Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Is Secession Doable? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (1088)	11/11/2004 5:55:46 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1968

It would be expected that at least some of the senior leadership would escape. Esp. since the attack was talked about for so long before it actually happened. I don't know why that was the case. It might have something to do with both Iraqi and American politics. Iraqi because the interim government's opinion is considered important, American because it probably would be best not to have such an attack happen in the run up to an election. But if the attack was to be delayed it would have been nice to have some operation security about it. Perhaps it was impossible to include large numbers of Iraqi government forces in the attack and still keep a lid on it. But even with the senior leadership (or at least some of it probably a lot of it) escaping we are killing or capturing a lot of terrorist, and cutting them off from their most prepared and supportive base. In the past they were able to sit in Fallujah and prepare with near impunity. You can't win a war by letting the enemy have a safe haven where he can leave to attack you, but where you won't attack him Just as the fact that bin Laden was not captured doesn't make Afghanistan a failure, the fact that al-Zarqawi escaped doesn't mean Fallujah was a failure. However in both cases it would have been better if we had captured or killed the enemy leaders. I think the attack on Fallujah was necessary, at least if we don't just forget about Iraq and leave now. However I think it was a mistake not to do it earlier and I am concerned about the lack of operational security. This isn't the first time that everyone was talking about the target of an American attack for days or weeks before it was attacked. Edit - One reason not to keep it secret " "It could not have been kept a secret," a senior military official told United Press International Wednesday. "And there were various advantages and disadvantages in trumpeting it ahead of time, not least of which is that the innocent knew to leave town, and saving their lives trumps all the others." The concern about civilians is not just humanitarian: The battle for Fallujah in April was halted prematurely in large part because of Iraqi and international concerns about the effect of the siege on innocents in that town." wpherald.com Tim