Does this mean we FAILED IN FALLUJA?

[oc2002]

The new plan is to create the "Fallujah Protection Army" and replace U.S. Marines in and around the embattled city. This will be made up of FORMER IRAQI SADAM soldiers and officers.

This reads to me like, the army commanders made a tactical error in trying to get the insurgents in Falluja by force, and are now saying 'its not worth it'.

In short we are giving up, have we have failed? Or was this mission like a 'bridge too far'?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52255-2004Apr29.html

[benburch]

1. Vietnamization

And it will work about as well.

[oc2002]

2. Can you explain, what is Veitnamization?

thanks.

[Warpy]

5. Vietnamization

...was the Pentagon's answer to the skyrocketing US casulaty rate in Vietnam and the growing outcry against the war. It proposed training Vietnamese soldiers to fight beside the US military, and eventually take over fighting their own war.

Alas, the Pentagon (as usual) was completely wrong about the nature of the Vietnam war. It was an anticolonial war at its roots, and the Vietnamese they trained were looking for a paycheck, only. To say they were unmotivated in helping the US colonists fight their countrymen would be a gross understatement. It was a failure.

The Pentagon has now lied us into two massively disastrous wars, Vietnam and Iraq, due to crackpot political ideology and a total misunderstanding of geopolitics. They had no clue how to exit Vietnam, and they have even less clue about Iraq.

[benburch]

8. One more post, Warpy!

That was #999!

Then you can join the motormouth club with the rest of us!

:evilgrin:

[oc2002]

12. thanks, too bad the press does not pick up on this analysis or view.

It seems history is repeating itself, the sad part is the waste of lives is just part of the process too.

[mflaker]

28. You forgot to mention...

How the anti-colonial base in Vietnam was compromised by the Communist movement, which in turn let to the slaughter of millions in the region when we left.

Identifying Iraq as a "massively destructive war" is a misnomer, but you are knowledgeable enough so that you don't need that explained to you.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

31. freepalert, LOL

[IrateCitizen]

35. Ummm... it was the US that slaughtered millions in Vietnam

I think you're confusing Vietnam with Cambodia under Pol Pot, which sought to literally take the country back to the stone age.

BTW -- Pol Pot was able to come to power in Cambodia primarily due to the instability caused by the US bombing campaign under Nixon.

Another note -- the anticolonial movement in Vietnam was primarily nationalist before it was communist. Furthermore, despite our best efforts to utterly destroy the country ("peace with honor"), the Vietnamese managed to pretty well rebuild their country without help from the US over the next 25 years.

[mflaker]

36. Yes, I know Vietnam is a wonderful place now...

Not saying we were right. I do know about Cambodia and Pol Pot, but I must disagree with the assertion that our bombing campaign enabled him. The communists were hot to spread "cultural revolutions" all over the area.

[markses]

44. Which is why the Vietnamese went to war with Pol Pot's regime?

Yes? Y'know, when Pol Pot began slaughtering ethnic Vietnamese in the border region and claimed Vietnamese territory as far east as Ho Chi Minh City as traditional territory of Kampuchia? Yes?

The facts are pretty clear that US meddling and illegal war precipitated and contributed to Pol Pot's popularity, from installing Lon Nol - himself a butcher of first magnitude who operated freely under the direction of the US Government, and subsequently fled to Hawai'i - to the border wars and bombings practically pushing the rural peasantry into Pol Pot's ideological project. Your answer to all this is what? That "the communists were hot to spread 'cultural revolutions' all over the area"? Where was the concomitant "cultural revolution" in Vietnam? Oh, that's right. There wasn't one. Why don't you cut out the fatuous nonsense. The Cambodian disaster was a specific socio-cultural phenomenon that was tied to the Vietnamese revolution by only the thinnest of threads. It was specific to the situation and personalities in Cambodia. Was the Vietnemese war a contributing factor. Yes. But "communism" should not be overdetermined here. Was US foreign policy a contributing factor. Yes. But it should not be overdetermined. I mean, really. Grow up.

I've been to Vietnam in the last 10 years. And while I can only offer a tourists perspective, and cannot therefore speak to living there, I can say that the people were extremely welcoming, that the places were bustling, and that those folks I talked to, while complaining about the government, were hardly slaves to the Party Apparatus. At any rate, they certainly weren't slaves to a foreign occupying power. The economics of imperialism is, of course, another question all together, but I think they'll get there. Good people.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

30. In fairness to "The Pentagon" (generals), I don't think they had a

major hard-on for this war, except their two bosses, Rummy and shrubco, did. Now they are just saluting smartly and following orders.

[benburch]

6. Nixon-era policy

The gradual pull-out of US troops while replacing them with US trained and armed South Vietnamese troops. Eventually US troop strength was down to low levels, but the South Vietnamese troops had divided loyalties, and did not put up a particularly good fight. Hence it only took a couple of years under their control for South Vietnam to fall.

[Walt Starr]

10. Oh come off it, this is NOT Vietnamization

It's Iraqification!

Big difference there. Several letters are different and there's about 30 years difference!

Get your shit straight!

/sarcasm

[Iceburg]

3. Saddam is now looking like a saint by most standards ...

Saddam is now looking like a saint by most standards
The "ceasefire/massacre" in Fallujah; the rape and torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq. Only "God/Bush" knows whats going on in Guantonamo Bay???

While 50% of Americans sponsor these activities, the other 50% are content to blame "this Administration". At some point we have to ask ourselves -- Is attributing blame really enough?

No one can terrorize a whole nation,

unless we are all his accomplices.

Edward R. Murrow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




When your feet grow tired from marching, write letters
When your hands grow weary from writing, make phone calls
When your voice goes hoarse from yelling, then start praying.
Please America -- March NOW ... pray later.

The DU Activism/Events forum is sadly the most underutilized board of this website.

[mflaker]

37. Saddam a saint?

Man, that's crazy. We may not be doing the right thing, but that guy killed hundreds of thousands of civilians on purpose.
Keep some control.

[lovedems]

4. I thought the whole point of going to Iraq in the first place was to

topple Saddam and his terrorist regime. I guess we are now recruiting terrorists to make up for our failings?

Don't get me wrong, if we can avoid bloodshed that is the best way to go but good greif, why are we recruiting the "bad guys" as the chimp likes to call them.

Kerry could use this to his advantage big time. He needs to point out the war pResident is not doing a very good job fighting the war on terror if we are resorting to recruiting terrorists.

Edit: I was involved in conversation this morning and we were discussing our hatred of republicans. We decided that if some other country came to the US and was effing with us the way we are in Iraq, we would put our hatred of the chimp aside and do what was best for our country. That being said, the Iraqi's didn't like Saddam but that doesn't mean their hatred of Saddam is enough for us to be seen as liberators. The longer we are the there, the worse it is going to get.

[BiggJawn]

7. "Hey, let's try that 'ARVN' thing again!"

"Didn't work last time, but hey, that was 30 years ago..."

Insanity: the act of doing the same thing over and over, expecting diferent results.

[ugarte]

9. Sounds like even Bush knows he's lost

The whole mad adventure in Iraq is lost. Now it's all about face-saving, a la Richard Nixon, 1972.

[pansypoo53219]

11. no no no

we are obviously winning! everything points to us winning accordina to the neoconderthals.

[RafterMan]

13. Not really

It seems they've created a political solution to a political problem, and none too soon. I think it's kind of pathetic how people are crowing about US defeat.

[Jacobin]

14. By placing the people we invaded to defeat back in charge?

Clever!

[oc2002]

15. Its absolutely ingenious!

Diabolical too!

[RafterMan]

16. Like it's all just one guy?

To you, the Baath is just one undifferentiated mass of evil?

They should never have dissolved the army in the first place.

[Jacobin]

17. One of Saddam's generals?

Oh yeah. A "lower level" general who was not involved with Saddam? How's that koolaid taste?

[RafterMan]

18. No difference

between Rommel and Himmler, eh? I guess you feel someone is either with Saddam or against him. Familiar enough. But maybe a lot of people in Fallujah weren't that against him.

It doesn't look to me like it's about proxy fighters, but a face saving compromise for both sides. Maybe whoever they cut the deal with won't have the authority to speak on behalf of the fighters. Who knows. Certainly not you.

[markses]

20. Face Saving Compromise for both sides???

The Iraqi resistance in Fallujah had two primary goals:

1. Keep US personnel out of Fallujah
2. Keep whatever weapons they have for future action.

They have accomplished both these goals. Furthermore, I have not seen anywhere that the Iraqi resistance in Fallujah will allow the so-called "FPA" to either enter or patrol the city. They have made no assurances about the safety of this US comprador force whatsoever.

So how exactly is this a "comprimise" on their side? They have maintained all their orginal positions and given nothing. They have denied US entry into Fallujah, and have made no agreements about FPA entry. Please enumerate the points of the "comprimise" on the part of the Iraqi resistance in Fallujah as you see it.

[bemildred]

21. Yeah, we've been doing "cease-fires" for three weeks now.

In no case has the fighting stopped, and in no case has the
resistance inside Faloojah been party to the "cease-fires".
The only things of interest here are whether the Marines
actually withdraw and whether, having done so, we then bomb
the shit out of the place as a prelude to another attempt to
"secure" it.

[RafterMan]

24. If General Salah is just a random stooge

You will be proved correct. If he's someone with a power base in the city, coopting him is a good move.

We'll see what happens.

[markses]

29. It is not at all clear that he has any power at all in Fallujah

It is clear that he does not represent the Iraqi resistance in Fallujah at all. I ask again: How can it be said that the Iraqi Resistance has either entered into an agreement, or offered any compromise? They seem not to even be involved in any of the negotiations! How, then, can they have offered a "compromise," as you said previously?

I'm just asking you to explain your claim. I'm not asking you to forecast anything that we'll have to see later. You said, very clearly, that the agreement is "face-saving compromise on both sides" yet you cannot even prove that both sides were involved in the negotiations! So, what did you mean "on both sides"? What did you mean by that claim?

[RafterMan]

34. Nope, not clear

But here's a little nugget:
" It seems likely that some of the insurgents in the city — though not "hard-liners or criminals" — will end up as part of the security force, a Marine officer said on condition of anonymity."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001915639_webiraq29.html

I think you're well aware that we don't know everything that happens in Iraq. That is why I say only time will tell

[markses]

38. Again, I understand your urge to now displace the question to future

contingencies. None of this explains, however, what made you say:

It doesn't look to me like it's about proxy fighters, but a face saving compromise for both sides.

How could it be a face-saving compromise for both sides if both sides weren't involved in the negotiations? I'm just trying to get at your claim here. What makes it "look like...a face-saving compromise for both sides." What elements of the situation give you that impression? What facts lead you to that belief? I see no concessions made by the resistance in Fallujah. None. Explain where you see any concessions that lead you to the "compromise" belief. You said that's how it looks to you. Why? It's a simple question and I can't quite tell why you're being so evasive about it. I'm really trying to see the concessions here. Help me see them.

[RafterMan]

41. Well,

Your argument rests on Salah having no connection to the resistance. That is why I posted the (edit: Seattle Times) quote.

If he does, then local forces providing security under US command is a compromise. And a good one. Giving up the weapons is only important if marines had to patrol, and marines had to patrol only because nobody else would. I think there was a similar deal for locals to patrol the religious areas in Najaf, which worked pretty well until Sadr came.

Can he do it? Is he the right guy? I know you hate the future but... Anyway, succeed or fail, it seems to me like this is the play they are trying to pull off.

[markses]

43. I "hate the future" now?

I hardly think you have a warrant for that claim. I was disturbed by the fact that you refused to support your claim - which was about a current perception and not a future possibility - by displacing it on to the future. How on earth you read that as me hating the future is a mystery, as is most of the so-called support for your positions.

But let's go ahead and examine your claim as it now stands. You say:

If <Salah> does <have a connection to the resistance>, then local forces providing security under US command is a compromise.

In this case, who are the local forces? The resistance fighters themselves? And if it is, 1) against whom are they "providing security"? and 2) could you explain how this is different from simply ceding the city to the resistance as an autonomous power?

I suppose there are a few answers here:

1) If (a big if) Salah controls that portion of the resistance that is not politically committed to resistance, but simply wants to fight the occupying power, then peeling those forces off from the larger resistance force would be a benefit (either in an assimilationist way, in a divide-and-conquer way, or both).

2) The "resistance fighters" who are with Salah would then ostensibly be under US command.

From the scenario you imagine (and I use this word in great fear that I will be labelled imaginophobic in your response!), these are the only two consequences that would make the "negotiated settlement" anything other than simply ceding the city to the resistance. But it remains a pretty strange contortion. At the end of the day, I still think that we see the following:

The resistance fighters said that the US Marines would not take the city. The US Marines did not take the city (and so far, neither has anyone else).

The resistance fighters said they would not turn in their weapons. Even given the terms of this "settlement" (as you make allowance for), they will not.

Given that the US Command was insistent that the US Marines would take the city and that the resistance fighters would be stripped of their weapons, I think we all see why these severe contortions are necessary....

[Ms. Clio]

39. A "political" solution that involves soldiers and generals?

You have a different dictionary than me.

[leftofthedial]

19. No. This means we succeeded wildly!

For the "terrists" in Fallujah to have reacted so violently, we must be winning.

We can leave now because we are winning. Even though the "war" has been over for a year now, we can safely say we are winning and withdrawing from Fallujah is proof.

Or something like that.

Kind of like the ceasefire is still in effect so we blasted the hell out of them.

[keithyboy]

22. No, this means we have failed in the war on terrorism. Bush has just made

it much worse for all of us. The deep divisions at home are seeding undercurrents of the racism of the 40's and 50's. All kinds of hate crimes against minorities of any stripe. North against Sourth, left against right, Dem against Republican, conservative against liberal...all reacahing new heights of ranchor and division.
Bush has truly 'brougt it on.'

[Guaranteed]

23. There are a quarter of a million people in Fallujah.

They're not going to go in there with 2500 soldiers and take the place, and they know it. They'll all get killed.

Urban warfare against guerrillas is BRUTAL, in particular for the invader. They wouldn't have a chance, even with tanks and air support.

[Mattforclark]

26. Gen. McCaffrey

said they would need at least a full division to take the city properly, and have a good chance of avoiding house to house fighting. But there isn't a full division to spare, anyway.

[Guaranteed]

27. We only have a little over 2 divisions IN Iraq.

:eyes:

Just stupid. Stupid, stupid administration.

[Mattforclark]

25. I guess we aren't gonna pacify it any more

It would have been much better if we had had the sense not to try to "pacify" it in the first place.

[karabekian]

32. as much as many here would like that

no we havent failed.

[Ms. Clio]

40. Yes, yes, we're winning, democracy is spreading its golden wings

over the entire Middle East, and everything will be just fine, sweetie.

[DrWeird]

42. Call me skeptical.

I have to believe that anyone who thinks this is a success is swallowing propaganda hook, line and sinker.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

33. The true "IraqNamization" will occur when we decleare

"Peace with Honor" and fly off the roof of the embassy in Hueys.