Victory in Fallujah
_____________________
by Ralph Peters New York Post
November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists.
Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts.
The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday.
On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis was incompetent and just plain wrong. And the photo its editors ran above the fold showed a Marine curled in a ditch under enemy fire.
It wasn't reporting. It was a mix of anti-American propaganda and wishful thinking. Al-Jazeera couldn't have done it better.
Now that our troops are winning so lopsidedly that it can't be denied, the Times likely will tell us that Fallujah didn't matter, anyway, that our efforts were wasted. Then Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker's greatest living fiction writer, will follow up with a fairy tale called "Failure In Fallujah."
What's really happening?
We're winning a critical victory. Since the political decision to stop short in Fallujah last April, the terrorists had bragged to the world that the city would never fall to the infidel. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his thugs turned Fallujah into a vast dungeon, complete with torture chambers and execution halls. The terrorists stockpiled weapons and ammunition, welcoming thousands of international "Jihadis" and using the city as a base to spread terror across central Iraq.
Fallujah became the new world capital of terror. And Allah's butchers proclaimed that they'd slaughter U.S. troops in the streets, if they tried to enter the city.
Guess who's dying now?
By fleeing without fighting to the death as they promised they would, the terror-masters discredited themselves. After Coalition leaders lost their nerve last April, the terrorists portrayed themselves as having faced down America's military might. This time, they ran away, leaving untrained recruits to take the bullet-train to paradise.
The swift fall of Fallujah is not only a practical disaster for the terrorists, but a massive loss of face for them throughout the Muslim world.
Plenty of tough street-fighting remains, but three-quarters of the city is under the control of Coalition and Iraqi forces. Contrary to smug media predictions, the Iraqi units didn't run away. They did their part to free the city and save their country.
What have we found in Fallujah? Hostage slaughterhouses — butcher shops for human cattle. Stockpiles of ammunition and explosives in mosques. And a city scarred by all the marks of an Islamic reign of terror.
Talking heads may smirk and say that we'll still have to fight the terrorists elsewhere. True enough. But no one claimed that Fallujah would be the last battle. Of course, the terrorists who ran away will try to refurbish their image with more bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings.
But they've lost their greatest stronghold. They've lost their sole tangible symbol of success. And they've lost their image as dauntless warriors able to stand up to the U.S. military.
In this imperfect world, where results are never what amateurs demand, the Second Battle of Fallujah is already a huge win for the good guys — even before the shooting's over.
In the coming weeks, the terrorists will try to re-infiltrate the city. They'll stage photogenic car bombings and assassinations. Then we'll be told that we still don't control Fallujah, that we've failed. But a city where terrorists have to sneak in to plant a bomb is a far better place than one in which they rule.
Meanwhile, our troops and their Iraqi allies remain engaged in brutal street-fighting. The remarkably low friendly casualty list is bound to grow. But no one need doubt the outcome. Our troops will complete the mission they were given.
But the media need to stop inventing missions of their own, then blaming our troops for not accomplishing them.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
by Ralph Peters New York Post
November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists.
Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts.
The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday.
On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis was incompetent and just plain wrong. And the photo its editors ran above the fold showed a Marine curled in a ditch under enemy fire.
It wasn't reporting. It was a mix of anti-American propaganda and wishful thinking. Al-Jazeera couldn't have done it better.
Now that our troops are winning so lopsidedly that it can't be denied, the Times likely will tell us that Fallujah didn't matter, anyway, that our efforts were wasted. Then Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker's greatest living fiction writer, will follow up with a fairy tale called "Failure In Fallujah."
What's really happening?
We're winning a critical victory. Since the political decision to stop short in Fallujah last April, the terrorists had bragged to the world that the city would never fall to the infidel. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his thugs turned Fallujah into a vast dungeon, complete with torture chambers and execution halls. The terrorists stockpiled weapons and ammunition, welcoming thousands of international "Jihadis" and using the city as a base to spread terror across central Iraq.
Fallujah became the new world capital of terror. And Allah's butchers proclaimed that they'd slaughter U.S. troops in the streets, if they tried to enter the city.
Guess who's dying now?
By fleeing without fighting to the death as they promised they would, the terror-masters discredited themselves. After Coalition leaders lost their nerve last April, the terrorists portrayed themselves as having faced down America's military might. This time, they ran away, leaving untrained recruits to take the bullet-train to paradise.
The swift fall of Fallujah is not only a practical disaster for the terrorists, but a massive loss of face for them throughout the Muslim world.
Plenty of tough street-fighting remains, but three-quarters of the city is under the control of Coalition and Iraqi forces. Contrary to smug media predictions, the Iraqi units didn't run away. They did their part to free the city and save their country.
What have we found in Fallujah? Hostage slaughterhouses — butcher shops for human cattle. Stockpiles of ammunition and explosives in mosques. And a city scarred by all the marks of an Islamic reign of terror.
Talking heads may smirk and say that we'll still have to fight the terrorists elsewhere. True enough. But no one claimed that Fallujah would be the last battle. Of course, the terrorists who ran away will try to refurbish their image with more bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings.
But they've lost their greatest stronghold. They've lost their sole tangible symbol of success. And they've lost their image as dauntless warriors able to stand up to the U.S. military.
In this imperfect world, where results are never what amateurs demand, the Second Battle of Fallujah is already a huge win for the good guys — even before the shooting's over.
In the coming weeks, the terrorists will try to re-infiltrate the city. They'll stage photogenic car bombings and assassinations. Then we'll be told that we still don't control Fallujah, that we've failed. But a city where terrorists have to sneak in to plant a bomb is a far better place than one in which they rule.
Meanwhile, our troops and their Iraqi allies remain engaged in brutal street-fighting. The remarkably low friendly casualty list is bound to grow. But no one need doubt the outcome. Our troops will complete the mission they were given.
But the media need to stop inventing missions of their own, then blaming our troops for not accomplishing them.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
Comments
I have no doubt we will defeat the "insurgents" in Fallujah. However, I fear we misperceive what is really going on in Iraq and mislead ourselves into thinking we have the situation under control.
Your "author" is gloating like Rush and the election, prematurely declaring a broad victory over terrorism and Muslims.
Do you think this guy has any idea about his broader assertions that a "victory" in Fallujah is actually a great victory over Islamic terrorists?
Is it possible that many of the terrorists are former Baathists and Sunni tribal groups that are fighting for nationalistic goals and not Allah. In otherwords, these people are not fighting for world Jihad.
Ralph Peters tries to argue that because the terrorists fled instead of dying they have discredited their Jihad. Well that's brilliant. We don't decide when they should become suicide fighters. Further, we are fighting a guerrilla army who intends to win in the long term, not die for Allah.
I think it would be stupid to assume that victory in this battle means the tide of he war has turned. Remember Vietnam or Korea. It is just too soon to tell whether the Iraqi's as a whole will turn on these insurgents. Right now at best you have a civil war.
I am not advocating pulling out of Iraq and I am not tryng to say we successfully took Fallujah militarily, but this author is a myoptic flag waving idiot, trying to rally support in the US, but doesn't know what he is talking about.
Bob replies
I am not so sure that Ralph Peters would disagree with you. What is so bad about waiving the flag? I see no evidence that he is an idiot. These "conservative" fighters in Iraq (they want to go back to the good old Baathist days) can consider themselves both tribal fighters and Jihadist warriors. Just as both sides in our civil war thought God was on their side, I am sure that everyone in Iraq thinks they are martyrs for Allah. Ultimately, the dispute will be settled in Iraq by Iraqis. Hopefully, a democratic government will hold.
Can't you at least hope that Iraq works out? Or would you prefer we lose to prove Republicans were wrong?
___________________________________
FY...I have never stated I wanted the Iraq war to fail to prove Bush wrong.
The thrust of my comments were to the effect that writers like Peters are so concerned about proving Bush's case that they don't look at anything critically.
Journalism is critical thinking and analysis, not propaganda. We have been told in the press there were as many as 5,000 terrorists in the city. Peters suggests they are cowards for no dying for Allah. Suppose most escape to fight another day. Were we successful, yes and no. We retook the city, but the civil war may go on.
Peters makes Fallujah sound like Antitem or Gettysburg. This isn't that kind of war. It is because the administration has hyped Fallujah as a turning point in the war, that now they must prove that this was a success.
The nightly media soundbite is more important than the reality on the ground..... Remember...."Mission Accomplished"
It is easy to be critical. It is easy to sneer and cast stones. We may fear the worst, but don't we hope for the best?
What is your vision for Iraq? If you were in charge, what would you do? What do Democrats have to offer that is different? Kerry had nothing to offer, in the Democrat platform, that was significantly different, except fantasy promises to get the Europeans to help.
I am sorry to say it but Democrats have nothing to offer anymore but cynicism, pessemism and pacifism. Bush offers of a vision of democratic governments living together peacefully. Democrats offer a vision of the U.S. cringing and appeasing totalitarian governments around the world and apologizing for the crime that we are a free country and a democracy. Yechh!
________________________________
My belief is that I would not have gone to war in Iraq without proof of WMD's, and I mean more than potential. Second, it is not our place to overthrow every non-democratic or totalitarian regime. That would require us to knock off more than half the countries in the world.
Islam is going to be a big problem for years to come. We should be investing in countries like Malaysian, Indonesia, and perhaps Pakistan to make friends in the Muslim world. I view Iraq as an experiment. An experiment concocted by the PNAC neo-cons. If it works, great, but if we are mired in a civil war between Sunni's, Shiites, Kurds, and tribal subsets for years, this is not going to help our war on terrorism.
The Taliban had to be squashed. They knew they were protecting a total radical fundamentalist who was hell bent on exporting terrorism to the west and the US in particular. Pakistan shares in the blame as does Saudi Arabia.
We will never agree on this, but Saddam was not exporting terrorism to the US --- Palestine, yes. But that's true of all the Arab countries and Iran. I don't think he posed a direct threat to the US since the Gulf War. (So said Tennent before Congress in September of 2002). There is no creditable proof he was involved in any anti US terrorism (including the 1993 bombing of the WTC).
So, history will judge whether the Neo-cons are visionaries or blunderers. If they are wrong, it probably made the world less stable and will cause more anti-US terrorism. If successful, democratic pressures may arise in Iraq's neighbors. Only time will tell.
Your comment is fair. You are right that some Republicans oppose the war. The Libertarian Cato Institute for example. And Buchanan. But I think their viewpoint is narrow and isolationist. I agree that the struggle with radical Islam is a long term one. I am a person who prefers direct action, as opposed to waiting around. As you say, time will tell whether this is agood strategy or not.
The vision you call "NeoCon" is that it is in our long term interest to promote democracy all over the world, because Democracies tend to be allies and not enemies. As you say, and admittedly, our power is insufficient to reform half the world instantly. But I prefer this vision to the cynical "real politik" of Kissinger and the old State Department that said things like "He may be a bastard but he is our bastard."
_______________________