8 Months After U.S.-Led Siege, Insurgents Rise Again in Falluja

[RickSp]

8 Months After U.S.-Led Siege, Insurgents Rise Again in Falluja

FALLUJA, Iraq, July 12 - Transformed into a police state after last winter's siege, this should be the safest city in all of Iraq. Thousands of American and Iraqi troops live in crumbling buildings here and patrol streets laced with concertina wire. Any Iraqi entering the city must show a badge and undergo a search at one of six checkpoints. There is a 10 p.m. curfew. But the insurgency is rising from the rubble nevertheless, eight months after the American military killed as many as 1,500 Iraqis in a costly invasion that fanned anti-American passions across Iraq and the Arab world. Somewhere in the bowels of Falluja, the former guerrilla stronghold 35 miles west of Baghdad, where four American contractors were killed in an ambush, and the bodies of two were hanged from a bridge, in March 2004, insurgents are building suicide car bombs again. At least four have exploded in recent weeks, one of them killing six American troops, including four women. Two of five police forts being erected have been firebombed. Three members of the nascent, 21-seat city council have suddenly quit and another member has stopped attending meetings, presumably because they have been threatened. Just as disturbing, even Falluja residents who favored purging the streets of insurgents last November are beginning to chafe under the occupation. "Some preferred the city quiet, purified of the gunmen and any militant aspect," said Abdul Jabbar Kadhim al-Alwani, 40, the owner of an automotive repair shop, expressing a widely held sentiment. "But after the unfairness and injustice with which the city's residents have been treated by the American and Iraqi forces, they now prefer the resistance, just so they won't be humiliated."

I guess the bloody siege didn't "break the back of the insurgency" as promised. Why am I not surprised?

[dotcoma]

Hey, lets just give up! :rolleyes: Destroying a fundementalist insurgency that is backed by foreign dollars takes time.

[Samildanach]

The question is how much time....Bush only has another few years.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dotcoma Hey, lets just give up! :rolleyes: Destroying a fundementalist insurgency that is backed by foreign dollars takes time.

Duh. We are losing a war that we never should have started. The longer we stay the worse the final outcome.

If you have dug yoursef into a hole, the best advice is never, "Dig harder and faster." Unfortunately the holes the War Party is digging are just more graves for fine Americans, both at home and in Iraq.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: RickSp Duh. We are losing a war that we never should have started. The longer we stay the worse the final outcome. If you have dug yoursef into a hole, the best advice is never, "Dig harder and faster." Unfortunately the holes the War Party is digging are just more graves for fine Americans, both at home and in Iraq.

It is a war that is meant to restructure a deeply messed-up ideology. The places that encourage fundamentalism need to be restructured to encourage jobs and ways to express anger via a governmental system. This is the only way we are going to stem terror. The war is an overall campaign on fanaticism.

And Rick, pulling out would show a) weakness and b) turn Iraq into a serious problem domestically/regionally. You are just too impatient to dig if it gets too stuffy down in the hole.

I cannot believe the short-sightedness of some people. They do not see how bad it would be to pull out when facing a terrorist enemy.

[Matt W]

It is a war that is meant to restructure a deeply messed-up ideology.

Then why, pray tell, did we go into pretty much the only secular state in the region?? Just curious!

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Matt W Then why, pray tell, did we go into pretty much the only secular state in the region?? Just curious!

Perhaps it was the easiest one to start with considering that fact? Just a guess..

[Sonart]

Quote by: dotcoma Hey, lets just give up! :rolleyes: Destroying a fundementalist insurgency that is backed by foreign dollars takes time.

Not according to our administration. According to Dick Cheney, there was a) never going to be an insurgency in the first place and b) the one that exists now is in it's "last throes".

"General Franks told them it was time to make plans to leave. Combat forces should be prepared to start pulling out within 60 days if all went as expected, he said. By September (2003), the more than 140,000 troops in Iraq could be down to little more than a division, about 30,000 troops."

The insurgency that Donald Rumsfeld dismissed as a pack of "dead enders" apparently now has Rumsfeld convinced we could be there for... what was it... 12 years??

Obviously, despite clear warnings of a "fundalmentalist insurgency that is backed by foreign dollars" from our own intelligence, neither you nor this administration had any idea whatsoever that such an insurgency would exist, let alone how long it will take to destroy it... if it can be destroyed at all.

.

[dotcoma]

ok..I agree Sonart, the administation may have been too cocky and figured Iraq a lame duck that would be easy to plow through, BUT..that still does not suggest we should just pull out and let the region have more reasons to launch more attacks on us. This is a culture war.

[Osborn F Enready]

RickSP, Sonart, I agree completely.

[Sonart]

Quote by: dotcoma ok..I agree Sonart, the administation may have been too cocky and figured Iraq a lame duck that would be easy to plow through, BUT..that still does not suggest we should just pull out and let the region have more reasons to launch more attacks on us. This is a culture war.

I agree that we should not pull out now, and have posted so. However, I say that in the context of a lose/lose situation. We're definitely screwed if we pull out now, and probably still screwed if we stay. However, by staying there's the vague possibility that Iraq could pull a legitimate government out of its ass, so we may as will give it a shot, at least for another year or so. We should not be surprised, however, if that government has a decidedly Islamist, anti-U.S. nature, but at least we can say we put back together what we broke, albeit with gum, string and rubber bands.

Plus, as was pointed out in today's paper, Muslim support for fundamentalist terrorism is collapsing worldwide and positive attitudes for democracy are increasing, which is a positive sign, although antipathy towards the U.S. remains steady. Obviously this has more to do with terrorist attacks against Muslims, rather than attacks against the West, but if it leads to declining support for al-Qaeda, it's good news.

.

[ibm]

Quote by: Sonart I agree that we should not pull out now, and have posted so. However, I say that in the context of a lose/lose situation. We're definitely screwed if we pull out now, and probably still screwed if we stay. However, by staying there's the vague possibility that Iraq could pull a legitimate government out of its ass, so we may as will give it a shot, at least for another year or so. We should not be surprised, however, if that government has a decidedly Islamist, anti-U.S. nature, but at least we can say we put back together what we broke, albeit with gum, string and rubber bands.

sonart, i respectfully disagree. the minute possibility of “at least we can say we put back together what we broke” is not worth so many more lives and so much more of tax monies, let alone the hatred it continues to create.

Quote by: Sonart Plus, as was pointed out in today's paper, Muslim support for fundamentalist terrorism is collapsing worldwide and positive attitudes for democracy are increasing, which is a positive sign, although antipathy towards the U.S. remains steady. Obviously this has more to do with terrorist attacks against Muslims, rather than attacks against the West, but if it leads to declining support for al-Qaeda, it's good news.

how credible is this news weeks after the london bombing? i very much doubt it, though i don’t see enough evidence to say the opposite.

[Sonart]

Quote by: ibm sonart, i respectfully disagree. the minute possibility of “at least we can say we put back together what we broke” is not worth so many more lives and so much more of tax monies, let alone the hatred it continues to create.

Don't get me wrong, ibm. I agree with you 100% and have been a critic of this war since rumors of it were first breathed in the summer of 2002. It was a bad idea, no matter how it was rationalized, and the error was compounded by the fact that the initial rationalization was simply wrong.

But the fact is, we're there, whether it was worth it or not, and while pulling out now would save American lives, it'll make the overall geo-political situation vastly worse.

Quote by: ibm how credible is this news weeks after the london bombing? i very much doubt it, though i don’t see enough evidence to say the opposite.

It was a Pew study, which may or may not be accurate, but I suspect it was more so than not. I think the genuine shock of the British Muslim community speaks to that point.

.

[ibm]

Quote by: Sonart Don't get me wrong, ibm. I agree with you 100% and have been a critic of this war since rumors of it were first breathed in the summer of 2002. It was a bad idea, no matter how it was rationalized, and the error was compounded by the fact that the initial rationalization was simply wrong. But the fact is, we're there, whether it was worth it or not, and while pulling out now would save American lives, it'll make the overall geo-political situation vastly worse. ...

i think i had understood your position on this war and that's why i said "respectfully disagree".

yes, if we pull out now, like you said, the overall geo-political situation there is likely to get worse. but to me that is the cost, a terrible one if i may add, of our mistake (be it intentional or not) that we have to bear. on the other hand, by pulling out now, we sure can save lives, save money (and hopefully save it for better use), and stop creating hatred each and everyday.

compare the two, which one is a better action to go with? i think the answer is clear.

[dotcoma]

Sonart, if Iraq's security forces get stronger and help secure the area then we can surely have a better chance at reconstruction. You are right, pulling out is worse than trying to see if we can resolve this and complete the democratization. If we do then we will have a very powerful Arab-democratic ally who owes us.

Ibm, I am glad you are not in power. You say you see the consequences of pulling out as a cost that is worth while? Do you understand that terrorism at home for us would become far worse if we did so? It will cost more money and more lives to pull out now and let them re-group/use Iraq as a new terror state than will trying to stabilize it. We do need more allied help though.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart But the fact is, we're there, whether it was worth it or not, and while pulling out now would save American lives, it'll make the overall geo-political situation vastly worse.

Would it really make things worse? The only thing uniting the Iraqi insurgency is opposition to the infidel invader. Otherwise the Islamist insurgents and the nationalists might be fighting each other.

And in case no one has noticed, the US is losing the guerrilla war. The insurgency is growing and grows faster with each US military assault. The Iraqi government, defined by and operating under Occupation Authority rules, is seen increasingly as collaborators. The suggestion that we should "fight on to victory" will only guarantee defeat.

And dotcom, anyone who thinks that you can win a "culture war" with armor and high explosive, should really consider buying a clue.

[dotcoma]

Do not insult me Rick.

How can you judge who is indeed winning the war? We are building up internal security via the Iraqi police, and the culture war can only be solved once you have a clean pallette. That is, only when we have a relatively stable country to rebuild can we truly discourage the fundementalism that infects the entire region.

Also where is your evidence that the majority of Iraqis see us as the probmem? Sources...

[ibm]

Quote by: dotcoma Sonart, if Iraq's security forces get stronger and help secure the area then we can surely have a better chance at reconstruction. You are right, pulling out is worse than trying to see if we can resolve this and complete the democratization. If we do then we will have a very powerful Arab-democratic ally who owes us.

“democratization”? is that how you categorize what and why the us troops are doing over there? and “a very powerful Arab-democratic ally who owes us”? has such a thing ever existed?

Quote by: dotcoma Ibm, I am glad you are not in power. You say you see the consequences of pulling out as a cost that is worth while? Do you understand that terrorism at home for us would become far worse if we did so? It will cost more money and more lives to pull out now and let them re-group/use Iraq as a new terror state than will trying to stabilize it. We do need more allied help though.

“terrorism at home for us would become far worse if we did so” – that is your assumption and belief (as opposed to a fact). and it is contrary to what i believe. that’s why our opinions are different.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dotcoma Do not insult me Rick. How can you judge who is indeed winning the war? We are building up internal security via the Iraqi police, and the culture war can only be solved once you have a clean pallette. That is, only when we have a relatively stable country to rebuild can we truly discourage the fundementalism that infects the entire region. Also where is your evidence that the majority of Iraqis see us as the probmem? Sources...

What you take as an insult seems merely good advice to me.

Do you read the news? Gen. John Abizaid admits that the insurgency is not only not in it's "last throes" as Cheney claims but is at least as strong as a year ago. If he will admit this before Congress I suspect that the insurgency is in fact stronger than a year before. The article that this thread is based on is pretty clear evidence of what is going on. Fallujah was laid waste, 1,500 Iraqis killed, the city totally under US control, yet the insurgency is back. Fallujah not only didn't break the insurgencies back but became a rallying cry.

You comments about a "relatively stable country" are simply delusional. The Bush administration's "CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, a US counter-terrorism official said.... Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s, US officials say. "
Iraq insurgency may have international ramifications: CIA

I doubt that you read it but the former CIA chief, John Deutch, called for an immediate pull out of Iraq on tte New York Times OpEd page today.
Time to Pull Out. And Not Just From Iraq.

What do the Iraqis think? The last public opinion poll that I am aware of showed them opposed to the occupation by 80%.
80% in Iraq Distrust Occupation Authority

All your talk about "restructuring" the region and "winning" a culture war, (even as we are losing a shooting war), strikes me as simply self destructive imperialism. We will be paying for our stupidity in Iraq for decades to come. And the longer we stay they worse it will be.

[bishop]

Quote by: dotcoma It is a war that is meant to restructure a deeply messed-up ideology.

funny... i thought it was to protect us from wmd's in the wrong hands.. silly me.

let the iraqis die for their country.. if they feel it's worth saving, they can fight for it.


the best plan i've seen thus far (and only plan as a matter of fact) has been the one issued by the libertarian party.. dunno about the rest of you, but i've read it and found it to be very well thought out.