Fallujah
U.S. forces stormed into western districts of Fallujah early Monday, seizing the main city hospital and securing two key bridges over the Euphrates river in what appeared to be the first stage of the long-expected assault on the insurgent stronghold. [AP]
I hope and pray that our military takes Fallujah quickly and with few military casualties. This invasion is long over-due. After Iraqi insurgents murdered and burned some Americans, and dragged their bodies through the streets as a parade event, we should have blown that place off the face of the earth. Why we waited so long to respond--and why we ever even considered negotiating peace talks with them--is beyond me. But now we are on the right track. This fight will be very dangerous--insurgents dressed as civilians, guerilla warfare in the heart of the city, hit-and-runs, using our dignity and honor against us by cowering in their "holy" sites. As much as I want to respect their religious places, if our enemies hide there, it's their fault if the buildings get blown to smithereens, not ours. I've already articulated my thoughts on this issue here.
Government negotiators earlier Sunday reported the failure of last-minute talks for peace even as Allawi had said dialogue with Fallujah leaders was still possible, even if a large-scale military action began.
We do not (or should not) ever negotiate with terrorists. These animals do not dignify discussion or negotiation. The only talk to have with that Allawi swine is an ultimatum for unconditional surrender. Whether he fights to the death or not, we will win this war, and Allawi and his cohorts will die.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others have warned that a military offensive could trigger a wave of violence that would sabotage the January elections by alienating Sunnis, who form the core of the insurgency. About 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million people are Shiite.
If my logic is correct, it actually makes sense to take out the biggest stronghold of enemy encampment before the election so as to eliminate threats during Iraq's new democratic processes. Here's the deal on insurgents in Iraq. As long as they are there, they will fight against the good we are doing for Iraqis. Whether they choose to fight before, after, or during their election, the WILL fight. Thus, I'd rather draw them out by launching a full-scale assault on Fallujah now.
Sgt. Maj. Carlton W. Kent, the top enlisted Marine in Iraq, told troops the coming battle of Fallujah would be "no different" than the historic fights at Inchon in Korea, the flag-raising victory at Iwo Jima, or the bloody assault to dislodge North Vietnamese from the ancient citadel of Hue they seized in the 1968 Tet Offensive.
"You're all in the process of making history," Kent told a crowd of some 2,500 Marines. "This is another Hue city in the making. I have no doubt, if we do get the word, that each and every one of you is going to do what you have always done - kick some butt."
YEAH.
UPDATE: My original post referred to "that swine Allawi." I intended to referr to muslim cleric and leader of insurgents in Fallujah Muqtada al-Sadr, not Interim Prime Minister of Iraq Ayad Allawi.
I hope and pray that our military takes Fallujah quickly and with few military casualties. This invasion is long over-due. After Iraqi insurgents murdered and burned some Americans, and dragged their bodies through the streets as a parade event, we should have blown that place off the face of the earth. Why we waited so long to respond--and why we ever even considered negotiating peace talks with them--is beyond me. But now we are on the right track. This fight will be very dangerous--insurgents dressed as civilians, guerilla warfare in the heart of the city, hit-and-runs, using our dignity and honor against us by cowering in their "holy" sites. As much as I want to respect their religious places, if our enemies hide there, it's their fault if the buildings get blown to smithereens, not ours. I've already articulated my thoughts on this issue here.
Government negotiators earlier Sunday reported the failure of last-minute talks for peace even as Allawi had said dialogue with Fallujah leaders was still possible, even if a large-scale military action began.
We do not (or should not) ever negotiate with terrorists. These animals do not dignify discussion or negotiation. The only talk to have with that Allawi swine is an ultimatum for unconditional surrender. Whether he fights to the death or not, we will win this war, and Allawi and his cohorts will die.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others have warned that a military offensive could trigger a wave of violence that would sabotage the January elections by alienating Sunnis, who form the core of the insurgency. About 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million people are Shiite.
If my logic is correct, it actually makes sense to take out the biggest stronghold of enemy encampment before the election so as to eliminate threats during Iraq's new democratic processes. Here's the deal on insurgents in Iraq. As long as they are there, they will fight against the good we are doing for Iraqis. Whether they choose to fight before, after, or during their election, the WILL fight. Thus, I'd rather draw them out by launching a full-scale assault on Fallujah now.
Sgt. Maj. Carlton W. Kent, the top enlisted Marine in Iraq, told troops the coming battle of Fallujah would be "no different" than the historic fights at Inchon in Korea, the flag-raising victory at Iwo Jima, or the bloody assault to dislodge North Vietnamese from the ancient citadel of Hue they seized in the 1968 Tet Offensive.
"You're all in the process of making history," Kent told a crowd of some 2,500 Marines. "This is another Hue city in the making. I have no doubt, if we do get the word, that each and every one of you is going to do what you have always done - kick some butt."
YEAH.
UPDATE: My original post referred to "that swine Allawi." I intended to referr to muslim cleric and leader of insurgents in Fallujah Muqtada al-Sadr, not Interim Prime Minister of Iraq Ayad Allawi.
posted by Seth at 1:33 AM
2 Comments:
I noticed that you hope for minimal military casualities - do you not hope for minimal civilian casualties as well? I'm assuming you do, but sometimes it's hard to tell in your posts....'cause like, "blowing an area of the world off the map" would also kill massive amounts of innocent people, too. ;P
Definitely I want to preserve civilian lives. But I also believe that civilian (and military) losses are a n evil but necessary consequence of what we are trying to accomplish. This is not a traditional war. We are not fighting honorable men, but animals who capture innocent civilians--who are there to rebuild their captors' country--and methodically saw their heads off. They hide themselves behind women and children, and use our own dignity and respect against us as they bunker down in their holy sites. In a war where a country's "freedom fighters" use their own people as a shield against the enemy, we cannot be blamed for civilian casualties if that's what it takes to kill the terrorists. If Fallujah ends up as a crater, innocent civilians will die, and I will honestly regret and mourn such a horrible event. But I would regret even more an American city ravaged by a fierce explosion, an Iraq that is not free from terror, and even more American military deaths as a result of a campaign that, for the fear of killing some civilians, avoided destroying the biggest hotbed of insurgency in Iraq.
Post a Comment
<< Home