FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - The Iraqi government and U.S. commanders declared their offensive on rebel-held Falluja a success on Thursday but U.S. troops still faced dangers in the city and guerrillas attacked elsewhere in Iraq.
A U.S. Marine and an Iraqi soldier were killed before a tank "silenced" fighters holed up in Falluja. But the U.S. commander, Lieutenant-General John Sattler, declared his force had "broken the back of the insurgency" after killing some 1,200 militants and taking over 1,000 prisoners.(snip)But while 10 days of fighting had deprived guerrilla groups of a safe haven, a spokesman for Prime Minister Iyad Allawi conceded that many rebels had dispersed, posing threats elsewhere that U.S. and Iraqi authorities would have to counter.
Mata Musing: It should be obvious, to even the most naive, that these gutless cockroaches scatter to other friendly or unsuspecting digs at the first signs of eminent fighting with legitimate enemies. Meaning armed, coalition troops and not innocent women, children, frightened and oppressed Iraqis, and unarmed contractors.
This, on a small scale within Iraq, is no different than what happened between Afghanistan and (not only) Iraq prior to the US coalition invasion in March 2003. We know for a fact that Zarqawi raced to Baghdad, plus had comrades there to help continue to organize assaults on western interests from his hospital bed... all before we entered Iraq. We also know Saddam had relationships with AQ members, and actively supported anti-Israel terrorists groups with cash and whatever else they needed... all before we entered Iraq. There is no doubt the Oil for Food programme scandal promises to reveal even more about Saddam's ties with terrorists.
But I return to the cockroach theory as a foundation for the ever-ongoing-debate between Bush's "aggressive" response on the WOT, and that Kerry guy's suggestion that we call the Orkin man... aka, the UN... to take care of the task for us.
Lest you think my analogy is far fetched... allow me to quote from one pest control site on how to kill cockroaches:
Roaches can't help the fact that to most humans, they are unwanted company. It's funny, though, how these pesky insects can often make a grown man or woman scream, tremble and run for cover. If you have a roach problem and the Raid TM just isn't working, and if you want to get rid of roaches in your house, we have a 5 step cure that's proven to work.Step 1: Cut down on their food supplyStep 2: Hit'em Where They Hide!Step 3: Monitor, Monitor, Monitor! If you don't know where
they are, how can you kill all of them? By using monitors (sticky traps),
you can easily find "pockets" of roach hiding places, you may even find them in
places you never thought of.Step 4: Dry Up Their Water SupplyStep 5: Keep Them Out! To prevent roaches from migrating from
your neighbor's place to yours, seal up common roach entryways. (Mata add: even better, help your neighbors kill the investation to minimize the risk of reentry to your home)
The resemblence is uncanny, yes? Let's see now... cut off their (financial) food and water supply... doing that.
Hit 'em where they hide... we're doing that too, much to the chagrin of the world community
Monitor, monitor monitor... stepping up world intelligence everywhere... yep. Check.
KEEP them out! Seal up common roach entryways.... that would be border control and making other Middle East states less friendly to harboring terrorists. Doing better but we are no where close to what we need to be yet.
My point? The only way to whittle down the numbers of such an incidious pest is to not only aggressively go after them, but to keep making sure there are no places for them to run and hide and multiply.
Now... if we could just guess where they would scatter after the next battle, we could be waiting for them with a serious can of Raid!
4 comments:
Mata,..I've been saying something similar about Iran for awhile now. Prior to the election, the CW about Iran was: regardless of who was elected President, the US was going to have to stop relying on Europe as a third-party negotiator and meet Iran face-to-face at the bargaining table.
My take: Tell Iran this - 1)stop building that nuclear power plant or we'll drop a MOAB on it. 2) Stop supporting, financing, and abetting terrorists, or we'll pick off you bridges, your train stations, and your airports (thereby eliminating their infrastructure) until Iran complies.
BTW - What does MSM mean?
L8R!
TrekMed... how are you, guy?
Iran. Well now, that's a whole different ballgame. With Iraq, it was simple. It was run by a madman who loved, and had the capability of amassing and using WMDs. He and sons were S&M types.
Iran is structured so differently than Iraq's regime. Already it's experiencing it's own evolution for more freedom and western ways from citizens within. It's my first choice to see if we can tip that evolution over into reality by exerting proper pressure in just the right places. A fall from within for regime change is always preferable, and it's not like Iran is new to that approach.
i.e., you have the Irani youth, already demonstrating for change, cheering Bush and the US on. Demonstrating for many American-like causes is getting very common over there. What better allies for change than those who will assume power in the future? In our kids lies the possibility of "whirled peas".
Then, of course, the dang State has three branches of leadership... all usually at odds with each other. No doubt, being a three headed monster makes negotiations more difficult than usual. Getting all three to agree on the time of day is down near impossible. But one or two of those may not be all bad, so who do we make war with?
Lastly, there's that "olive branch" to the sour grapes crowd. Ala sticking with the international channel we've been on. Sure, we'll have to take a nap while the IAEA decides to refer to the UN Security Council.... who's no speedy Gonzales either.
All in all, I think Iran offers many more options prior to military than Iraq did. A good possible candidate for the Roosevelt saying "Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far."
But... I could be wrong.
Oh ya... MSM=main stream media. All this typing gets on everyone's nerves! So we find some shortcuts here and there. WOT=War on Terror. If you see something you don't recognize, just go over the usual talking point phraseology. I'll bet you'll figure it out. If not... ask. I have to often enough myself.
Mata, I hate to be a pessimist regarding Middle Eastern affairs, but it seems that this hope was tried before.
In '91, after we chased Saddam out of Kuwait, the CW was that he was weak and there would be a popular uprising against him.
In the ensuing years, the southern Iraqis from Basra tried and had their swamps drained by Saddam. To the north, the Kurds tried and thousands were gassed to death.
Everyone had hopes for Iran when Khatami made president, but all I see now are the same hardliners that ruled before Khatami arrived. As Colin Powell thinks, force should be the last resort, but it should be a consideration.
You're absolutely on the money in many ways, TrekMed.
But hoping oppressed Iraqis, under constant fear of torture and possible appearance in one of those mass graves, combined with the fact they've lived like that for generations, probably didn't give the much confidence to go against Saddam and his Republican Guard.
Not to mention the UN coalition didn't stick around, nor offer any assistance with an uprising.
But that was 1991. This is almost 2005, and much has changed. Awareness to the dangers of control by Islamic radicals is at an all time high.
We can only hope, yes? I'd give peace a chance for alot longer than I would Saddam's Iraq.
Post a Comment