Salon: Turning point (the Bush White House lost the key battle of war)

[kskiska]

A journalist who was embedded with the U.S. Marines in Fallujah explains how the Bush White House lost the key battle of the Iraq war.

By David J. Morris

On Sunday, at his change-of-command ceremony, the outgoing top Marine general in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, gave tragic voice to what thousands of servicemen throughout Iraq have believed for months. He announced that the April assault on Fallujah had been an overly aggressive mistake and that the often-vacillating American approach to the town had undermined U.S. efforts to win the hearts and minds of local Iraqis.

I arrived in western Iraq shortly after the siege of the town was called off, and whenever the subject came up, young Marine officers -- men with crew cuts in the duty-honor-country mold who evince an almost pathological optimism about all things Iraq -- would look away wistfully or just shake their heads in disgust. Many of the Marines involved in the attack would have preferred to complete the assault once it started, despite the likely huge increase in civilian casualties. Those who fought on the ground have complained about the timing, intent and restrictive rules of engagement of the White House-ordered assault.

Responding to the killing and subsequent mutilation of four U.S. contractors in Fallujah on March 31, Conway had led a 5,000-man Marine force that laid siege to the restive town for over three weeks. Bad press and reports of civilian casualties by Al-Jazeera later caused the Marines to halt their advance into the heart of the city and, on the eve of a renewed offensive, the Marines unexpectedly turned over the town to a local militia force that later became known as the Fallujah Brigade.

(snip)

The mainstream press has largely overlooked the fact that in the case of Fallujah, the White House unnecessarily injected itself into the military's tactical decision-making process in Iraq, ignored the informed opinions of ground commanders, and in effect micromanaged the battle. According to many observers, the seemingly contradictory U.S. military actions over the course of the siege were largely the result of the wishy-washy directives being issued by the Bush administration and its failure to appreciate the implications of sending in a large Marine force to seize a notoriously hostile town.

more…
http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/16/fallujah/index.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. So we were too harsh when we shouldn't have been, and too slow

to show compassion when we should have. Sounds typical for a Republican plan.

[Odd Little Man]

2. Traitors

"Those who fought on the ground have complained about the timing, intent and restrictive rules of engagement of the White House-ordered assault". The White House knows all about warfare, how dare they question our War President's decisions. Unlike them he kept Texas safe from the VC.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. That's what happens when you let Karl Rove run military operations. n/t

[Bread and Circus]

4. Interestingly, back in April, people in PNAC were predicting...

that attacks on places like Fallujah and Najaf would be
the loss of Iraq.

It's come to pass.

[Disturbed]

5. MIlitary cannot win against the iron will of the people.

didn't these clowns learn that lesson from Vietnam, Algeria, Iran and Nicaraqua and other places where they thought the Giant could win by brute force and torture?

[ixion]

6. the Bush administration and its failure to appreciate the implications

well, that's thier motis operandus, is it not?

[teryang]

7. Regimes understanding of warfare is adolescent n/t

[Nashyra]

8. They lost Osama in Afghanistan

They lost the war in Iraq? New leadership is needed ASAP

[dand]

9. WTF does a Marine General Know?

Compared to Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rove and the Great Leader Himself, the great Band of chicken-hawk Brothers.