A few days ago, I linked to Mark Kleiman's report that major operations in Iraq were on hold until after the U.S. election. Our readers said they doubted that report. It looks like our readers were right.
Yesterday's Iraq Report gave a lot of coverage to Fallujah and its al-Qaeda overlord Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, plus operations in Ramadi:
- Major operations targeting specific terrorist and insurgent strongholds are underway in Fallujah and in areas surroundig Mosul. This appears to be a widening of the scope of operations, which recently yielded success in Sammara. Some Fallujah residents are taking things into their own hands and targeting foreign terrorists, there are reports of division among the insurgent groups (which may not be an accident, thanks to the steady collection of intel over the past year), and Iraqi PM Allawi is working to help those trends along.
- In Ramadi, elements of the 1st Marine Division are pursuing insurgents aggressively - mosques are no longer safe havens for insurgent operations.
Maybe it's just me, but that plus action retaking Samarra looks pretty busy to me. Still, the big question was always when the allies would go after Fallujah. Most people figured that would be after the American election. Well... surprise!
Military operations in Fallujah commenced last night, with 2 battalions of Marines, some Iraqi forces, plus air, artillery, and helicopter support. The Pentagon is pointedly noting that they may choose to expand the operation if they see an opportunity, and after "The Battle of Thunder Run", this means the battle could get bigger in a hurry.
Semper Fi to the Marines, and godspeed. Go get 'em.
Here's a bit of wild speculation... maybe that 'postpone until after the election' story was a part of an intelligence operation directed at the terrorists, but which got picked up by the media. Maybe the story getting picked up by the media was part of the plan, too, so as to increase surprise factor once the offensive began.
Let's see if ground ops are combined with the air ops. Air ops don't create US casualties. (With civillian deaths, they probably don't work wonders in the hearts-and-minds battle, either, but maybe in Fallujah we concede that aspect.)
It seems someone really is keeping their eye on the ball. While half of a divided America listens to a blowhard squawking about the wrong war, tora bora, and how he'd hunt down and kill the terrorists (if the UN says its OK), we should all thank God for those who are really doing the hardwork and sacrifice for freedom. Go get 'em Marines.
Green, that last comment was ironic right?
Plus, Joe, did it occur to you that air ops might be counterproductive to actually taking back Falluja, but productive of the headlines you are so gleefully linking too? The military operations in Iraq have been consistently bungled in favor of Washington's priorities, which sadly now included the reelection of President Bush. This is not doing our Marines a favor.
Someone should tell the president our professionals need to be able to do their jobs.
No one can possibly think President Bush understands anything about Iraq or the state of the world after seeing the debates. He's out of touch, out of line, and out of breath for a second term. Wishful thinking can only take you so far. Given his life experiences, one must come to the conclusion that Mr. Bush wills failure, and the Republican Party, by attaching itself to him, must want it too.
Independent George, you may be right. But it's probably just the usual unnamed source policy-spinning leak b.s., rather than brilliance. Still, whatever works, right?
Praktike, air ops and ground ops did appear to be combined here. I'll add for our readers that America's capabilities in this area far outstrip many of its NATO allies, due to investments made over the last 15 years (which, note, includes Clinton's term).
Hamid, I consider air strikes in Fallujah to be productive. Indeed, they are an exact example of professionals doing their jobs since the military (and this mission seems to be run by the Marines, so I'll go with their view on what does them favours) determines the missions. Your proposal to ban air strikes and second-guess the commanders on the ground would be an example of NOT letting the professionals do the job... but you seem to miss the irony.
It's also interesting that given news which seems to pretty conclusively show that allegations of Washington politics being in the way of necessary ops are unfounded, you simply repeat the charge without even an eyeblink.
As for your last paragraph, fisking it would require it to have a point in the first place.
Finally, I too believe that we should recognize those doing the hard work on the ground here. But we can't just salute the Marines, Green. Many Iraqis are putting it on the line too.
Joe, I refer you to Spencer Ackerman's blog to rebut your assertions. History has numerous examples of the counterproductivity of indiscriminate airstrikes in the case of a guerilla war in an urban zone. Imagine the terror of the civilians as we risk no man-power to "tame" the city. Just what are we doing? And in what way are the means suited towards the ends?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd
It's also interesting that given news which seems to pretty conclusively show that allegations of Washington politics being in the way of necessary ops are unfounded, you simply repeat the charge without even an eyeblink.
That's because I find the news supporting such allegations to be more (though not always) credible. This administration ressembles Nixon's -- politics first, government second. That, unfortunately, has been a consistent and troubling aspect of the executive branch under President Bush's rule.
They cannot credibly point to the results of their policies and proclaim success. On almost all counts, disasters are the norm; goals are unmet; and our long-term and short-term national health suffers. (This is if you take their stated intentions as is, without attempts at deconstruction....)
Unfortunately, we are not safer under Bush than we were under Clinton. Hopefully Kerry can do better, though he has his work cut out for him!
Hamid: “History has numerous examples of the counterproductivity of indiscriminate airstrikes in the case of a guerilla war in an urban zone.”
Wow, history tells about the morale effect of pinpoint accurate bombing of specific buildings which according to informants and remote controlled aerial observation are hosting terrorists? Bombing which leaves the neighboring buildings intact. I wasn’t aware that a “history” of such military technology had been written.
Oh, wait. You said “indiscriminate”. You must be talking about the war in your head, instead of the war in Iraq.
Wow, history tells about the morale effect of pinpoint accurate bombing of specific buildings which according to informants and remote controlled aerial observation are hosting terrorists?
Fly, I don't really want to bicker here, but "pinpoint" is not an accurate description of the airstrikes we're doing. Furthermore, what makes you so sure that our informants -- if we even have any in an official no-go zone -- are correct? This is war: there is no such thing as "pinpoint accuracy" or killing without mistakes. The most important factor in all of this is we're trying to take over the city and that means winning hearts and minds. You think if a building located next to the one you're sitting in blows up it's not going to scare the f*cking sh*t out of you? And if your kid happened to be playing on the sidewalk in front of it, that's no problem, go Yankees!
Get real.