🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:51:45 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:


>> And the operational goals of the attack on Falluja have been discussed
>> in the media so many times that I am not even going to bother
>> repeating them.
>> 
>> 
>And those goals -- to break the back of the insurgency, and to prepare Iraq
>for elections -- are now farther from reality, by universal perception
>throughout the major media, with the exception of FOX news, than they were
>before the attack. Leaked Marine intelligence essentially agrees with them. 

And 'universal perception' in the media means what?  These are the
same people who said the same things last April.  They were wrong last
tome - why should I believe them now?

Sorry, I prefer to get my information from people who actually know
what they are talking about.  


>(Don't tell me you have access to intelligene.  That, if true, which it
>can't be if you don't have a security clearance, wouldn't invalidate my
>argument)

Lets just say that I am one of the people who can give tasks the
intelligence folks.

I see product every day.

I read SigActs every day.  (I even write SigActs.)

BTW - what makes you so sure that these "leaked" intelligence reports
are genuine?



>Therefore, it follows that the doctrine at Falluja can rightly be called BAD
>DOCTRINE, and the evidence to me is that the doctrine that was used was
>not, in fact, MOUT.  It was Overwhelming Firepower.  The Marine commanders
>even compared the attack, in their pre-operation pep talks, to the battle
>at Hue, which was fought by that doctrine, to an equally stupid and
>disasterous result.

Stupid.  You have no idea what doctrine we used.  You do not
understand doctrine even in the theoretical sense and as a result have
no clue regarding what doctrine was or was not used.

In fact I find it amusing that you (with your complete ignorance of
what is/has happened in Falluja) are trying to tell me what happened.

>
>QED.

You have the problem that your logical basis is nothing more than
political opinion.  You really have no idea what the effects of the
Battle for Falluja are - but you are claiming that our doctrine failed
when you have no idea what that doctrine even is.

In fact your persistent clinging to the fantasy that we used an
'overwhelming firepower' doctrine in Falluja (which is totally stupid
in MOUT as rubble makes better defensive positions for the enemy) is
an indication that you are allowing your political opinions to
influence your perceptions.

To put it quite simply - I feel that you are not totally in touch with
reality.



--

"Saddam was found cowering in his little hole
in the ground. Supposedly, his goal was to remain
in hiding until all the shooting stopped. Well,
hey, it worked for the French."  Jay Leno