| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| Allawi blasts France as delusional | |
| 2004-09-05 | |
THE Iraqi interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, has accused France of deluding itself that it was immune from terrorism because of its opposition to the war on Iraq and of taking a pacifist role in the war on terror. In an interview last week,
On Thursday a newspaper regarded as a mouthpiece for Allawi's party, the Iraqi National Accord, said President Jaques Chirac must share responsibility for the kidnappings because he had opposed international initiatives aimed at restoring Iraq's security. A second editorial complained that France was proud not to have helped topple the regime of Saddam Hussein and had remained silent while "terrorist attacks were being carried out against the Iraqi people and infrastructure . . . Now France can't sit still. Its envoys are everywhere, including in Iraq, | |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #14 The sister story here is the one in the Washington Times pinpointing the French champions of liberation (of their two cameramen): Hamas, PLO, Hezbelah, and Islamic Jihad. How do you say "appeasers" in French? |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-09-05 8:31:42 PM |
| #13 Allawi has to state the obvious because nobody else does. He also needed to state that France profited handsomely in the Oil for Palaces Program⢠with Saddam, which was paid for (many times in blood) by the Iraqi people. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-09-05 12:29:44 PM |
| #12 pity that 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' doesn't translate well (even into french) |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-09-05 11:38:37 AM |
| #11 Allawi, in terms of the French government, is 100% correct. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-09-05 11:29:47 AM |
| #10 President Jaques Chirac must share responsibility for the kidnappings because he had opposed international initiatives aimed at restoring Iraqâs security. Duh! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-09-05 10:52:59 AM |
| #9 One of the most painful, and profitable, military lessons is to focus on "mission accomplishment", NOT "emotional gratification." You have to work on the assumption that whoever is running the show is not only privy to far greater information than you are; but that they are also planning to win the war, not just a single battle. Unfortunately, most civilians, and hopefully, your enemy, do not understand this distinction. Civilians will always be disappointed in the means, and confused by the overall success. Your enemy will make terrible blunders, however, such as committing forces to symbolic goals and comforting itself with "moral victories", which are usually lame justifications for defeat. And then reinforcing their defeats, in effect making a small defeat into a large one. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-09-05 10:36:27 AM |
| #8 psst RJ..I'm not really Deranged Leftie...I just forgot to change my hat :-) |
| Posted by: anon 2004-09-05 10:14:40 AM |
| #7 RJ - well said! |
| Posted by: deranged leftie 2004-09-05 10:13:43 AM |
| #6 Sadr's allies might proclaim victory each time Allawi calls an end to combat but those on the ground know the truth. As his allies proclaim victory more idiots join his cause to be culled. In effect the on and off again nature of this will serve to discredit Sadr more than simply killing him, and in the process will get rid of a lot of Iranian and Iraqi thugs who are willingly siding with him against Democracy in Iraq. |
| Posted by: RJSchwarz 2004-09-05 10:02:53 AM |
| #5 What B said. Allawi is a godsend for us in an extraordinarily difficult and delicate situation. Keep your eyes on Sistani. His support is the key here, not crushing Sadr. Sadr's nothing more than a slightly more consequential muslim version of David Koresh. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-05 8:36:19 AM |
| #4 Well..I may be alone here, but I completely disagree that the action in Najaf was anything but a complete and total success. People complain that they let fighters slip away from Najaf. You have to fight one battle at a time. What could have been better strategy - in a situation like Najaf - to decrease the number of enemy fighters that needed to be fought against? It saves US soldiers lives! Killing Sadr would have made him a martyr. Now he's toast. Read the article above where it's being printed that the Iranians never really liked Sadr much to begin with. Sadr is toast. You can only win a war by winning one battle at a time. I think the strategy at Najaf was absolutely brilliant. |
| Posted by: B 2004-09-05 8:22:15 AM |
| #3 B-a-R, it's a work in progress. Too bad the pace of that progress (at least with al-Sadr) appears to be geological or, perhaps, glacial at best. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-05 4:26:18 AM |
| #2 B-a-R, it's a work in progress. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-09-05 4:08:59 AM |
| #1 âI am telling them there is only one thing to do: respect the rule of law. If you want to use violence, we will face you violently and suppress you and we will bring you to justice.â Allawi needs to think before speaking. The fact that Sadr and a lot of his minions are still alive and not in custody contradicts the above words. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-09-05 2:15:25 AM |