Common Sense Breaks Out in Fallujah

[CaptainChewbacca]

Here's a fun article

Iraqi General Appointed to Security Force Rallies Fallujah Elders to Support U.S. Marines
5/16/04 6:54PM GMT
By KATARINA KRATOVAC , Associated Press Writer

A former Saddam Hussein-era general appointed by the Americans to lead an Iraqi security force in the rebellious Sunni stronghold of Fallujah urged tribal elders and sheiks Sunday to support U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq.

Retired Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdul-Latif rose to prominence after nearly monthlong battles last month between the Marines monthlong battles in April between the Marines and insurgents hunkered down in Fallujah's neighborhoods.

"We can make them (Americans) use their rifles against us or we can make them build our country, it's your choice," Latif told a gathering of more than 40 sheiks, city council members and imams in an eastern Fallujah suburb.

The siege of this city of 200,000 people, located about 40 miles west of Baghdad, was lifted when top Marine officers announced the creation of the Fallujah Brigade - a force made exclusively of former Iraqi army officers.

The Marines withdrew from Fallujah into the rural hinterland and far-flung suburbs, allowing the Iraqi force to take up positions and start patrols inside the city. The brigade is expected to number about 1,500 men, many of them conscripts or noncommissioned officers under Saddam.

They are expected to fight the guerrillas, although some of the same insurgents who fought the Marines last month will likely join the brigade.

On Sunday, Marines of the 1st Battalion, 5th Regiment provided security for the gathering in Kharma.

Latif, 66, a native of Baghdad, urged the elders to talk freely, citing the Muslim holy book, the Quran.

"The Quran says we should sit together, discuss and make a decision, but let it be the right decision," the silver-haired Latif - a slim figure wearing a blue shirt and dark blue tie and pants - told the sheiks.

The venue offered a rare insight into Latif's interactions and influence over Fallujah elders. As he spoke, many sheiks nodded in approval and listened with reverence to his words. Later, they clasped his hands and patted Latif on the back.

Latif, speaking in Arabic to the sheiks, defended the Marines and the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"They were brought here by the acts of one coward who was hunted out of a rathole - Saddam - who disgraced us all," Latif said. "Let us tell our children that these men (U.S. troops) came here to protect us.

"As President Bush said, they did not come here to occupy our land but to get rid of Saddam. We can help them leave by helping them do their job, or we can make them stay ten years and more by keeping fighting."

Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne, the Marine battalion commander, said, "No truer words have been spoken here today than those by General Latif."

Latif also told the insurgents to "stop doing stupid things."

"Those bullets that are fired will not get the Americans out, let them finish their job here so that they can return to their country," Latif said.

"Our country is precious, stop allowing the bad guys to come from outside Iraq to destroy our country."

Latif, a former military intelligence officer said to have been imprisoned by Saddam and exiled, praised the former Iraqi army.

"The army used to be honest until Saddam made the men turn into beasts, take bribes, betray their own country," he said. "The real army is the army that works hard to serve its own citizens, with courage and strength."

After the meeting, Latif told The Associated Press that the situation in Fallujah has greatly improved, that "winds of peace" prevail in the city and the people that fled the fighting have returned. He would not elaborate on the size or current activities of the Fallujah Brigade.

"Let us speak about peace," Latif said in English. "Fallujah was an open wound, now it's healing."

Emphasis mine. Can it be that cooler heads might prevail?

[Howedar]

Wow, never thought I'd see the day. We can only hope people listen.

[jegs2]

Even if the insurgents hold off until most US forces left, that woud be a much wiser course of action than continuing their attacks against the Coalition and the Iraqi government and infrastructure. Once we left, the insurgents would have a mostly free hand. I cannot see why they haven't looked at it that way before, unless they're more stupid than I thought.

[Darth Wong]

Even if the insurgents hold off until most US forces left, that woud be a much wiser course of action than continuing their attacks against the Coalition and the Iraqi government and infrastructure. Once we left, the insurgents would have a mostly free hand. I cannot see why they haven't looked at it that way before, unless they're more stupid than I thought.

They don't believe you will ever leave. When the US set up bases in Saudi Arabia for Gulf War I, a guy named Osama warned darkly that they would not leave after the war ended, and they didn't. Similarly, the Bush Administration talks about leaving Iraq but they also talk about "enduring bases" and it's pretty clear that they won't allow Iraq to self-govern until they're reasonably assured that it will "self-govern" in a manner which is consistent with US interests.

[Joe]

"We can make them (Americans) use their rifles against us or we can make them build our country, it's your choice," Latif told a gathering of more than 40 sheiks, city council members and imams in an eastern Fallujah suburb.

Lovely line.

[CaptainChewbacca]

They don't believe you will ever leave. When the US set up bases in Saudi Arabia for Gulf War I, a guy named Osama warned darkly that they would not leave after the war ended, and they didn't. Similarly, the Bush Administration talks about leaving Iraq but they also talk about "enduring bases" and it's pretty clear that they won't allow Iraq to self-govern until they're reasonably assured that it will "self-govern" in a manner which is consistent with US interests.

I'm almost positive the Saudis asked us to stay.

[jegs2]

They don't believe you will ever leave. When the US set up bases in Saudi Arabia for Gulf War I, a guy named Osama warned darkly that they would not leave after the war ended, and they didn't. Similarly, the Bush Administration talks about leaving Iraq but they also talk about "enduring bases" and it's pretty clear that they won't allow Iraq to self-govern until they're reasonably assured that it will "self-govern" in a manner which is consistent with US interests.

Yes, we do tend to leave garrisons, as have most imperial powers done in the past. However, one or two garrisons left behind is not comparible to a couple hundred thousand well-armed troops in the form of combat divisions and brigades on the ground, policing towns and roadways. The propensity of the US is to increase numbers of troops to a trouble area, rather than withdrawl as would most other nations. A notable exception was Somolia, but then that is one of the sources of inspiration for modern insurgents who face US armed forces.

[RogueIce]

They don't believe you will ever leave. When the US set up bases in Saudi Arabia for Gulf War I, a guy named Osama warned darkly that they would not leave after the war ended, and they didn't. Similarly, the Bush Administration talks about leaving Iraq but they also talk about "enduring bases" and it's pretty clear that they won't allow Iraq to self-govern until they're reasonably assured that it will "self-govern" in a manner which is consistent with US interests.

Yes, we do tend to leave garrisons, as have most imperial powers done in the past. However, one or two garrisons left behind is not comparible to a couple hundred thousand well-armed troops in the form of combat divisions and brigades on the ground, policing towns and roadways. The propensity of the US is to increase numbers of troops to a trouble area, rather than withdrawl as would most other nations. A notable exception was Somolia, but then that is one of the sources of inspiration for modern insurgents who face US armed forces.

I think they're taking that one the wrong way. The warlords and stuff didn't bother with fighting the 2000 or so US Marines when they first landed. They waited for the heavy duty forces to withdraw, and then went and got their "victory" against the relatively few Rangers.

Well, this is sort of like this. They're far more likely to score a pullout if they attack the garrisons we may or may not leave behind, rather than the massive forces we have in there now. Right now, the thinking, generally, would be against a pullout (it's our mess, we need to clean it up). I'd think they'd have more success against the garrison forces, not just because they'd tend to be less "combat-oriented" and lighter armed and armored than the combat troops we have now, but the homefront thinking will likely be different (we stabilised them, right? It's their country now, so why are our boys still dying over there?)

Just my two cents.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, we do tend to leave garrisons, as have most imperial powers done in the past. However, one or two garrisons left behind is not comparible to a couple hundred thousand well-armed troops in the form of combat divisions and brigades on the ground, policing towns and roadways. The propensity of the US is to increase numbers of troops to a trouble area, rather than withdrawl as would most other nations. A notable exception was Somolia, but then that is one of the sources of inspiration for modern insurgents who face US armed forces.

Of course, another possibility is that they are simply so enraged that they don't give a shit, and just want to do anything that will make Americans unhappy.

[jegs2]

Of course, another possibility is that they are simply so enraged that they don't give a shit, and just want to do anything that will make Americans unhappy.

If that is the case, then they seem to be meeting with some success. Unfortunately for them, that will lead only to more US forces on the ground.

[KrauserKrauser]

Of course, another possibility is that they are simply so enraged that they don't give a shit, and just want to do anything that will make Americans unhappy.

If that is the case, then they seem to be meeting with some success. Unfortunately for them, that will lead only to more US forces on the ground.

And more of both sides dead on the streets.

[Illuminatus Primus]

They don't believe you will ever leave. When the US set up bases in Saudi Arabia for Gulf War I, a guy named Osama warned darkly that they would not leave after the war ended, and they didn't. Similarly, the Bush Administration talks about leaving Iraq but they also talk about "enduring bases" and it's pretty clear that they won't allow Iraq to self-govern until they're reasonably assured that it will "self-govern" in a manner which is consistent with US interests.

I'm almost positive the Saudis asked us to stay.

They did. However, it was our incompetence in not finishing the Republican Guard and supporting the Marsh Arabs/Kurds/Shi'as that made us have to stay because there was still a percieved threat from Saddam.