Fallujah Handed Over....to Former Saddam General??

The Marines on the ground in Iraq and the folks in Washington appeared to have a failure to communicate.


Even more astounding, the guy our neoconservatives hand picked to lead Iraq is letting the *Iranians* know what we're up to for some reason.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4881157/

Intelligence: A Double Game
Has Chalabi given 'sensitive' information on U.S. interests to Iran? He denies it, but the White House is wary
By Mark Hosenball
Newsweek

May 10 issue - Ahmad Chalabi, the longtime Pentagon favorite to become leader of a free Iraq, has never made a secret of his close ties to Iran. Before the U.S. invasion of Baghdad, Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress maintained a $36,000-a-month branch office in Tehran—funded by U.S. taxpayers. INC representatives, including Chalabi himself, paid regular visits to the Iranian capital. Since the war, Chalabi's contacts with Iran may have intensified: a Chalabi aide says that since December, he has met with most of Iran's top leaders, including supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his top national-security aide, Hassan Rowhani. "Iran is Iraq's neighbor, and it is in Iraq's interest to have a good relationship with Iran," Chalabi's aide says
.
.
.

 

We're running around like a chicken with its head cut off now.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60444-2004May2.html

.S. Plan for Fallujah Hits Snag
Former Iraqi Soldiers Will Not Restore Order in Fallujah
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, May 2, 2004; 5:13 PM


FALLUJAH, Iraq, May 2 -- The U.S. Marine plan to have former Iraqi soldiers restore order in Fallujah ran into trouble Sunday as the former Iraqi general heading the new force denied there were any foreign fighters in the city, calling into question his commitment to American military objectives. A few hours later, the top U.S. military commander said the general would not be allowed to lead the scores of armed men he already has mustered in the city.

.
.
.

 

Can someone explain why we launched this attack against Fallujah? Hundreds of U.S. soldiers have been killed in this conflict, yet these deaths did not lead to all out assaults on cities to "bring their killers to justice." Why did the killing of four civilian contractors lead to this kind of response? Was it just because the desecration of their bodies was broadcast on T.V.? Should our military policy be determined by this?

 

Gifford, I wish we could get some spineless member of the media to ask that question of one of the talking heads trying to spin the POW mistreatment.

 

That's the story that's been succesfully buried, at least in the States. That Fallujah was a terrible strategic defeat for the US.

We drew a line in the sand, we made all kinds of proclamations about teaching them a lesson, making a stand; we established that this would be an example of US military might. We would overwhelm them until the perpetrators were named or turned over. We would show them who'se boss.

And we didn't do it. Around the world it was widely discussed, but at home it hardly recieved any mention from the liberal, anti-war media. Strange.

As far as the decision to NOT put Saddam's general in charge, I'd underplay the whole flip-flop aspect, and concentrate on at least making the correct decision in the end. Yeay, we're in a no win situation of our own making, but the right decision amidst the wrong war is still the right decision. If it wasn't the first one, criticize the first choice and those who made it, but don't criticize the second just to criticize.

 

I wonder how our people feel about not going through with the Fallujah operation. The interviews I saw with the Marines via CNN, etc. up until this "flip-flop" in tactics showed Marines ready to kick as* and take names. They really were psyched to go. Does this give a blow to their moral after such a buildup? Or are they just relieved that they're not following through with the assault. I know a sense of relief would be natural, but I would think a big let-down would be as well. And everything would point at there being an imminent assault that was called off.

Not going into Fallujah, combined with the on-going insurrection, combined with an undefined Middle Eastern policy, combined with this horrible torture/photo scandal makes for one hell of an image of the United States... a United States beset with an incoherent foreign policy along with leadership adrift that's not having a clue as to what it's doing in Iraq and elsewhere. That is, at the very least, how we're being seen around the world, regardless of how you feel politically here. This invasion of Iraq has turned into a body blow as far as our relations with the rest of the world and the respect, or rather the lack of it, that we have now.

I fail to see any sign of "strong leadership" from this Administration. Frankly, it's amazing to me that it has that perception with as many people as the polls show, even if the number is declining.

 

It's even worse than that. It wasn't just a simple before the fact reconsideration. They tried. They were launching the preliminary stages, encountering much stiffer and more widespread resistance than expected, and pulled back. That couple with the uprisings in other areas lead them to call it off, because we somply don;t have enough troops, and because the reaction across Iraq showed us where sympathies would lie if we did try.

 

It's still early but it appears we have let some Republican Guard general march into Fallujah with 1000 *reinforcements* for the guerillas already there.

Great strategy.

 

I don't understand how someone can interpret this handover of power as a positive for the US military. The Iraqi insurgents have won a major victory and are celebrating it as such. They inflicted heavy losses on our troops, never relented to our demands to turn over weapons, and now they are in control of their city again as we pull out. This kind of defiance will quickly spread to other areas of Iraq causing endless headaches for our troops.

 

OK we handed it over to someone whom we replaced and he hired the guy we didn't like back again.


http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=9893

.
.
.
I am the Fallujah commander," Latif said, answering his detractors in Washington who have questioned his track record and that of General Jassim Mohammed Saleh, who is tapped to lead the brigade's first battalion.

"General Saleh is on my staff," Latif said.

Latif said he doubted any foreign fighters were left in the city, although the marines have demanded the Fallujah Brigade hand over foreigners they blame for leading the fight against them last month that left hundreds of Iraqis dead.

.
.
.