MichFan Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 I think Fallujah is probably going to be the final exam for an elite group of Iraqi police/military forces. It will be used to show the capability of these forces when combined with U.S. air support. It will also open the door for reducing U.S. feet on the ground.
chicot Posted September 23, 2004 Posted September 23, 2004 Yes....I do. Maybe Im naive....but I cannot FATHOM that the vast majority of Iraqis are embracing the work of the insurgents who look to undermine the growth of this country. Remember...it isnt just Americans being killed. Its Iraqis. Its the oil pipeline, police stations, all kinds of efforts to resore this country that are being undermined by the insurgency. You mean to tell me Mr. Iraqi-man-on-the-street doesnt have a problem with this? As far as the "Sovereignty" issue, youve got a point. 42916[/snapback] The problem is that, whatever the average Iraqi thinks of the insurgents, flattening Fallujah will kill thousands of civilians and I can't see many Iraqis going along with that. Whatever the method used, I expect the second siege of Fallujah to proceed in a pretty similar way to the first, which means an upsurge in violence elsewhere in Iraq, demonstrations against the US assault and quite possibly resignations from the Iraqi government. In any event, we'll probably know the answers to all this in a couple of months.
chicot Posted September 24, 2004 Posted September 24, 2004 I think Fallujah is probably going to be the final exam for an elite group of Iraqi police/military forces. It will be used to show the capability of these forces when combined with U.S. air support. It will also open the door for reducing U.S. feet on the ground. 43228[/snapback] How much fighting did Iraqi forces do in Najaf? Unless Allawi is planning on shipping in Kurdish militia to do the job, which would seriously jeopardize the future stability of Iraq, it just is not going to happen. The "new" Iraqi military is inexperienced, underequipped and undermotivated. It is also almost certainly heavily infiltrated by the resistance. Given an order to attack Fallujah, most of them will probably refuse, as happened last time. Some may actually go over to the side of the "anti-Iraqi forces" (to use the Bizarro-world description of them), as also happened last time.
tennesseeboy Posted September 24, 2004 Posted September 24, 2004 Just a thought. We know we need to get real serious in certain places like Falugia. But we're not doing it. Letting things be turned into a "stand off." Come on! I suspect that a bloody large scale decisive military action would cost American lives, and would politically play right into the hands of the Kerry people, when we are very close to what will likely be a close election. I hate the way politics may be affecting the way we are executing this situation. If on Nov. 3rd, we start to get some kahunas, I guess that's what it will have ment. 42236[/snapback] We haven't taken "decisive military action" since Bush declared "mission accomplished". Why would a "looming election" have anything to do with it? If Bush wins we will take "decisive military action" with a lot more unnecessary American Soldiers dead and wounded and nothing accomplished. But at least we can say we took "decisive military action". To what end we would have taken that action we can only guess.
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 24, 2004 Author Posted September 24, 2004 We haven't taken "decisive military action" since Bush declared "mission accomplished". Why would a "looming election" have anything to do with it? If Bush wins we will take "decisive military action" with a lot more unnecessary American Soldiers dead and wounded and nothing accomplished. But at least we can say we took "decisive military action". To what end we would have taken that action we can only guess. 44260[/snapback] So you agree then. Most likely no major action until after the election.
Recommended Posts