CNN is reporting that the Marines are pulling back in Fallujah to make way for an Iraqi general’s forces to take control of parts of the city.
Without knowing operational details, I’m only armchair quarterbacking, but this does not sound like a good idea to me. We need to keep the pressure on the the terrorists – if we have them cornered in one area of the city (as some reports indicate) then this may be a sound strategic plan. However, if we don’t this could give the terrorists an opportunity to melt back into the civilian population and attack us later on.
Why do I feeling we need to clone George S. Patton and put him in charge. We have the bravest, most well-equiped, well-trained, and deadly military in the world. We need to leverage that power to achieve nothing less than absolute victory against the terrorists in Iraq – not only for our sake but for that of the Iraqi people. What losses we take now in finishing the job would be small compared to the losses we could take down the road.
There are times I wish our military strategies were more Sun T’zu than Dr. Phil.
UPDATE: Mitch Berg point out that Wrechard over at Belmont Club has a series of pieces that looks at the situation in Fallujah in greater detail. He seems far more sanguine on the current situation, and is almost certainly more knowledgable about the situation than I.
This is one of those issues where if I’m completely wrong, it will be happily so.
OK, I’ll re-post this in the CORRECT thread…
—-
Check out Belmont Club. Wretchard – who would seem to be either a very astute amateur or a graduate of the Army War College (or some equivalent) has fascinating insight on this move.
To sum up: the area the Marines are turning over is one they took quite some time ago. It’s the backwater of the Fallujah campaign. It makes perfect sense to let the Iraqis get some front-line experience, while using our troops where the *real* battle is going on.
This is not Doctor Phil. This is straight out of the British Colonial playbook; let the Bengal Lancers secure the rear area while the Scots Greys pound on the Pathans…
Mr. Reding you do realize that you need to define your terms. YOur use of the word “terroism” in some instances is utterly laughable because it is so out of context. Basically, anyone you don’t like you label a terroist and in doing so commit the fallacies of ad hominem AND ambiguity. I dare you to define the term “terroist” and even if you do provide a decent definition I will hold you to every single time you use it.
Peace… in Iraq.