Confusion over Falluja ceasefire

[Spr.Earl]

(Phots includeed)

Confusion over Falluja ceasefire


US forces have been fighting fierce battles in Falluja
There is confusion over the status of a ceasefire called by US troops besieging the Iraqi town of Falluja.
The suspension of hostilities was declared in an effort to open talks with local insurgents.

The move came on the fifth day of a battle for control of the Sunni town that has left up to 300 Iraqis dead.

A US commander on the ground said fighting had resumed after talks fell through, but a US general said the suspension was still in place.

One year to the day after the fall of Saddam Hussein, fierce battles are continuing further south in Karbala, where coalition troops are battling Shia militias loyal to radical cleric Moqtada Sadr.

The US said six more soldiers had died over two days, while at least 14 Iraqis were killed in Karbala and Falluja.

Elsewhere in Iraq:


US forces re-took the city of Kut from Shia militiamen, two days after it was abandoned by Ukrainian troops

Clashes were reported between US troops and insurgents in Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad. One witness said Sunni militants had attacked a US convoy, killing at least nine people; other accounts said insurgents had seized control of the road to Falluja

Insurgents are said to have clashed with US forces in the mixed Sunni and Shia town of Baquba when demonstrations escalated after Friday prayers. Witnesses said smoke was rising from government buildings.

Hit-and-run

The brief "suspension of offensive operations" in Falluja was announced by the US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, "to allow for a meeting between members of the Governing Council, local Muslim leadership and the leadership of anti-coalition forces".

IRAQ ONE YEAR ON
CASUALTIES
US military deaths since ‘major combat over‘ on May 1 2003: At least 496
Other coalition deaths: At least 67
Total reported Iraqi civilian deaths: Estimates from 8,865 to 10,715 *
RECONSTRUCTION **
More than 200,000 recruited to Iraqi security forces
Oil exports up to 1.8m barrels a day, against 2m pre-war
Electricity back to pre-war levels
51 million new "Baath-free" textbooks in schools
170 newspapers in print
FORMER REGIME
46 of 55 ‘most wanted‘ captured or killed, including Saddam
Sources:
* Iraqi Body Count, to 8/04/2004
** Coalition Provisional Authority


Viewpoints on war
Reconstruction: Health

But 90 minutes later, Lt Col Brennan Byrne, commander of the 1st Battalion 5th Marine Regiment, said his men had been given the go-ahead to resume fighting.

However, he was contradicted by Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of operations for the US military in Iraq, who said the suspension was still in place.

Two US marines and 10 Iraqi rebels are said to have been killed in five days of fighting in Falluja.

The US troops were hit by sniper fire as they edged through the city block by block, facing hit-and-run attacks with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.


F-16 warplanes flew overhead and plumes of smoke rose from the ground, reporters in the city said.

Inhabitants were said to be fleeing the city as the fighting intensified.


Map locating recent clashes
There were reports of bodies in the streets and of makeshift clinics being set up, with medical supplies scarce.

However, the top US general in Iraq, Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez, denied his forces were blocking humanitarian supplies.

One journalist in Falluja, Tony Perry of the Los Angeles Times, told BBC Radio 4‘s Today programme he had seen dead marines and dead insurgents after all-day street battles.


US marines have lost comrades in the Falluja fighting
He said the fighting had mainly taken place in less populated, more industrial areas of the city, but loss of civilian lives was inevitable in urban conflict of this kind.

"The marines are putting no timetable on this," he said, adding that US forces were ready to stay in Falluja "until **** freezes over".

‘Not like Vietnam‘

At least 40 American and allied soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in the surge of violence in the past week.

But after the US admitted it may have to keep troops in the country longer than envisaged, Gen Sanchez denied that the Iraq conflict was becoming as intractable as the war in Vietnam.

"I don‘t see any shadows of Vietnam in Iraq," he said.

In the holy city of Karbala, where a major Shia religious event is due to take place at the weekend, there was fierce fighting overnight.

Some 120 US troops have been sent there to help Bulgarian and Polish forces battling Shia militiamen loyal to Mr Sadr.

Three militants and an Iranian woman are said to have been killed in fighting near a shrine in the city, while one report said as many as 15 Iraqis died.

Militiamen have reportedly issued an ultimatum demanding that foreign troops leave before the Shia holy day of Arbaeen.

In other developments, Mr Bremer named the Governing Council‘s Samir Shakir Mahmoud, a Sunni, as interior minister, replacing Shia incumbent Nuri Badran who resigned on Monday.

Mouwafak al-Rabii, a Shia member of the Governing Council, was appointed to the new post of national security adviser.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3613299.stm

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I was not aware they had captured or killed 46 of the 55 most wanted.

 

[Paul F]

Negotiating with insurgents? Absolutely ridiculous.

This sends the message to terrorists everywhere that you can kill a few American civilians, drag their bodies through the street and then the US military will come camp out in your city for a few days, but after that they‘ll open up negotiations and give you the sky in return for peace.

Negotiating with terrorists sends the message that terrorism works and that they should continue it to get their way.

I commend the Japanese governments stance not to pull out of Iraq just because some group of terrorists took 3 Japanese hostages. There needs to be more countries like Japan. Countries can‘t retreat against the terrorists, they have to stay in there and take the casualties, show the terrorists who is the dominant force.

By caving in to terrorist demands and giving the terrorists mercy, it tells them we are weak.

Those 19 cowards who attacked New York City and Washington on 9/11 didn‘t show any mercy to the hundreds killed that day, why should the USA show mercy to a group of insurgents who want nothing mroe than to destabilize Iraq and create civil war?

 

[nULL]

One thing I don‘t understand, where is the line between resistance fighter and terrorist? People draw analogies to 9/11, but this situation is nothing like that at all. Why are these thousands of resistance fighters "terrorists" and not "resistance"? 19 people attacked NY and Washington but this morning the CBC showed THOUSANDS of people, both Muslim and Shite, in Fallujah claiming solidarity against the occupation.

And why do people keep mentioning those American "civilians"? They weren‘t electricians or plumbers, they were mercenaries. It seems that they are civilans when they are killed, and "Blackwater commandos" when they are fighting - Check MSNBC.

I think the word "terrorist" has become too fuzzy. Terrorism should be a word reserved for situations like Madrid and 9/11, not something like the Iraq occupation. It seems to just be a word that is applied to dehumanize the enemy, not really mean anything substantial. If that‘s a war, and the people taking hostages are war criminals, not necessarily terrorists.

I mean, think of the Al-Quaeda in Guantanamo. I‘d think that most of them are guilty for belonging to the group, not for having killed Americans. So, couldn‘t the criminals who kidnapped those Japanese civilians (guilty of being Japanese, not for having killed resistance fighters) be considered somewhat similar?

 

[muskrat89]

OK, nULL - I‘ll play your little game. What is the difference, then - between a coalition "soldier" that (generally speaking) observes the Geneva Convention when taking prisoners, and your buddies, the Iraqi "soldiers" that take their "prisoners" (aid workers, journalists) and threaten to burn them alive, if their respective Governments don‘t capitulate?

If your chums in Gitmo were treated the way "prisoners" of the insurgents in Iraq were being treated, boy we‘d hear wailing and gnashing of teeth then. Remember Daniel Pearl? Maybe the lads in Guantanomo should get that treatment...

 

[nULL]

Good god stop being so immature. If "your buddies" could just clarify these things without going on the offensive, perhaps there wouldn‘t be so many protestors and nagging questions.

The question was, why are they terrorists instead of war criminals?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The terrorist label has always been "fuzzy". The word itself has changed though, it used to be "partisan". To the Soviets or French, a soldier in civilian clothes killing soldiers of an occupying force was a brave resistance fighter, or partisan. To the Germans, he was a "bandit" or, as we say today, "terrorist."

It is all a matter of perspective and subject to the prevailing official description of such.

That Americans, Canadians and British troops (among others) don‘t treat their prisoners as they have been treated in regimes like Iraq‘s only speaks to the reasons we are fighting them to begin with.

 

[Kirkhill]

I find the whole timing of this rising/clearance to be interesting.

For the those Iraqis taking arms (I refuse to get into the debate about terrorist/resistance fighter)it seemingly couldn‘t come at a worse time. They would seemed to have handed the Americans a gift.

In Fallujah the prison warders of Abu Ghraib handed the CPA a propaganda victory with the indignities they offered to the security consultants‘ corpses. Nobody could argue against an American response. Not even the Mullahs in the mosques in Fallujah. They expected a response and criticised those that brought shame and invited destruction. Not even John Kerry.

The Marines are new to country, inherently a self-confident high morale unit with their morale undiminished by time in country. They are as comfortable as any unit anywhere in the world with their assignment with the combination of a gung-ho attitude and rigorous training in the "three-block war". They know the difference between killing bad-guys and not alienating the general population by limiting the application of force. As they are at the beginning of their cycle they are still inclined to trust in their training. If they can eliminate/degrade the resistance in the area early, while the Marines are still in a "forgiving" mood they will have ample opportunity to "win hearts and minds". This skill set only comes through selection, discipline and training.

With Sadr‘s group he has invited defeat in detail. Rather than concentrating his limited forces in one district of Baghdad and creating a centre to which like-minded individuals can flock to support the cause he has done the opposite. Perhaps this is because he knows that few will come in a traditional society where people stay close to the hearths of their grandfathers. To succeed he has to go to them and try to convince them to trust his charisma, backed by his clerics and his guns, over their blood-ties and their clerics.

He has moved himself and his command structure to a new location, (Baghdad to Kufa/Najaf), put himself on the move, split his forces into platoon sized groups of individuals scattered all over the country, none of them with more than the ability to co-ordinate section actions and with no heavy weapons support.

He has done this at a time when 70% of Iraqis are happy that liberation has come, even if they are humiliated they couldn‘t do it themselves and that "the great Satan" - Iranian phrase, Iraqi belief - is the agent of their release. 90 to 95% of Iraqis want security and one of their biggest complaints about the Americans was that they weren‘t doing enough about those amongst them that were killing Iraqis.

He also chose to do this at a time when the American presence is reinforced, new units have rotated in but old units have not rotated out. The Americans have a short-term manpower advantage. The Brits are also rotating replacements in while the existing forces are still on the ground.

All in all the timing of these risings is not very bright. It presents the CPA/Iraqi Governing Council an opportunity to lance the boil of the threat before the hand-over of power on June 30.

At the end of the day, any animosity can be directed to the Americans who can then be sidelined. It is interesting to note that early reports in the southe is that the Americans in Kut are being aided by "local tribes" and a competing militia, the Badr brigade. If the Badr brigade can be co-opted and brought under the authority of the Iraqi Governing Council, its leaders held personally accountable for its activities, this would solve a number of problems.

I note that a number of people on these sites are science fiction fans and that Robert Heinlein‘s Starship Troopers is a recommended instructional text. I would recommend another science fiction book for consideration. It has a number of lessons pertaining to the current situation in Iraq. Jerry Pournelle‘s "Falkenberg‘s Legion" published by Baen Books in 1990, a slightly enlarged version of his "The Mercenary" published by Pocket Book in 1977. Both tell the same tale.

 

[Padraig OCinnead]

One thing amongst all the increased fighting during the last 10 days or so that has stuck in my craw was the rocket attack against the mosque and the strike in the same town that the American civilian workers were attacked, murdered and mutilated.

I have some nagging questions about this.

1.In this scenario can the persons responsible for the dirty attack on those American civilians be charged under the occupying forces justice system? As with international law an occupying force must ensure that law is maintained after that offensive fighting is generally over with. In this case would the US use it‘s own civil law?

2. With internalional law (Geneva Conventions) it‘s illegal to attack places of worship, hospitals and heritage sites. This is rendered moot if the enemy is using these sites in a plainly military fashion to engage you. The recent rocket attack against the mosque by the Americans was doubtfully illegal as I didn‘t hear clear mention of insurgents actually occupying the mosque or just being around it.

3. This last one is also kind of confusing to me. I am not sure if it applies to Cdn ROEs or Geneva Conventions. I‘ve always been under the impression that retaliatory strikes against an area where there were past firefights/ambushes were illegal(or in this case the attacks mentionned in my first question). The US recently carried out retaliatory strikes (this was confirmed by todays Int/Media Brief with the civilian who joined Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt). He mentionned that the US could simply not turn it‘s head away from these attacks and would carry the retaliation.

Could anyone help answer/clarify these?

Slainte,

 

[Kirkhill]

Padraig O‘Cinnead asked:

1.In this scenario can the persons responsible for the dirty attack on those American civilians be charged under the occupying forces justice system? As with international law an occupying force must ensure that law is maintained after that offensive fighting is generally over with. In this case would the US use it‘s own civil law?

I don‘t know for sure but my understanding based on what I think I know about post war Germany and Japan is that "Martial Law" ie the application of Military Law by the Occupying Power is the standard so it would probably by the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that would apply with those being convicted having the right of appeal to US civil authorities. Just a guess admittedly but it seems right.

2. With internalional law (Geneva Conventions) it‘s illegal to attack places of worship, hospitals and heritage sites. This is rendered moot if the enemy is using these sites in a plainly military fashion to engage you. The recent rocket attack against the mosque by the Americans was doubtfully illegal as I didn‘t hear clear mention of insurgents actually occupying the mosque or just being around it.

This is unclear to me as well. I have heard various reports. Some reported that an active fight was being prosecuted, in which case it would seem to be a legitimate use of force if politically silly. Some reported that people were going to prayers, which would seem to be unlikely if a gunfight were ongoing, in which case it would be both criminal and politically stupid. Some reported that it was a command and control centre and supply point, in which case it is a legitimate military target but still politically silly. Two out three outcomes say it may have been militarily justified but politically three out of three say it was "inadvisable".

3. This last one is also kind of confusing to me. I am not sure if it applies to Cdn ROEs or Geneva Conventions. I‘ve always been under the impression that retaliatory strikes against an area where there were past firefights/ambushes were illegal(or in this case the attacks mentionned in my first question). The US recently carried out retaliatory strikes (this was confirmed by todays Int/Media Brief with the civilian who joined Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt). He mentionned that the US could simply not turn it‘s head away from these attacks and would carry the retaliation.

This is an area that I find myself in disagreement with US policy generally. Strikes, the application of firepower not in support of ground action as a political action is counter-productive. Bombing Kosovo, Cruise missile strikes on suspected weapons manufacturing sites/baby milk plants in Sudan, Cruise missile strikes on terrorist camps. These are less effective than desired, serve to rile up the locals and generally only serve to enhance the impression that you are not serious about coming to terms with the issues. You are not willing to risk your nation‘s lives for the cause.

A strike in support of ground movement to secure ground and disrupt/detain/destroy fighters makes sense. A strike on its own doesn‘t.

 

[Infanteer]

One thing I don‘t understand, where is the line between resistance fighter and terrorist? People draw analogies to 9/11, but this situation is nothing like that at all. Why are these thousands of resistance fighters "terrorists" and not "resistance"? 19 people attacked NY and Washington but this morning the CBC showed THOUSANDS of people, both Muslim and Shite, in Fallujah claiming solidarity against the occupation.

And why do people keep mentioning those American "civilians"? They weren‘t electricians or plumbers, they were mercenaries. It seems that they are civilans when they are killed, and "Blackwater commandos" when they are fighting - Check MSNBC.

I think the word "terrorist" has become too fuzzy. Terrorism should be a word reserved for situations like Madrid and 9/11, not something like the Iraq occupation. It seems to just be a word that is applied to dehumanize the enemy, not really mean anything substantial. If that‘s a war, and the people taking hostages are war criminals, not necessarily terrorists.

I mean, think of the Al-Quaeda in Guantanamo. I‘d think that most of them are guilty for belonging to the group, not for having killed Americans. So, couldn‘t the criminals who kidnapped those Japanese civilians (guilty of being Japanese, not for having killed resistance fighters) be considered somewhat similar?

Instead of bugging us with this question, why don‘t you go to the source. Blackwater Securites has employed a number of former SOF types over at SOCNET. I‘m sure they‘d love to hear your endearing view of the risks they take everyday.

 

[Infanteer]

As for the targeting of that mosque, it was typical of the news agencies to sensationalize it as an attack on a holy site. Reading the actual facts of the news story revealed that it was a wall next to a mosque that insurgents were hiding behind that was hit, the mosque itself was undamaged.

 

[Kirkhill]

Right enough Infanteer. But the very fact that the media does what it does means that the scope of action for the troops on the ground is further limited, rightly or wrongly. It would do little to argue that the Basilica of St. Peters in Rome hadn‘t been damaged in a bombing, it was just the Plaza within Vatican City. Your average Catholic would be upset either way.

I hasten to add this is just an example. No such attack has taken place. Yet????

 

[nULL]

Originally posted by Infanteer:
[qb]

One thing I don‘t understand, where is the line between resistance fighter and terrorist? People draw analogies to 9/11, but this situation is nothing like that at all. Why are these thousands of resistance fighters "terrorists" and not "resistance"? 19 people attacked NY and Washington but this morning the CBC showed THOUSANDS of people, both Muslim and Shite, in Fallujah claiming solidarity against the occupation.

And why do people keep mentioning those American "civilians"? They weren‘t electricians or plumbers, they were mercenaries. It seems that they are civilans when they are killed, and "Blackwater commandos" when they are fighting - Check MSNBC.

I think the word "terrorist" has become too fuzzy. Terrorism should be a word reserved for situations like Madrid and 9/11, not something like the Iraq occupation. It seems to just be a word that is applied to dehumanize the enemy, not really mean anything substantial. If that‘s a war, and the people taking hostages are war criminals, not necessarily terrorists.

I mean, think of the Al-Quaeda in Guantanamo. I‘d think that most of them are guilty for belonging to the group, not for having killed Americans. So, couldn‘t the criminals who kidnapped those Japanese civilians (guilty of being Japanese, not for having killed resistance fighters) be considered somewhat similar?

Instead of bugging us with this question, why don‘t you go to the source. Blackwater Securites has employed a number of former SOF types over at SOCNET. I‘m sure they‘d love to hear your endearing view of the risks they take everyday. [/qb]

You said it yourself, they‘re former SOF types who take risks everyday...so why would they fall into the same boat as if mom, pop and little stevie packing their chevy for the ride to Disneyworld were dragged out of their car halfway, burnt and mutilated?

You can quit being anal too, I‘m trying to get some reasonable answers here out of my own curiousity.

 

[Slim]

Originally posted by nULL:
You said it yourself, they‘re former SOF types who take risks everyday...so why would they fall into the same boat as if mom, pop and little stevie packing their chevy for the ride to Disneyworld were dragged out of their car halfway, burnt and mutilated?

You can quit being anal too, I‘m trying to get some reasonable answers here out of my own curiousity. [/QB]

As usual nULL, you emphasize the wrong thing and then argue a point that doesn‘t exist...Are you with the media in any way. They write to inflame rather than inform...Oh you‘re a CIVVIE, so you already know everything anyway!

Well here‘s my take on it.

Terrorist (not freedom fighters-whatever you think!) swim in the sea of the people. They do things like this on PURPOSE to inflame the people and get popular opinion on their side. They cannot continue to function without it! In a country like Iraq it is easy enough to do given the demographic, the religion and current situation (like accusing the U.S of bombing a mosque)

Western Media, who usually don‘t know the facts anyway, further excarbarate this mess by printing just the kind of uninformed crap that helps the terrorist cause.

Now, as to your little comment about mercenaries. Those people over there are NOT mercenaries but Private civilian security contractors. They are there to GUARD the very people (non-combatants-except to you!) that the terrorists are targeting.(of course the terrorists are too chicken to go after the U.S> Army and must pick on civvies who are trying to rebuild Iraq!)

There is a difference. Mercenaries are hired to MAKE WAR on another country or train indigenous troops to do the same thing. Those people are bodyguards and they WILL fight when forced to but do NOT operate under the same rules.

Western media either cannot or will not tell the difference between the two. After all it makes a better story when you skew the facts and get everyone up in arms doesn‘t it. Sells more papers too!

Hope I help to clear up your "misconcepted" ideas about what is going on overthere. Now do us all a favour and demonstraight that you actually learned something!

Slim

 

[nULL]

If the only people who could post on the internet were those who were right, there wouldn‘t be many public forums.

I‘m not coming down on the US forces or trying to glorify those who kidnap aid workers and threaten to burn them alive, so you can stop spouting trash. Goto any non-US website, watch any non-US broadcast, goto any non-US university campus (i presume) and you‘ll hear the "misconcepted" ideas all over again - but no, ask questions and be jumped on. Certainly seems safer to have an uninformed, ignorant opinion that you don‘t question the veracity of, and stay with the flock.

My original post had two main points. One about the contractors, I was wrong about. In my own defence, everyone seems to be calling them different things....mercenaries, civilians, commandos, contractors....it‘s hard not to pick the most ambiguous one and fly with it. In that, it would seem, I was wrong. Your explanation cleared it up, and now I (and people who I discuss this with) can know the difference.

My second point was wondering when the point was reached that "terrorists" became "resistance" (now that there are thousands of them), and whether or not "terrorism" be left to describe acts such as Madrid and 9/11, and "war" left to actual invasions. (Otherwise, don‘t you just cheapen the label "terrorist", and inadvertantly enourage people to be less vigilant against those who may wish to harm them in a manner such as Madrid? Even worse, by putting all "terrorists" under an umbrella, don‘t you end up with people in your own country who begin to sympathize with and "understand" the "terrorists"? Should the 9/11 hijackers be given the same respect and admiration (?) as some Iraqi who challenges a group of Marines?)

You may have great insight and experience, but until you decide not to chase away people with hostility, you‘re going to have people who form their opinions based on the "uninformed crap that helps the terrorist cause" and on what they hear in a college lecture.

 

[Slim]

You didn‘t ask...You told. Next time slow down and get informed before writing a novel about how we all don‘t know what we‘re talking about and you (and those university professors) do!

 

[Kirkhill]

US tactics condemned by British officers
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 11/04/2004)


Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.



One senior Army officer told The Telegraph that America‘s aggressive methods were causing friction among allied commanders and that there was a growing sense of "unease and frustration" among the British high command.

The officer, who agreed to the interview on the condition of anonymity, said that part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".

Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans‘ use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don‘t see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are. Their attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it‘s awful.

"The US troops view things in very simplistic terms. It seems hard for them to reconcile subtleties between who supports what and who doesn‘t in Iraq. It‘s easier for their soldiers to group all Iraqis as the bad guys. As far as they are concerned Iraq is bandit country and everybody is out to kill them."

The phrase untermenschen - literally "under-people" - was brought to prominence by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, published in 1925. He used the term to describe those he regarded as racially inferior: Jews, Slaves and gipsies.

Although no formal complaints have as yet been made to their American counterparts, the officer said the British Government was aware of its commanders‘ "concerns and fears".

The officer explained that, under British military rules of war, British troops would never be given clearance to carry out attacks similar to those being conducted by the US military, in which helicopter gunships have been used to fire on targets in urban areas.

British rules of engagement only allow troops to open fire when attacked, using the minimum force necessary and only at identified targets.

The American approach was markedly different: "When US troops are attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use mortar-locating radar to find the firing point and then attack the general area with artillery, even though the area they are attacking may be in the middle of a densely populated residential area.

"They may well kill the terrorists in the barrage but they will also kill and maim innocent civilians. That has been their response on a number of occasions. It is trite, but American troops do shoot first and ask questions later. They are very concerned about taking casualties and have even trained their guns on British troops, which has led to some confrontations between soldiers.

"The British response in Iraq has been much softer. During and after the war the British set about trying to win the confidence of the local population. There have been problems, it hasn‘t been easy but on the whole it was succeeding."

The officer believed that America had now lost the military initiative in Iraq, and it could only be regained with carefully planned, precision attacks against the "terrorists".

"The US will have to abandon the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach - it has failed," he said. "They need to stop viewing every Iraqi, every Arab as the enemy and attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people.

"Our objective is to create a stable, democratic and safe Iraq. That‘s achievable but not in the short term. It is going to take up to 10 years."

7 April 2004: ‘Every blow America strikes will bring more people to the way of God‘


© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/11/wtact11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/11/ixnewstop.html

 

[Kirkhill]

I continue to be interested in the way that the media describes the fighters in Fallujah as being insurgents, Sunnis concerned about being targeted by the Shias in a new Iraq, poor young Baathists.

They might have reason to be concerned.

Fallujah is a 25 km commute along a multi-lane highway from Abu Ghraib, Saddam‘s principal detention centre.

I wonder where the guys feeding anti-Saddamists into the meat grinders at Abu-Ghraib lived? Went home to the wife and kids after a hard day lifting Shias off of meat hooks?

The good people of Fallujah likely have a fair number of their fellow citizens that are not too thrilled about the possibility of the "rule of law" being established locally.

Just a thought.