You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Kimmit Seeks Fallujah Ceasefire
2004-04-10
EFL
A U.S. general on Saturday called on Sunni militants in the besieged city of Fallujah to join in a bilateral cease-fire. "Today what we are seeking is a bilateral cease-fire," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad. "This is an aspiration." He added that he was "hoping to get this message to the enemy through this press conference so they can join the cease-fire." Kimmitt’s call came after the council passed a unanimous decision calling for a cease-fire. Anger has been growing on the council over the U.S. assault on Fallujah, where more than 280 Iraqis and at least five Marines have been killed in heavy fighting.
I think there's some anger growing here, too, that we haven't flattened the city yet.
Military hesitation over the halt in fighting was clear. After initially being ordered to cease all offensive operations, Marines quickly demanded and received permission to launch assaults to prevent attacks if needed. "We said to them (the commanders): ’We are going to lose people if we don’t go back on offensive ops.’ So we got the word," Marine Maj. Pete Farnun told The Associated Press. The Governing Council early Saturday issued a statement demanding an end to military action and "collective punishment" — a reference to the Fallujah siege. Abdul-Karim Mahoud al-Mohammedawi, a Shiite on the Governing Council, announced he was suspending his council seat until "the bleeding stops in all Iraq." He also met Friday with al-Sadr, whom U.S. commanders have vowed to capture.
Decided to change sides, did he?
A Sunni council member, Ghazi al-Yawer, said he would quit if the Fallujah talks fell through.
Quit and be damned, then.
One of the strongest pro-U.S. voices on the council, also a Sunni, Adnan Pachachi, denounced the U.S. siege. "It was not right to punish all the people of Fallujah, and we consider these operations by the Americans unacceptable and illegal," Pachachi told Al-Arabiya TV.
It was not right for the people of Fallujah to slaughter and mutilate our people, either. Nor is it right for them to be in rebellion against U.S. forces.
The heavy fighting for Fallujah was prompted by the March 31 slaying of four U.S. civilians there. Their burned bodies were mutilated and dragged through the streets by a mob that hung two of them from a bridge.
Cause, meet effect.
Posted by:Kirk

#8  Given the sizes of the populations involved, giving "the south of Iraq" to Kuwait, in reality means giving Kuwait to Iraq.

Nope. Redraw the boundary if necessary. The oil-rich regions are separated as much as possible from the heavily populated cities in the south. Set up a means to patrol the border area and implement iron-clad enforcement. If the Shiites in the southern region can't get their act together, then there's no reason to trust them with control of a precious commodity like crude oil.

Then the whole Iraq invasion would have made things worse, instead of kickstarting the reform in the ME..

This is where the interesting part comes in - separate those who genuinely want to build something new from those who don't. How to do that? I don't know at the moment, although one way to get going in that direction would be to bump off insurgents when they are found. Not captured, or arrested, but killed. That way, their poison is less likely to be spread around, and whomever is left understands that we are pissed off and damned serious. Those who are interested in a better beginning aren't likely to be toting AK-47s around and covering their faces with nicely colored towels.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-04-10 7:11:49 PM  

#7  I would link to earlier comments I've made, but Rantburg's search facility doesn't allow for the searching of comments (as opposed to articles), unfortunately.

Now, there's indeed no choice. There was no choice from the point US forces entered Iraq, to try and stay for the duration.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-04-10 5:39:08 PM  

#6  Aris, did you predict this before ? I think the US is obliged to stay and root out the opponents.. There's no choice ..
Posted by: lyot   2004-04-10 5:14:31 PM  

#5  Then the whole Iraq invasion would have made things worse, instead of kickstarting the reform in the ME...

Bingo!

It so totally sucks when I'm right.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-04-10 5:09:51 PM  

#4  #1 ..but that would be a total defeat for the US in the war against terror..Then the whole Iraq invasion would have made things worse, instead of kickstarting the reform in the ME..
Posted by: lyot   2004-04-10 5:01:32 PM  

#3  Sounds good Bomb-a-rama. Just one correction: they wouldn't be rotting in their own self-created hell for very long. The EUropeans would be in there like a dirty shirt faster than you can say Volkswagen. They didn't get applauded by the Arabs for nothing you know (at the UN).
Posted by: Rafael   2004-04-10 5:01:08 PM  

#2  Given the sizes of the populations involved, giving "the south of Iraq" to Kuwait, in reality means giving Kuwait to Iraq.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-04-10 4:59:21 PM  

#1  We probably aren't getting all the information, but from all outward appearances, these jerks all want to have their cake and eat it too. That's not how it works, and quite frankly, this act is getting old. I'm coming to believe that the solution I put forward previously would be the best one: give the south of Iraq to Kuwait, grant the Kurds their own nation, move all US forces out into the areas that have changed hands (which are no doubt going to be friendlier to our presence), and leave the rest to whomever is left, AS IS. No U.S. financed reconsruction, and no U.S. assistance (other than the occasional smackdown when the inhabitants get their frequent "jihad itches"). Let them rot in their own self-created hell.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-04-10 2:10:08 PM  

00:00