Wow!--"Defeat for US and the Marines; Victory for the Insurgents"

[BabsSong]

I don’t think MSNBC wanted Gen. Barry McAffrey (sp?), one of their analysts, to say what he did today. If memory serves me, McAffrey was dead set against this war in the beginning and gave some scathing interviews in London. and was off their “analysts list” for the rest of their “big sell” on Iraq. I had been picking up shades of this over the last few days from the good, solid reporters as we were “negotiating” Fallujah. He rather got to the point.

This is the gist of his remarks. He said this negotiated settlement is a defeat for the US and the Marines and a victory for the “insurgents” (among others). We withdrew and did not flatten, disarm, impose our force on them but we handed the place over to a former Saddam general and former governor of the area. That is perceived in Iraq and throughout the Arab world as a great victory over us. (I couldn’t help but think that we put back in place the guys we brag about coming there to liberate them from!!---sounds like solid republican thinking to me.). He said this isn’t good for the moral of the Marines who were ready to wipe this out and revenge their comrades deaths, etc. I want to stress the McAffrey was NOT talking that we should have blown up the place because that would have been just as big a mistake. In other words: What the shit are we in this mess for in the first place!! I could very much read between the lines that we have probably just created a crap load of trouble over there. Think about how those who want the Saddam elements back---they are going to “fight on, baby”. Those in Iraq who took us at our word that we were ridding them of this terror have to now be in terror that we are going to put this country back in the Saddam regime’s hands. And, of course, the Arab streets are rejoicing for joy at the sight which breeds even more pumped up people to fight the Infidel!!!

From “stuff’ these last couple days, I think Bush is losing control of the dialogue/propaganda on Iraq. Even Chris Matthews is saying they are losing the ’vocabulary’ of the war: ie., “terrorist” becomes “insurgent” and after 6/30 will become “anti-government forces” (which are they??). Even on the ground brass in Iraq are speaking up and taking digs. We saw, to our consternation, his bump in the polls when Bloody April blew sky high. But those Americans wanted “revenge , revenge”. They are getting “put tail between legs and pull back”. Bush is again losing control of the spin and that’s going to result in more and more dissatisfaction with him.

[Greylady]

1. I think they are pulling out of Fallujah because

they have bigger fish to fry in Najaf and not enough soldiers to *pacify* both cities.

[BabsSong]

4. Greylady--but this is just like everything else that they don't think

through. The may pullout because they need the troops elsewhere or whatever, but they just made the insurgents in Fallujah and the remnents of Sadaams regime the "perceived" (and that's the key word in Iraq and the whole Arab world)the winners. That should greatly inspire those fighting in Najaf (on top of it they have the 'holy city' thing going for them). And it has to scare the general anti-Sadaam elements in the country as we go waltzing along re-installing those guys. We can tell them not to worry that these generals promise to be "good"---do you think the population will buy it? We walked out on them before and they got slaughtered. We are making so many mistakes over there and painting ourselves into corners.

[madrchsod]

7. an attack on najah

brings the irianian army to the iraqi border. the big fish will be that "big white whale"..we lost face-we lost the war.

[LittleApple81]

8. Apparently, they might not get that one either. I read that

Sistani is trying (and apparently succeeding) to handle the situation before the Americans have an opportunity to do "their thing." If Sistani is successful, it will be another "defeat" in the eyes of the extra-aggressive repugs. This is going to be interesting.

[LittleApple81]

10. Here is some discussion on Najaf:

U.S. military negotiates Najaf solution

snip...
An agreement in Najaf could be similar to the tentative deal in Fallujah, where U.S. Marines Friday were pulling back from certain areas of the city after Thursday's tentative agreement to transfer power from the Marines to Iraqi forces, according to Marine commanders there.It is not clear when the deployment will be completed.

Militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has holed up at holy sites in Najaf with many of his most vehement supporters. Al-Sadr's militia has been attacking U.S. troops.

Some of the members of Al-Sadr's militia, called Mehdi's Army, could be recruited to patrol Najaf as members of the ICDC if they agree to lay down their arms as insurgents, the sources said.

U.S. forces this week began new operations around the outskirts of Najaf, where Spanish troops were serving until their new prime minister pulled them out of the country.

more....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/30/iraq.main/index.html

[charlie]

11. The US would be wise

to do everything it can to avoid combat in Najaf. Going in there would invoke Shiite rage and dismay like a siege of the Vatican would do to Catholics. Sadr has been implored by clerics to get the hell waaay away from Najaf to spare the city.

[zbdent]

2. Well, this one's going to go straight into the "liberal media bias"

file.

After several years of fellating the Republicans and W, one guy gets up the balls to tell the truth, and MSNBC's now going to be the new flagship of the 'liberal media'. Move over "CNN".

[DBoon]

3. "revenge revenge revenge"

Bush's base want bloody supression of the Iraqi insurgents, and damn world opinion.

Face it, there are a lot of RW Americans that would like nothing better than to see a bunch of "Arabs" massacred, just to "show them who's boss".

I am glad that for once they will be disappointed.

[apnu]

9. you're right...

... in my office, I've heard comments such as "Kill them all, anybody who wears a towel on their head... just kill them" and "F***King Arabs need to be taught a lesson"

I'm not joking... I've been pondering quitting my job for political reasons, which is a totally foreign thought to me. I've always strived to keep business (or getting paid) separate from political and/or ideological opinion, but the murderous mood here is turning my stomach. And I work for one of the 3 largest financial companies in the world!

[ewagner]

Coming through the noise

about this is something very distrubing.

There seems to be absolute disarray between the local commanders, the In-country military commanders and the Pentagon. Something is seriously amiss here.

[wryter2000]

5. I think the General has it 100% correct

They lost Falluja, end of story. They didn't dare flatten it, but that was the only way they could win. Giving control to American-trained Iraqis might have put a good face on it, but having to put them under a former Baathist made the rout complete. For all I know, this Baathist is an okay guy who only joined the party to further his career, but this must look like a huge victory to the people resisting the occupation. Look to see more and more resistance.

If you read Clarke's book, the Repugs' response to terrorism is pathetically weak. Iran took our hostages, so Reagan sold them arms. His response to the bombing of the barracks in Beirut was to pull out of Lebanon. Great victory there. Terrorism in Saudi Arabia, * pulls out of there.

[charlie]

6. No, McCaffrey isn't one

who questions the wisdom of the Iraq invasion. He was a board member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. His critiques are merely strategic.

[shraby]

12. Pulling out of Falluja

and putting in Saddam's men may be a ploy to blame the high rate of deaths in the city on Saddam's men when we go back in after all is said and done.

[BabsSong]

14. shraby---I'll go one further on that thought

I believe after 6/30 we will try to make the whole Iraq fiasco look like it's the fault of the "inept Iraq government"---yep, we destroy it; we mess it to hell; we can't find a solution; we drag some goon out of the shadows and install him as our puppet; and then Bush blames everything on him and our media puts it forth as the "gospel" truth. Later down the road the whole things shifts back to an ex-Sadaam strong man whom we arm and let him surpress the people in return for the oil and some sweatshops over there. I could write a Republican How-To book!!!!!!!!

[charlie]

17. Their mouthpieces have been floating

the "ungrateful, ungovernable, hopeless Iraqis" meme lately. Seems to me that they're actually clearing space for a cut-and-run option (or at least, a retreat to their new bunkered permanent bases and ignore the chaos outside the perimeter option).

[BabsSong]

18. charlie--I heard Woodward with Russert actually suggesting that

perhaps in about December Bush will say "mission accomplished--no more Sadaam and no more WMDS (there never were any!) and then pull out.

[charlie]

21. Yep

A few months ago, I would've considered it unthinkable. Just listen to Cheney today! But we may be seeing a confluence of Dubya's electoral ambitions and the cold fact that "owning" a state in the hottest of the world's hot spots is a monstrous costly sump, actually compelling Bushco to pull out before they get skinned. If that's what they're doing, there's going to be a battle royale between the true believers and the Bush camp who want to hold on to power by whatever means. It'll be interesting to watch.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Welcome to DU, Shraby.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi shraby!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[seabeyond]

13. this failure is a good failure

it is ok and doesnt have to be painful. this failure will save a zillion (exaggeration, lol) lives. this failure though failure in eyes of the world and insugents and middle east and republicans is a failure that will accomplish getting bush out of white house and our troops home and iraq taking back their country.

what a blessing in failure. see how it isnt painful

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. So long as the guys we are sending in don't

shore up the native forces against us or start beating the crap out of the civilians, then yeah, it's a good loss in that sense.

If only we could hand over all of Iraq piece by piece this way. Maybe that's the plan??

[BabsSong]

19. Green--I was thinking the same thing--but can you see the impression

when the great liberators pull out and the country is effectively in the hands of the boys we went there to fight??? And I have a feeling that if we did, it would take a nano-second for these generals to jockey for power and end up with Saddam, the Sequel within a few years.

[catmandu57]

20. Fallujah was lost from the beginning

It was a no win situation no matter what happened. If the US military applied massive force to "flatten" Fallujah a couple of things would have happened 1. whatever credibility we as a country have left in the world is gone. 2. It would have inspired widespread rebellion across Iraq, every town, village, hamlet, and city would have gone for anything western.

The attackers would have become the attacked very quickly. In effect the Iraqis replied to our fearless leaders invitation to "bring em on". They did and spanked us good.

There is a power struggle going on right now, the chimpies* don't know which way to turn. They have the chest beaters screaming at them, the situation on the ground is not matching the neoconvict fantasy.
The commanders in the field are very close to open revolt, domestic issues are costing them. This regime is falling apart, the end will come swiftly when it does.

There are going to be some big things happening, we're living history, our actions now will fill the pages of history texts.