From the press office of the Combined Joint Task Force-7:
I MEF OPERATIONS UNDERWAY IN AL FALLUJAH CAMP MEK, Iraq -- I Marine Expeditionary Force Marines are currently conducting offensive operations in Al Fallujah in order to foster a secure and stable environment for the people of Al Anbar. Those who seek to impede the freedom, prosperity and progress of the Al Anbar residents are being physically challenged. Among those, some have chosen to fight. Having elected their fate, they are being engaged and destroyed. Since these operations are ongoing, it is not appropriate to comment at this time. Once operations have been completed, and reports have been verified, additional information will be released.And it sounds like the fighting is fierce. "At least 12 people, including one American marine, were killed in a series of gunbattles today, as guerrilla violence swept the Sunni-dominated area north and west of the Iraqi capital," the New York Times reported. One of the Iraqis killed was an ABC cameraman who walked into the middle of a firefight.
The combat today was the most dramatic measure of the violence that has continued unabated throughout the Sunni heartland in recent months. In both the level of sophistication and ease of maneuver displayed by the insurgents, the fighting has appeared to raise new doubts about the claims of American military officers that that they were close to defeating the insurgency led by members of Saddam Hussein's fallen regime and were dealing with a smaller number of foreign-led Islamic terrorists. The fierce street fighting in Fallujah demonstrated anew that this city, 35 miles west of Baghdad and in the heart of the so-called Sunni Triangle, the epicenter of anti-American resistance, was far from pacified and that there were large areas of the city where the Americans could enter only at their peril.It's so bad in Fallujah that the Times' Dexter Filkins said he was waved away from a hospital by its administrators who warned him there was a very good chance he would be "shot and killed" if he went inside. The fighting comes a day after the 1st MEF took over responsibility for Al Anbar province from the 82nd Airborne Division.
The Marines have a saying: “No worse enemy; No better friend.” They performed their security duties brilliantly in southern Iraq…but they had a relatively friendly populace that willingly aided them.
The Sunni Triangle, on the other hand, is far different, and it looks like people are seeing the first part of that saying.
I only wish the Marines were able to spend that effort going after OBL, rather than being forced to clean up Bush’s mess.
chtulhu, if you insist on calling this “Bush’s” war, … it’s my war, too. I am 100% in favor of it. In fact, you really should call it “Bush-and-60%-of-the-US’s war.” But such accuracy is probably beyond you.
Bostonian:
nothing about this war has been accurate. not the reasons for entering it, not the finances to fund, and not the planning to get us out.
which makes it a big mistake for the iraqis and for the amer taxpayer and most of all for the sorry fucks over there getting their asses shot off because of Bush’s lies.
I think to be accurate you would call it Cheney’s War.
Bush doesn’t really have that kind of vision.
When the first illegal nuclear weapon is detonated thanx to Pakistan you can be sure to thank the sharp and all knowing secret services for letting us know. Without the war in Iraq this knowledge would have been outed far too late. Also the corruption and the vast amount of bribery and stealing called the Oil for Food program would have kept on going indefinitely. Once again this is because of the war on Iraq. The next time there is a group of folks going around merrily killing civilians for lots and lots of money you can thank Saddam Hussein who’se so tightly sewed up he can’t sneeze in private. Once again thanx for the war on Iraq on the information, the list of governments, diplomats, journalists, politicians, and
other lackeys that were on the paysheet of Saddam for years. None of you acknowledge the mass killing that was going on daily, filling up the desert with mass graves. Perhaps because it wasn’t in YOUR backyard it didn’t mean a thing.
Peace isn’t priceless or cheap. Peace is priceless and without a dollar value. There is no price that should not be paid to keep the treasure of American. Security, Freedom and Stability. There is no such thing as world wide peace, there will be no world wide peace as long as homo sapien is in charge.
Of course without the war on Iraq for demographic reasons as well as strategic reasons our chances of stopping the ongoing proliferation of nukes would be nil.
Maybe we should start a dead pool, which country is going to die first.
Squark: American. Security, Freedom and Stability
Yeh, we sure have one helluvalot of that going on in the U.S. these days, don’t we? And there’s tons of it going around in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Israel (& Gaza), Bosnia, Haiti - gee, we’ve just really gifted our American Security, Freedom and Stability all over the place!
Steamrolling thru Iraq has spread love, lite and cheer the world over, and there is now no terrorism anywhere all because of this Wondrous War. Do you really believe that? If you do, you should grab your peaceful cheetos and beer (and Miss Bostoni plus 60% of her buddies), get stable on your sofa and watch your Fox some more. They need you.
Regarding accuracy:
Sixty percent of America, Bostonian? What news source did you pluck that from? How many people do you think were polled? What do you imagine the identifying characteristics of that demographic were? Are you assuming the majority of American citizens are in favor of the current military action because you’ve heard it said on TV?
You’ve put forth a rather grotesque, trollish generalization here. Sadly, I might have to accept it as truth, if for no other reason than that the passive acceptence of a dictator’s actions is a vote in favor of said dictator’s power.
Maybe we did want this. We certainly didn’t try very hard to stop it.
Congrats. You’ve got your war. And seeing as you hold American lives in higher esteem than any other, putatively legitimate group, you’ll be happy to know that ‘your’ overtaxed, underfunded, poorly-equipped troops are dying & suiciding needlessly & efficiently. For ‘your’ cause, no less. A veritable propaganda landslide.
Forgive me my rhetoric, but I’m curious, as one of the remaining forty percent: Can you account for the escalating number of deaths? Why have thousands died, and why are hundreds more doubtless going to perish? Explain as succinctly & accurately as possible.
My, the neo-cons are shrill today…
“…if you insist on calling this “Bush’s” war…”
I called it his “mess”, but I don’t insist on it. I will, however, happily blame you for this murderous travesty if you insist on sharing credit with Shrub.
“None of you acknowledge the mass killing that was going on daily, filling up the desert with mass graves.”
I’ll freely acknowledge it…if you will acknowledge that most of those deaths occurred after Shrub Sr goaded the Shia Uprising, and then stood by and watched them die without lifting a finger. And are you seriously arguing that this needless war is directly responsible for revealing Pakistan’s role in nuclear proliferation? Libya’s negotiations with England had nothing to do with it? Iran’s negotiations with the UN had nothing to do with it? Cough up your “sources”, quark, or go back to Faux News.
OK, let’s begin with this:
“None of you acknowledge the mass killing that was going on daily, filling up the desert with mass graves. Perhaps because it wasn’t in YOUR backyard it didn’t mean a thing.”
That, sir or madam, is a flat-out lie. Go back and read the anti-war blogs on 9 April last year. I actually congratulated Donald Rumsfeld on his fine words on that day - here’s a quote:
“Let us today celebrate the downfall of one of the nastiest dictators human history has known. Iraqi people all over the world, in their home country, in Syria, in the US, in Iran, in Britain, in Turkey, in Denmark, in Jordan, in Egypt, in the Netherlands, in Kuwait, everywhere, are celebrating, and I join them in celebration. As strongly as I opposed the methods - and I still disagree with the methods, for I am sure there will be hell to pay - I am so goddamned happy to see this day that I am in tears.”
You will find near-unanimity among even the anti-war bloggers stating that the tossing of Saddam was good for the people of Iraq, and good for the region. The end was well-agreed upon by nearly all the people of the earth - get rid of the tyrant Hussein.
Where many of us differ is with the methodology used - the means. Ends never justify the means. When they are used as justifications, they set very bad precedents. For instance: The US has asserted that we may take preemptive action before a perceived threat materializes, and invade other countries who oppose us. Based on that precedent, what is to stop China from invading the United States? Beyond the fact that they would surely lose at this point. But when we have sunk our treasure and men deep into the Middle East and other areas of the world, what is to stop China?
Another argument against the invasion is one I personally learned in 1972, when as a 16-year-old idealist I went to work for the McGovern campaign. My father spoke these words, which had quite an impact (as proof, I am now a Republican, carrying on the family tradition): “Before you throw the old bastards out, you’d better find out as much as you can about the new bastards.” Our new bastards were centered on Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress. I hope you all read the poll I recommended in the comments to Chris’ excellent post, “One Year Later…”. In it, Chalabi is polling 0.2%, below Saddam’s 3.3%.
And I would love to carry this on, but I’m leading a field trip in about half an hour.
As I understand it, all the mass graves uncovered in Iraq, so far, either go back to the Shia uprising at the end of Gulf War I, or back to the days when Saddam was our “asshole”.
We might have let the Shia down at that time, but we did do some things at least to provide sanctuary to the Kurds in the north.
Who has killed more Iraqi’s? Saddam certainly killed a lot, but there have been a lot die from US/coalition hands during Gulf Wars I & II, both soldiers and innocents; during the sanctions (I’m not totally sure who gets credit for these). Currently the daily death rate among Iraqi citizens is pretty high. I think the new definition for the term “sitting duck” would have to be Iraqi infantry facing the fighting force of American military weaponry. Some Iraqis might say, “thanks for your help, but please don’t do us anymore favors”.
I appreciate the comments of Quark 2 and Bostonian, and find them to be food for thought although differing from my own. I hate to see people with different viewpoints so quickly flamed as “trolls”.
I write this from the point of view of someone who is about to deploy to Iraq.
We (the American people) caused this war by our determination to remain completely ignorant about the rest of the world. That is how the media and/or the government can lead us around by the nose so easily.
Both the media and the government wanted this war for different reasons. Therefore, there was no one to ask some simple questions. We all knew about the poor Shiites that were being repressed by Sadaam’s regime. No argument. They were. No one asked why.
We heard some rumblings about the uprising after Gulf War I which were also true. But they were being repressed already. Again why? Thousand year old religious differences? Not this time.
When the Shah of Iran was overthrown, the Islamic leadership of Iran saw that as the first step in leading a new Muslim renaissance. The next step was obvious. Iraq. Sadaam, of course, refused and would not even recognize Islam as the official religion of the country. Iraq was probably the only significant Middle Eastern country with true freedom of religion. Because Sadaam was a good guy? No. Because he did not want a strong centralized religion to challenge him for power.
Failing to change Sadaam’s mind. War ensued between the two countries. A horrible, decade long, bloody war. The Shiites sided with Iran.
I will repeat that. The Shiites sides with Iran.
They still do. They are 60% of the country. Do you know what country the highest ranking religious Shiite in Iraq is from? You guessed it. Iran.
When free elections occur in Iraq, a Shiite elected Islamic state will be born.
And we will be left with the question, what was better for the US and the region? A stable, evil, despotic dictator that is motivated by greed or another Iran?
Why do you think that the Bush administration is refusing to allow free elections until after the first of the year? I agree that this summer was not practical but October would have been possible.
@glide:
First, godspeed, take care. My friend, Jason, is there now, just south of Fallujah. 1st ID, but he doesn’t want any more info about him put out there. I’m sure you understand why ;-)
Everything you have stated is true, but I would put forward this thought: Being Shia doesn’t mean being Iranian, anymore than being Catholic means being a tool of the Papacy. I would like to believe that Salam is right (http://dear_raed.blogspot.com) and that Iraqi’s would rather have a secular and democratic country as opposed to a religious oligarchy stuck in the Paleothic Age.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/150304_iraqsurvey.pdf
This poll gives an in-depth study of what Iraqi’s are thinking on a great many issues. It seems to back up his feelings.
Unfortunately, the only way to know if Iraqi’s want to be Iran or themselves is to let them vote-in their own government. It’s a grave risk, but there is no substitute. I don’t think waiting until October will make much difference—except in the body-count.
Call me “un-American”, but I don’t want to expend any more American lives on this. We’re coming up on 600 dead. How many more between now and October? Will it change anything? It’s just my opinion, but I don’t want to risk anymore of our Soldiers and Marines on this delay.
if it’s “your” war why dont you enlist and fight it. Do you know what it is like to be in combat? or overseas away from your family for 8 months? No? then it’s not your war.
I totally agree with Lui; everyone talks and talks starting from our own president, if he wanted to be hero he could’ve gone fight the war on his own. My husband is on his second deployment to iraq, he was there from dec 2002 till october of last yr and he left in feb. again, as part of the group that went to take over the 82nd airbone’s territory. Most of the people that went back with him are going to be parents, all these women are pregnant and don’t know if their husbands will ever make it back, one of the guys refused to go since he said he would go crazy if he went back and he’s now in a military prison and roughly 90% of them had gone there last year…is this really fair? NOT it’s not and what’s so sad and is that most of them are young men and women that joined the military to get some money to go to school, they never wanted to fight a war that we now know was based on a lie. I’m sorry everyone but people that agree with this war are just too selfish or are going after the petroleum, becuase just face our marines or soldiers or sailors dont want to be there, they want to come home as much as the iraquis want them to leave. It’s just so sad that since we started things there, we cant just leave and leave them on their own, we caused this mess, now we have to help them get out of it. But when I say we, I wish our government had the guts to go themselves and do what they think they should do instead of sending this poor people that are there for no reason.
CTHULHU ur sooo right too, we need to be looking for OBL, there was no reason for us to move on to iraq if we hadnt found OBL he’s the one that hurt our country, yeah saddam was doing crazy things, but that could’ve waited, we lost our focus and now we’ve lost our people and God knows how many more innoncent people are going to die.