military knew Fallujah was not the final showdown.
Funny. I thought when Bush declared the War over and won that the military thought they had seen the final showdown. Fast forward to Falluja, many bloody months later. All we've heard is how breaking Falluja will break the resistance. Retaking Falluja will lead to the downfall of the insurgency. The military might have known before going in that Falluja would not be the final showdown, they definately know it now. But what they know and what the American people are told has once again been two entirely different things.
Yes. Exactly. Their direction. What are you, living out the last paragraph of "Flowers for Algernon"?
Funny. I thought civilians are in charge of the military and dictate policy such as declaring "Mission Accomplished." Give me one quotation from someone active duty that says breaking Fallujah will end the insurgency, because I'm pretty sure they're all saying that it's integral to breaking is only the first step to. And as for what the military knows and what the American people know, that's not entirely up to the military now, is it? Other than Dick Myers and Tommy Franks, why do you hate the military's freedom?
Hmmm. I dunno about that. OK, they didn't think it was the "final" showdown, but their public rhetoric was that this battle would be a decisive turning point, and would mark the beginning of the end.
Even if we don't draw the insurgents out to fight, taking Falljua and cities like it would still be a valuable goal. It would deny insurgents a base to operate from, and make it that much harder for them to carry out their goals. A strategy like that was successful against the Viet Cong in the later stages of the Vietnam War.
Funny. Perhaps I missed Bush declaring,"the War over and won". Would you happen to have a link? Or perhaps you are reading more into that "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier stunt than you should. "the military thought they had seen the final showdown." When -- and who -- from military leadership gave you that idea? Who of authority has said this? I don't know about that, but either where you and I get our information are "entirely different things", or our degrees or creative interpretation in this matter are entirely different things. Really, Speedy. I like ya, but this kind of stuff is weak.
You got that part right. "The beginning of the end." And who was it, who said that? Why don't we see where things stand after the battle is finished before we draw any conclusions. Unless, of course, that is politically inconvenient for some of us. On the other hand, discussing the USNT roster -- weeks before its release -- can be fun.
Would you mind not doing this almost incessantly? Most of us read the news. In the interest of balance, would you mind linking a few of your posts anywhere on BigSoccer -- or any other public forum -- where you criticize militant Islamists, their agenda, their tactics and the countries and cultures that passively and actively support them? I imagine your critical conscience is dedicated to illuminating travesty of every stripe, no?
I can't draw conclusions about pre-battle rhetoric until after the battle? Surely you don't mean that.
Because we're already boned like sashimi. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/international/middleeast/10insurgency.html?oref=login This spate of what appear to be coordinated attacks, as well as the dispersal of top insurgent leaders, suggests that the Falluja offensive alone will not crush an insurgency that has been gathering strength. And it raises the prospect that insurgents will try to regroup and infiltrate Falluja after the fighting is over, as they have done in Samarra. American military officials said that they anticipated a surge in violence timed to the Falluja invasion and Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting that is supposedly auspicious for martyrdom. They say they are not under the illusion that an attack on Falluja will break the back of the insurgency, or that the capture of Mr. Zarqawi is a realistic goal. The objectives of the offensive are to deny a safe haven to the insurgents, install the presence of the Iraqi government in the city and ensure the area is secure enough so residents can freely vote in the upcoming elections, General Metz said. "The important idea to consider is that this is not an operation against Zarqawi or his network," said a senior military official in Washington who has been monitoring the battle. "It is just one of many steps that need to be taken in order to defeat a complex and diverse insurgency in which the Zarqawi network is but one element.'' But other military officials in Baghdad and Washington are expressing concern that the operation could end up being both a public relations disaster and strategic setback if some top leaders are not captured. "This is causing some concern because if Falluja comes up a 'dry hole,' after all the operations, we will have to explain it," said a military official in Baghdad. "We will have to address it if this happens. If we don't retain any senior leadership, it may cause backlash." An insurgent who gave his nom de guerre as Abu Khalid and identified himself as a mid-level commander said in a telephone interview that leaders had decided two days before the offensive to flee the city and leave only half of the insurgents behind to fight. So the new plan is to chase insurgent leadership throughout every city in Iraq, bombing each one flat as we go? That's fine, if we were fighting World War II. When we're supposed to have elections in a country we control - ah, screw it, the Reeps won. It's your damn problem now. And I hope you like it, because you voted for it.
Its not looking so good. Just not enough troops on the ground. Sure, we can take Falluja, but we arent able to secure the rest of the company, or keep parts that are supposed to be secure under control.
No, I don't mean that. That's why I didn't say that. However, I will say it is a bit silly for anyone to assert anything about potential consequences of a battle in progress. Again, who of authority said the battle for Falluja "would mark the beginning of the end"? As to whether any battle is, in fact, "a decisive turning point", that cannot be determined until after it is finished. Do you disagree? So again, who from the military said something so prophetic?
Dis guy..! "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning" Nov 10 1942
I forget the name of that General that Dubya & Rumsfeld shushed away. Was it something like 300K that he said was needed? Anyway, in hindsight it looks prescient. So even if we get Fallouja under control, what happens next? "Hey, Joe, we got another one brewing in Ramadi. Send another 10,000." "Well, we got Ramadi under control. Oops, I see Baghdad doesn't look so hot. Send another 10,000." We'll have this under control by 2007, if the Iraqis let us stay that long.
Funny or ironic but the last line of this went.... The British and American affairs continue to prosper in the Mediterranean, and the whole event will be a new bond between the English-speaking peoples and a new hope for the whole world. No....Not GWB.
How has this battle, which is still in progress, "boned [us] like sashimi"? Perhaps you could define "boned like sashimi" in military terms.
And we never should have tried, even if we could have put ten times the number of troops on the ground. It wasn't, isn't, and never will be worth what it has cost already, and what it will have cost when it is finished.