Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pacifier
WTF?
are you actually reading some of the articles?
he was left there by the mariens a day before! already captured and injured
|
Before I have an aneurysm, or get a triple-lifetime ban, I'll just say this: Let's just agree to disagree here, and move on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
the bigger question is about the campaign itself--what i posted above remains unaddressed here and a problem insofar as making judgements from press accounts is concerned. but the "battle of fallujah" seems to have been less than a ringing success, insofar as "crushing the insurgents" is concerned....
|
Incorrect. The 'battle of fallujah' was an overwhelmingly successful miltary campaign any way you look at it. This could have been a bloodbath of American casualties (see: Grozny). It was planned by the world's most intelligent and experienced battle commanders, employing the most technologically advanced weaponry every used on a battlefield. It took one week, ONE WEEK!!, to take back Fallujah from the insurgents. It was a skilled, disciplined, comprehensive victory, looking at it from an historic viewpoint.
The problem now is ENTIRLEY a political one; proper governance and security of the city are the main questions. I think the Americans could learn a thing or two from the British about diplomacy, civil affairs, and post-combat operations, where they have failed miserably in my opinion. The Americans have continually shown their adeptness at snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. Like I said, its one step forward, 2 steps back. If they continue to be unable to consolidate their military victories into political progress, then civil war is inevitable.