What is the purpose of this battle for Fallujah?
What is the purpose of this battle for Fallujah? Supposedly the purpose is to show the insurgents who is in control, to reduce the number of insurgents and to increase the prospects for a legitimate election in Iraq in January.
The battle seems ill-conceived. To show that the US is in control by evacuating a city and then blowing the holy hell out of it sounds dishearteningly like the military-speak Vietnam War explanation, "in order to save the village, it became necessary to destroy the village."
Obviously the leadership and bulk of insurgents left Fallujah before the battle began. The remnants are essentially suicide types that are going out in a blaze of glory, sure to recruit far more to their cause. The Battle has also caused Sunni leaders to urge an election boycott in protest, and has so disrupted, alienated and discouraged the civilian population of Fallujah that their ability to vote in a proper state of mind is now questionable.
So how would I have handled it better? Allow me to introduce here what will become a leitmotif at Sense from Seattle when discussing the War in Iraq: President Bush rushed us into this War unprepared and with no legitimate plan for where it would all lead, so it his responsibility to end the mess, a responsibility now shared by those who voted to give him a second term. I voted for Kerry, who narrowly lost. Sense from Seattle readers who voted for Bush, if there are any, are invited to post comments here telling us what they think is the responsible way to get us out of the mess in Iraq, and please give us something more hopeful than a faith-based expression that you trust President Bush to get us out of the mess - it was just that sort of blind trust that got us into the mess in the first place. I hear some Bush voters say that Kerry did not convince them he had any more plan than Bush for getting us out of the mess - but Bush does not even admit he got us into a mess, while at least Kerry agrees we are in a mess, which seems to me reason enough to have chosen Kerry over Bush on the Iraq issue.
Do you recall what it was that set off this significant upturn in Iraqi insurgency? Remember when Bremer, the US appointed Administrator of Iraq, closed the newspaper that was expressing opposition to the US occupation? That is what I recall really escalated the violence. What about freedom of the press and freedom of speech? Better to argue issues and debate ideas than to force a viewpoint or silence those who disagree with you by force of arms. Engagement in open, public debate, moderated by American officials fluent in Arabic should have been part of the American plan from the beginning and would have had a much better prospect for creating a proper atmosphere for elections in Iraq. But conversational fluency, open discussion and public debate are not the way the Bush Administration prefers to operate, not just in Iraq, but also here at home.
The battle seems ill-conceived. To show that the US is in control by evacuating a city and then blowing the holy hell out of it sounds dishearteningly like the military-speak Vietnam War explanation, "in order to save the village, it became necessary to destroy the village."
Obviously the leadership and bulk of insurgents left Fallujah before the battle began. The remnants are essentially suicide types that are going out in a blaze of glory, sure to recruit far more to their cause. The Battle has also caused Sunni leaders to urge an election boycott in protest, and has so disrupted, alienated and discouraged the civilian population of Fallujah that their ability to vote in a proper state of mind is now questionable.
So how would I have handled it better? Allow me to introduce here what will become a leitmotif at Sense from Seattle when discussing the War in Iraq: President Bush rushed us into this War unprepared and with no legitimate plan for where it would all lead, so it his responsibility to end the mess, a responsibility now shared by those who voted to give him a second term. I voted for Kerry, who narrowly lost. Sense from Seattle readers who voted for Bush, if there are any, are invited to post comments here telling us what they think is the responsible way to get us out of the mess in Iraq, and please give us something more hopeful than a faith-based expression that you trust President Bush to get us out of the mess - it was just that sort of blind trust that got us into the mess in the first place. I hear some Bush voters say that Kerry did not convince them he had any more plan than Bush for getting us out of the mess - but Bush does not even admit he got us into a mess, while at least Kerry agrees we are in a mess, which seems to me reason enough to have chosen Kerry over Bush on the Iraq issue.
Do you recall what it was that set off this significant upturn in Iraqi insurgency? Remember when Bremer, the US appointed Administrator of Iraq, closed the newspaper that was expressing opposition to the US occupation? That is what I recall really escalated the violence. What about freedom of the press and freedom of speech? Better to argue issues and debate ideas than to force a viewpoint or silence those who disagree with you by force of arms. Engagement in open, public debate, moderated by American officials fluent in Arabic should have been part of the American plan from the beginning and would have had a much better prospect for creating a proper atmosphere for elections in Iraq. But conversational fluency, open discussion and public debate are not the way the Bush Administration prefers to operate, not just in Iraq, but also here at home.
posted by Tom Blake | 10:23 AM
2 Comments:
I agree that the Fallujah battle seems a bit ill conceived. However, this is what happens when you don't have enough troops on the ground. The US needs more troops so they can surround these Sunni cities before going in and can make sure the insurgents don't escape.
Until we have more troops, either US or international, we are going to see this repeated throughout the many cities of the Sunni triangle.
I think one of the biggest mistakes of the war was the April invasion of Fallujah that we stopped. That showed great weakness on the US's part. Sure, we thought it showed we wanted to negotiate a peaceful end -- unfortunatly, and the Bush admin is correct on this, it is very difficult to negotiate with people in the Mid East.
They are constantly looking for signs of weakness and any small concession is blown up into being a huge failure on the US's part.
The way the media is controled in the region and the way that information is disseminated to the average joe is so laced wuith propoganda that they really pick up on the weaknesses and blow them out of proportion.
Take the Israel Palestine issue. When Ehud Barak took the bold step of withdrawing Israeli troops from South Lebannon in late 1999, it was seen worldwide as a huge step towards peace. In the region however, it was seen as a sign of weakness and seen as a victory for Hezbullah. Israel was called cowardly and weak in the local press.
Couple that with the breakdown of peace negotiations and it is no wonder that the latest intifada began shortly after this. It is also no wonder that Israel shifted leadership from Barak, seen as weak even in Israel, to a hardliner like Sharon.
It is an incredible, no win situation in the region for so many reasons. Unfortunately, the US opened a can of worms and it is our job to close it.
If we act with a heavy hand, we will surely drive people into the arms of the terrorists. However, if we act with weakness, I can only imagine what problems that would cause.
No matter what, the repercussions of our actions in Iraq will be felt in the region for decades, if not longer.
Thanks George.
Lack of a sufficient number of troops in Iraq is definitely a central part of the problem. In the lead up to the War, Bush was told by Powell and General Shinseki among others that we would need many more troops. Bush rejected that advice, because he knew it would make it a harder sell to Americans if they were told the truth about what was really likely to happen in Iraq and how many troops we would need.
Bush chose to go with the Cheney/Rumsfeld experiment in trying to handle such an invasion with few troops and smarter weaponry. Cheney knew better, but had his own agenda of self-interest. Rumsfeld actually is strange enough to believe his own hype.
Tom
Post a Comment
<< Home