Marines unable to take Fallujah

[Bob Coe]

The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years." He said that until that
time, they will have to "rely on the Air Force ability to collect airborne
intelligence," and try and "plink them into submission."

"They have enough weapons and men to hold us off longer than
the Knights Templar in the same situation. Unless we are given
orders to destroy the city, it will continue to be a thorn in the sides
of any democratic Iraqi regime."

It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Marines unable to take Fallujah
>From: "Bob Coe"
>Date: 9/24/2004 9:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <YyX4d.79$gk.33@okepread01>
>
>The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
>not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years." He said that until that
>time, they will have to "rely on the Air Force ability to collect airborne
>intelligence," and try and "plink them into submission."
>
>"They have enough weapons and men to hold us off longer than
>the Knights Templar in the same situation. Unless we are given
>orders to destroy the city, it will continue to be a thorn in the sides
>of any democratic Iraqi regime."
>
>It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.
>

It's NAM all over again. Politicians running the show. Rumsfeld gotta go.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ibm]

Bob Coe wrote:

> The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
> not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years." He said that until that
> time, they will have to "rely on the Air Force ability to collect airborne
> intelligence," and try and "plink them into submission."
>
> "They have enough weapons and men to hold us off longer than
> the Knights Templar in the same situation. Unless we are given
> orders to destroy the city, it will continue to be a thorn in the sides
> of any democratic Iraqi regime."
>
> It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.

Well yeah, Marines denied the opportunity to "secure"
a target aren't happy campers.
The Marines could take Fallujah in very short order if the
gloves came off.
Taking the city and minimizing civilian casualties is another
thig entirely though.
Fallujah can be contained and the moderately successful "pick
them off remotely" strategy can continue. There is already
evidence that some inhabitants of Fallujah have had it up to
here with the insurgents and are ready to drop a dime on them.
The insurgents want to lure US Forces into the constricted
areas of a crowded city. They have no compunction at all about
causing civilian casualties remember. Why should we let them
dictate the terms of engagement.

IBM


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Bob Coe]

"ibm" > wrote
>
> There is already
> evidence that some inhabitants of Fallujah have had it up to
> here with the insurgents and are ready to drop a dime on them.

According to my son, who just came back after an 18 month tour,
he says most of the women, children, and old people have left
Fallujah. It's basically a "Deadwood" now, and he couldn't figure
out why we still let them have electricity and water??

But he never got within 50 miles of the place, spending most of his
time in Najaf, and Baghdad (Firebase Melody and Camp Marlboro).

[stop spam]

Bob Coe wrote:
> The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
> not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years." He said that until that
> time, they will have to "rely on the Air Force ability to collect airborne
> intelligence," and try and "plink them into submission."
>
> "They have enough weapons and men to hold us off longer than
> the Knights Templar in the same situation. Unless we are given
> orders to destroy the city, it will continue to be a thorn in the sides
> of any democratic Iraqi regime."
>
> It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.

Why is this a sad day for the Corps?

The Corps could take the city in a matter of days, IF they were given
unlimited ROE. It's just not a reasonable move to allow them
unrestricted ROE.

Unfortunately, especially given the terrorists expertise is setting up
ambushes and situations designed to cause the highest rate of civilian
causalities (and none of the media ever bother trying to determine whose
bullets killed the civilians), this would cause even more damage to the
US side than if the US stays outside of Fallujah and waits them out.

At some point the civilians will get tired of the terrorists ruling
their town and either throw them out themselves or start providing
enough intelligence to allow the US to do so.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
news:YyX4d.79$gk.33@okepread01...
> The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
> not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years." He said that until that
> time, they will have to "rely on the Air Force ability to collect airborne
> intelligence," and try and "plink them into submission."

Where did this come from? A Google News search reveals no such comments from
the Commandant. The closest I could find were a couple of weeks old, and
your translation is NOT what he really said:

"There doesn't seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel," Marine Corps
spokesman Maj. Jason Johnson said Tuesday. "But it's not that kind of
conflict where you have big tactical victories that make everybody feel good
about things." Johnson referred to a recent message by Marine Corps
Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee, who told a gathering of reporters at the
National Press Club that he aimed for a long-term win ---- or Big W,' as he
put it ---- in Iraq. "We don't want a 'Little W,'" Hagee said, according to
the Defense Department's news service. "There is no one in Iraq who does not
understand that if we wanted to come in and level Fallujah, level Ramadi,
level An-Najaf, we could do that, but that's not mission accomplishment.
That's the 'Little W.' We need the 'Big W' here."

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/09/08/military/15_15_379_7_04.txt

What is the source?

Brooks

>
> "They have enough weapons and men to hold us off longer than
> the Knights Templar in the same situation. Unless we are given
> orders to destroy the city, it will continue to be a thorn in the sides
> of any democratic Iraqi regime."
>
> It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.
>
>

[Krztalizer]

>
>But he never got within 50 miles of the place, spending most of his
>time in Najaf, and Baghdad (Firebase Melody and Camp Marlboro).

There was a video on the web a while back of FB Melody taking a rocket attack.
Glad your son is home safe, Bob!

The names of these temporary military encampments is always interesting. In
the closing days of WWII, tens of thousands of Allied bomber crewmen were
released from German captivity - they were sheparded into large tent cities
where they could be sorted out. The biggest was Camp Lucky Strike. I guess
the cigarette lobby was pretty powerful even back then...

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Marines unable to take Fallujah
>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 9/24/2004 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>But he never got within 50 miles of the place, spending most of his
>>time in Najaf, and Baghdad (Firebase Melody and Camp Marlboro).
>
>There was a video on the web a while back of FB Melody taking a rocket
>attack.
>Glad your son is home safe, Bob!
>
>The names of these temporary military encampments is always interesting. In
>the closing days of WWII, tens of thousands of Allied bomber crewmen were
>released from German captivity - they were sheparded into large tent cities
>where they could be sorted out. The biggest was Camp Lucky Strike. I guess
>the cigarette lobby was pretty powerful even back then...
>
>v/r
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
>Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.
>

Therre were lots of camps named after cigarettes. I went through Camp Pall Mall
when I rotated home in July of 1946. There was also a Camp Chesterfield.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dav1936531]

>From: "Bob Coe"
><YyX4d.79$gk.33@okepread01>
>
>The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
>not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years."
><snip>
>It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.

The real ****er is that, during the Marines initial assault on Fallujah after
the contractor killings and burnings there, the Marines had the entirety of the
Fallujah insurgents pinned in a box in the north east sector (IIRC) of the
city. A couple of B-52 loads could have ended any problems there.

Sure, it would have appeared brutal. And the French would have screamed bloody
murder. But these insurgents RESPECT brutality only. They feared the Marine
snipers more then any other force.

Now we have some 140 or more hostages being held. And beheading videos.

The insurgents in Iraq are "Monkey see. Monkey do." Insurgents watched a
negotiated ending to the Marines assault on Fallujah, came to believe they can
just push the US forces around, and consequently, insurgents have popped up in
a wide variety of other places....thinking they can push the US forces around.

If the US had dealt in a merciless and brutal fashion with the Fallujah
insurgency, the remainder of anyone leaning towards insurgency wouldn't be
quite so ready to leap out into the street to create problems.

Missed opportunity the first time around in Fallujah. Should have pulled up the
B-52's and let the entirety of Iraq know that we are serious. Big mistake not
to have.
Dave

[Bob Coe]

"Dav1936531" > wrote
>
> If the US had dealt in a merciless and brutal fashion with the Fallujah
> insurgency, the remainder of anyone leaning towards insurgency wouldn't be
> quite so ready to leap out into the street to create problems.

Which is pretty much how Saddam controlled things. Maybe he wasn't
so bad after all? Maybe the people he killed deserved to die?

The U.S. has probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. The
streets of Najaf were running with Shiite blood. Something never seen
after the Kuwait war.

[Dav1936531]

>From: "Bob Coe"
>Date: 9/24/04 9:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <%L35d.152$gk.35@okepread01>

>>"Dav1936531" > wrote
>> If the US had dealt in a merciless and brutal fashion with the Fallujah
insurgency, the remainder of anyone leaning towards insurgency wouldn't be
quite so ready to leap out into the street to create problems.<<

>Which is pretty much how Saddam controlled things. Maybe he wasn't
>so bad after all? Maybe the people he killed deserved to die?
>
>The U.S. has probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. The
>streets of Najaf were running with Shiite blood. Something never seen
>after the Kuwait war.

Exactly my point. If the US had put down the rebellion in Fallujah, Moqutada
Sadr never would have hijacked Najaf.

Monkey see...monkey do.

Moqutada Sadr came to the conclusion that the US would deal with him weakly,
and as a result, more Iraqis have been killed then if he had gotten the message
early on that any insurgency from his group would be ruthlessly crushed. He
wouldn't have dared to hijack Najaf had he gotten that message.

Instead, sending weak signals is allowing a creeping lawlessness to set in.
Anarchy could be the end result of these improper signals. If complete anarchy
is allowed to break out, the Iraqi dead will number in the hundreds of
thousands. The car bombings, etc. have already killed 700-1000 (not sure of the
numbers) police and Iraqi National Guard recruits.

Much better (and fewer dead) to send strong signals up front that a new social
order is being created, and that that social order is to be respected. Had we
smoked the insurgency in Fallujah, I think our problems pacifying the current
insurgency would be much fewer.

It's all Monday morning quarterbacking now though.
Dave

[Jarg]

"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
news:%L35d.152$gk.35@okepread01...
> "Dav1936531" > wrote
>>
>> If the US had dealt in a merciless and brutal fashion with the Fallujah
>> insurgency, the remainder of anyone leaning towards insurgency wouldn't
>> be
>> quite so ready to leap out into the street to create problems.
>
> Which is pretty much how Saddam controlled things. Maybe he wasn't
> so bad after all? Maybe the people he killed deserved to die?
>
> The U.S. has probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.



This last sentence pretty much destroys your credibility.


The
> streets of Najaf were running with Shiite blood. Something never seen
> after the Kuwait war.
>
>

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Jarg

[Steve Hix]

In article <%L35d.152$gk.35@okepread01>, "Bob Coe" >
wrote:

> The U.S. has probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

Not even close. The low counts for Saddam run around 300K dead.

> The streets of Najaf were running with Shiite blood. Something never seen
> after the Kuwait war.

You sort of missed out on the post-GW1 fighting in both north and south,
not to mention Kurds being gassed. I suppose that would result in less
blood.

[Bob Coe]

"Jarg" > wrote
> "Bob Coe" > wrote
>> "Dav1936531" > wrote
>>>
>>> If the US had dealt in a merciless and brutal fashion with the Fallujah
>>> insurgency, the remainder of anyone leaning towards insurgency wouldn't be
>>> quite so ready to leap out into the street to create problems.
>>
>> Which is pretty much how Saddam controlled things. Maybe he wasn't
>> so bad after all? Maybe the people he killed deserved to die?
>>
>> The U.S. has probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.
>
> This last sentence pretty much destroys your credibility.

Why is that?

> The
>> streets of Najaf were running with Shiite blood. Something never seen
>> after the Kuwait war.
>
> You really don't know what you are talking about.
>
> Jarg

What is the official Shiite casualties?

The number given by the U.S. Army is Unknown, but several thousand
wounded, and several hundred dead (300 - 600 probable killed).

[Bob Coe]

"Steve Hix" > wrote
> "Bob Coe" > wrote:
>
>> The U.S. has probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.
>
> Not even close. The low counts for Saddam run around 300K dead.

Hell, the UN oil for food, killed at least that many.

Right now, the suicide rate in Baghdad is over 1000 a month.

[BUFDRVR]

Bob Coe wrote:

>Right now, the suicide rate in Baghdad is over 1000 a month.
>
>

You've got a source for this claim I imagine?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"Dav1936531" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Bob Coe"
>><YyX4d.79$gk.33@okepread01>
>>
>>The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
>>not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years."
>><snip>
>>It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.
>
> The real ****er is that,

No, the real ****er is that these alleged comments from GEN Hagee don't seem
to show up anywhere in press accounts. Until somebody can point to a source,
this sounds a bit fishy.

Brooks

<snip>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
news:%L35d.152$gk.35@okepread01...
> "Dav1936531" > wrote
>>
>> If the US had dealt in a merciless and brutal fashion with the Fallujah
>> insurgency, the remainder of anyone leaning towards insurgency wouldn't
>> be
>> quite so ready to leap out into the street to create problems.
>
> Which is pretty much how Saddam controlled things. Maybe he wasn't
> so bad after all?

Yes, he was.

> Maybe the people he killed deserved to die?

You can't really think that.

>
> The U.S. has probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.

Very doubtful.

The
> streets of Najaf were running with Shiite blood. Something never seen
> after the Kuwait war.

Uhhmm...not to rain on your rant, but again, what is the SOURCE for these
alleged comments by the CMC? A Google of news reports for "Hagee Fallujah"
does not turn up any reference to the comments you quoted and claimed were
his. So...where's the beef?

Brooks
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
news:YW45d.158$gk.122@okepread01...
> "Jarg" > wrote
>> "Bob Coe" > wrote
>>> "Dav1936531" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> If the US had dealt in a merciless and brutal fashion with the Fallujah
>>>> insurgency, the remainder of anyone leaning towards insurgency wouldn't
>>>> be
>>>> quite so ready to leap out into the street to create problems.
>>>
>>> Which is pretty much how Saddam controlled things. Maybe he wasn't
>>> so bad after all? Maybe the people he killed deserved to die?
>>>
>>> The U.S. has probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.
>>
>> This last sentence pretty much destroys your credibility.
>
> Why is that?

Because you obviously are not in touch with reality if you think that is the
case.

>
>> The
>>> streets of Najaf were running with Shiite blood. Something never seen
>>> after the Kuwait war.
>>
>> You really don't know what you are talking about.
>>
>> Jarg
>
> What is the official Shiite casualties?
>
> The number given by the U.S. Army is Unknown, but several thousand
> wounded, and several hundred dead (300 - 600 probable killed).

Do you know how many tens of *thousands* they believe are buried in Saddam's
mass graves? Ever see the reports of the remains disentered by the Kurds
alone after just *one* of the mass grave areas in their region was
liberated?

Now, what is the source for your alleged quote from the CMC?

Brooks
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Coe wrote:
>
>>Right now, the suicide rate in Baghdad is over 1000 a month.
>>
>>
>
> You've got a source for this claim I imagine?

Hell, he won't even come clean with a source for the rather odd alleged
quotes he started this thread with.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
> harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Steve Hix]

In article <H355d.159$gk.129@okepread01>, "Bob Coe" >
wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote
> > "Bob Coe" > wrote:
> >
> >> The U.S. has probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.
> >
> > Not even close. The low counts for Saddam run around 300K dead.
>
> Hell, the UN oil for food, killed at least that many.

Of course, it was all the US' fault that Saddam & Co. diverted the funds
received from the oil sales to building more modest bungalows for him
and his winsome sons.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

> Right now, the suicide rate in Baghdad is over 1000 a month.

Cite?

[JStONGE123]

BS. The Marines are playing pattycake with them. We don't want to look the
oppressor. Thats for the Iraqi people.




The Durango 95 purred away real horrorshow. A nice warm vibratey feeling all
through your guttiwuts.

[Frijoles]

Amen Kevin. "Bob Coe" provides no links or sources for the Hagee "quotes"
around which this thread was started. Next "Bob Coe" says, "...The U.S. has
probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did....". And then with his
credibility challenged he slinks silently back under the rock he crawled out
from under.


"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dav1936531" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: "Bob Coe"
> >><YyX4d.79$gk.33@okepread01>
> >>
> >>The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
> >>not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years."
> >><snip>
> >>It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.
> >
> > The real ****er is that,
>
> No, the real ****er is that these alleged comments from GEN Hagee don't
seem
> to show up anywhere in press accounts. Until somebody can point to a
source,
> this sounds a bit fishy.
>
> Brooks
>
> <snip>
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Frijoles" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Amen Kevin. "Bob Coe" provides no links or sources for the Hagee "quotes"
> around which this thread was started. Next "Bob Coe" says, "...The U.S.
> has
> probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did....". And then with his
> credibility challenged he slinks silently back under the rock he crawled
> out
> from under.

The comments he originally posted just did not sound right, or as if they
came from Gen Hagee; they are either faked or taken completely out of
context. Since he has repeatedly refused to provide a source, the former is
the more likely solution. Kind of hard to figure him out--one minute he is
posting gung-ho, support the troops stuff, the next he comes out with
garbage like this. Schizophrenic, maybe?

Brooks

>
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dav1936531" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > >From: "Bob Coe"
>> >><YyX4d.79$gk.33@okepread01>
>> >>
>> >>The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
>> >>not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years."
>> >><snip>
>> >>It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.
>> >
>> > The real ****er is that,
>>
>> No, the real ****er is that these alleged comments from GEN Hagee don't
> seem
>> to show up anywhere in press accounts. Until somebody can point to a
> source,
>> this sounds a bit fishy.
>>
>> Brooks
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>
>

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>
> "Frijoles" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Amen Kevin. "Bob Coe" provides no links or sources for the Hagee "quotes"
> > around which this thread was started. Next "Bob Coe" says, "...The U.S.
> > has
> > probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did....". And then with his
> > credibility challenged he slinks silently back under the rock he crawled
> > out
> > from under.
>
> The comments he originally posted just did not sound right, or as if they
> came from Gen Hagee; they are either faked or taken completely out of
> context. Since he has repeatedly refused to provide a source, the former is
> the more likely solution. Kind of hard to figure him out--one minute he is
> posting gung-ho, support the troops stuff, the next he comes out with
> garbage like this. Schizophrenic, maybe?

Perhaps the initial posts to set up some level of credibility/viewpoint,
then getting to his real point, hoping that it would be more believable.

[Tank Fixer]

In article <YyX4d.79$gk.33@okepread01>,
on Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:03:03 -0500,
Bob Coe attempted to say .....

> The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
> not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years." He said that until that
> time, they will have to "rely on the Air Force ability to collect airborne
> intelligence," and try and "plink them into submission."
>
> "They have enough weapons and men to hold us off longer than
> the Knights Templar in the same situation. Unless we are given
> orders to destroy the city, it will continue to be a thorn in the sides
> of any democratic Iraqi regime."
>
> It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.

Cite please


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article <YyX4d.79$gk.33@okepread01>,
> on Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:03:03 -0500,
> Bob Coe attempted to say .....
>
>> The Commandant of the Marines said today, that his troops "will
>> not be able to enter Fallujah, Iraq for years." He said that until that
>> time, they will have to "rely on the Air Force ability to collect
>> airborne
>> intelligence," and try and "plink them into submission."
>>
>> "They have enough weapons and men to hold us off longer than
>> the Knights Templar in the same situation. Unless we are given
>> orders to destroy the city, it will continue to be a thorn in the sides
>> of any democratic Iraqi regime."
>>
>> It's a sad day for the Marine Corps.
>
> Cite please

Good luck. He appears to have taken a powder at the mention of questions
regarding the validity of his quotations here. Maybe he is a CBS employee...

Brooks

>
>
> --
> When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
> variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.