All very true. Pulling back is also the worst possible option in this case because of the very culture which we fight against - as it's been said time and again, they see anything like that as a sign of weakness, and encouragement to increase their attacks and "misbehaviour."

I totally agree. Seems like I agree more with your views on the war than other bloggers I read. I'm tired of our guys going into the field just to be blown up. It doesn't make sense to me. I support the idea behind the war, the destruction of terrorism, but the method to conduct the aftermath of the war has been questionable at best. Bush needs to ignore the treasonous MSM who will publish every picture of a so called "innocent" civilian death and just do the job that needs to be done in Fallujah.

It's clear this is the real thing. Bush held back for the months before the election to avoid a Kosovo-type accusation, Wag the Dog bullshit.

He got his mandate, and now it's a green light. This is it. IF I were the terrorists I'd be making peace with my God.

You can argue that Bush got people killed by holding back through the campaign, but think about it- It must have been agonizing: Do the right thing and get pilloried by the 5th Column at home, or wait it our and get people killed.

In the end, I think he figured that he had to wait, because under Kerry many more would have died.

This is the real thing, guys. Pray for our boys going in. They're heading in hot.

I think the reason we backed off on Fallujah before was because we wanted time to train Iraqi troops so we could point and say "See, there are your people fighting the terrorists." While I don't totally agree with this tatic I understand it, because we have to try to win the people over if all this is going to do any good at all. That said, I think we need to get in there and trash Fallujah and level it if need be, then go on to the next town that harbors terrorists (Not Insurgents, what a lame thing to call them) and level it too. Soon there would be no terrorists in Iraq, at least not in the towns.

While I agree with the the idea that Bush was waiting til after the election, I think they didn't mind Fallujah becoming a center of gravity for the terrorists. Now that most of the bad guys are in one spot, it'll be a lot easier to "Wipe them out. All of them."

Go Marines! Slice like a f'ing hammer.
Oh yeah, and pigskin shirts for all of Z's guys.

Everything I said over on Sunday is still true:
http://garfieldridge.blogspot.com/2004/11/big-week.html

"Part of me thinks it was worth a shot to give the free Iraqis an opportunity to solve the problem themselves. Alas, they were not yet ready to accomplish the objective.

Also, it was quite obvious that any time after April 2004, the Bush Administration wanted to keep American casualties to a minimum in Iraq, in order to keep Iraq out of the news, and subsequently, the polling places.

The election is now over. I hope everyone enjoyed the peace, because as of now, we're back to the war."

Trust me-- there will be no turning back this time.

I just hope we can do this with the minimum number of US casualties, the maximum number of enemy casualties, and in the shortest time possible (as I can assure you, the Iraqi pressure on Allawi to call a halt will be immense, especially the day after we accidently shoot up a bus, or some mosque gets fragged by mistake).

Good luck to our men, is all I can say at this point.

Cheers,
Dave

This will end badly! Our troops will fight bravely and effectively but will not be allowed to finish the job. There will be yet another political/religious cease fire (negotiation).

We must develop a new way of fighting terrorism!
When threatened we will go in bomb the crap out of the threat. Then we occupy long enough to find and kill the leadership. Then we leave!
No more democratizing! No rebuilding! Eliminate the threat and leave. Let Allah do the rebuilding! Let us accomodate their passion for martyrdom!

I am a VN and Korea Infantry vet. I saw in VN that we could not create motivation for an imposed government! It sounds brutal and unfeeling but if they aren't willing to fight for themselves, they do not deserve our help and they certainly aren't worth a single American
life!

When we get to the point where ALL Islamic leaders are much more afraid of us than they are of afraid of confronting and controlling their terrorists, we will have won!

Iblis makes the point that I have held for some time that it really does us no harm letting the bad guys continue to stream into Falluja where we can kill them at will. Especially since the alternative is that they would otherwise be spread all over the country in small cells. Since they have given up that model they no longer have the ability to coordinate all those cells or rebuild the network to do so.

In the mean time, going in and backing off continues to bolster their false hope that we don't have the stones to really stand up to them in street to street fighting. Since we can obviously go where we want when we want that is pretty much a pipe dream, but showing the enemy what they expect to see is always a good tactic.

All I can think after I heard the news we were finally going into Fallujah is "America....Fuck Yeah, here we come to save the motherfucking day yeah" Sorry just saw Team America.

Calex59, the reason we backed off in Fallujah last time around, was that we cut a deal with the UN, through their representative Brahimi: we let them take over in Iraq (with disastrous consequences for the Iraqi people) in exchange for being able to start a cut-and-walk toward a political exit. Notice the subtitle of that linked piece: “America shows weakness in Iraq by passing the buck to the U.N.” The U.N. objected to our assault in order to preserve a key part of the Baath resistance – not coincidently the same people the U.N. fought tooth and nail to prevent us from deposing in the first place.

"’That's going to be decided by Mr. Brahimi,’ President Bush said Friday when asked what the transition government will look like on July 1…. So the Iraqis the U.S. has spent a year working most closely with will be cashiered in favor of unknowns chosen by an Algerian who works for Kofi Annan.”

The administration eventually choked on the idea that it could get away with such a transparent bailout, so Brahimi and the U.N. were never was allowed to pick the interim government.

And how have things been inside Fallujah during the past eight months? (via InDC)

Iblis and Dacotti, there are (at least) two main problems with letting the situation go for eight months. First, there have been hundreds of deaths of our troops and of civilians in the Sunni Triangle since, and it is widely accepted that Fallujah is the key insurgent in Iraq. Here’s what the main editorial page of the Wall Street Journal said the other day:

“Wednesday, Marines near Fallujah mourned the loss of eight of their colleagues in a weekend car bomb attack. Those deaths were in part the result of the commander-in-chief's decision -- one of the few inarguable mistakes of the war -- to stop last April's offensive there just days shy of taking control of the city, which has since become headquarters for the jihadists and Baathists who are terrorizing Iraq. “We wish we could put a better spin on it, but American men have been getting killed by bombs being built in a city they have been prevented from conquering for fear of the political consequences. And it's not just Americans who have been dying needlessly. The insurgents' real game is to target any and all Iraqis who share our vision of a democratic future.”

Second, we would have had ten months of reconstruction in Fallujah, which would help convince at least some residents that elections, and the future of Iraq, are worth supporting. This point also applies to Samarra and other Triangle towns we will presumably address shortly. As it is, we will have two months – not enough time to make a difference.

I totally agree. But we must remember that no matter what the casualties are, be they 10 civilians or 10,000 civilians, the media will dust off the buthcers-of-innocent-children-crap, just as they did when we "killed" a "daughter" that Saddam didn't have. However, they have been repeatedly warned and at some point THEY are responsible for their own fate for staying in a War Zone with a battle approaching when they could have fled. But most importantly if we want an end to bloodshed on both sides, constant criticism and growing anarchy, what really matters is Victory, even if it does mean lots of dead "innocent civilians."

U.S. warfare doctrine dictates that Command and Control are disabled first.

When will they take out Al Jiz-Smeara's de-facto propaganda and communication services for the enemy?

Lastango, from my perspective I was looking at the "bright" side to this Fallujah mess. Personally I think Fallujah should have been leveled and salt sown right after they burned the contractors and then hung them up Pinata style over the Euphrates. I attribute our squeemishness then to the weasles of the State Dept. and the fact that it was an election year.
I'm really hoping they bag "Off with his head" Zarqawi but I think that rat left the ship a while ago.

Beware of 'hudnah' - the Muslim tactic of agreeing to a temporary peace until they're ready to go back to war. That's what happened in Najaf a couple of times at least, what happened in Falluja in April, and what's going on right now in Sadr City. How long is it going to take us to catch on to this?