TWO CONGRESSMEN I'LL MISS

 -- Ben Johnson, Managing Editor, FrontPage Magazine

*

THE ENEMY STARTS TO COLLAPSE

Enemy resistance in Fallujah is starting to collapse, with US forces deep inside the city and fighters pulling back to their ultimate stronghold in the Jolan district. There is no more room to retreat with the Euphrates to the west and American forces on every side.

Troops have been advancing towards the center, fighting insurgents armed with rifles and mortars street by street. Early on Tuesday the US-led troops reached a key objective early -- a mosque in the north part of Falluja. ... The BBC's Paul Wood, embedded with US soldiers - and whose reporting is subject to military restrictions - says US-led forces reached their first major objective early on Tuesday, when they surrounded al-Hidra mosque in the northern parts of Falluja. The US military said the building was being used as an arms depot and a meeting point for the leaders of the insurgency. Our correspondent says Iraqi forces fighting alongside US marines will storm it.

Earlier, a US tank commander said guerrillas were putting up a strong fight in the north-western Jolan district. "These people are hardcore," Capt Robert Bodisch told Reuters news agency. "A man pulled out from behind a wall and fired an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) at my tank. I have to get another tank to go back in there."

"I can see heavy street-fighting from my house in the center of the city -- US soldiers are here, moving from house to house", according to BBC reporter Fadil Badrani.

A synoptic view of the same engagement comes from Ned Parker in the Australian.

US troops moved from house to house through the Jolan neighbourhood of Fallujah yesterday, knocking down walls and spraying machinegun fire at buildings from which insurgents fought back with small arms and mortars. The US forces, supported by Iraqi soldiers, pushed towards the centre of the besieged rebel city as columns of smoke plumed skyward after a night of heavy air raids and artillery shelling. "We are downing them," said US marine officer Major Todd Desgrosseilliers. "We're using good old American firepower."

A smattering of trained Iraqi forces accompanied the marines in their assault on the city, while more were poised on the outskirts, preparing to enter in an offensive codenamed Phantom Fury. Helicopter gunships swooped overhead, dropping flares on buildings from where the muzzles of insurgent rocket launchers jutted out, while the rebels fought back with anti-aircraft fire. White and red flashes lit the sky in a relentless barrage of artillery shells and aerial bombing that thundered throughout the night.

Mortars are what the enemy has for reserves, the only part of their firepower that remains mobile on the Fallujah battlefield because its high-angle fire allows it to shoot over obstacles in built up areas. Enemy forces have also been known to volley RPGs upward into neighboring streets. But their fire is largely blind. They have no comms and direction centers to mass fires or shift them as the battle progresses. The BBC press account indicates that heavy armor has actually penetrated deep inside the city (with an armor company commander joking about the disabling of his vehicle) with infantry progressing over and through the walls of houses on either side (probably what the BBC reporter is describing as 'moving from house to house').

Today's news will tell whether American commanders have decided to keep up the tempo and profit from enemy confusion or slow down and reduce the remainder by fire. One of the factors will be the condition of the Iraqi troops fighting alongside Americans. As suggested in the article above, Iraqi troops are employed to clean out areas like mosques that have been bypassed by US forces. This is dangerous and exhausting work. The limited number of trained Iraqi troops may enforce a limit on tempo. As the enemy fragments it will become a battle of small unit holdouts in dozens of locations. Each enemy position is doomed but they will take time to clean out.

Readers will remember that Fallujah is only a part of the wider campaign in the Sunni triangle. Chester has pointed out that the 3rd Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment, identified as fighting at Fallujah, was detached from Ramadi. The enemy is now trying to relieve pressure on Fallujah with demonstration attacks in Ramadi, where they may have sensed the departure of the battalion. This has taken the form of a repulsed car bomb attack on checkpoints controlling access to the city and low level skirmishing. This report from the AP describes how two enemy vehicles were destroyed as they bore down on a checkpoint.

The military says five U-S troops have been injured after they attacked two suspected car bombs in the Iraqi city of Ramadi. It also says seven insurgents were killed in yesterday's attack. It gave few other details, but says the U-S troops wounded had shot at and destroyed the vehicles.

In a portentous development, the Marines have apparently withdrawn their observation posts inside Ramadi. Middle East Online reports:

Rebel fighters massed in the centre of the restive Iraqi city of Ramadi Tuesday after US military snipers withdrew from their positions following 24 hours of clashes, an AFP correspondent said. The US military could not immediately be contacted for comment.

US snipers left a hotel from where they were able to control most of Ramadi's main roads, but the military remained in its headquarters in the governor's office nearby, the correspondent said. Other US soldiers left the city for their bases in the east and west of the city.

As the snipers departed, large crowds of armed insurgents, their faces hidden by scarves, began dancing in the street and shooting in to the air, yelling "Allah Akbar" (God is great). Banners proclaiming solidarity with insurgents in Fallujah, where US-led forces launched a massive offensive to retake the city on Monday, were hung in the streets. "The residents of Ramadi condemn the attack against Fallujah and we appeal to the inhabitants of Ramadi to wage jihad against the American occupants who want to eradicate Islam," said one man who did not want to be named.

An earlier generation of historians would call the withdrawal of snipers "bringing in the pickets" and concentrating the fist. The feeble enemy response suggests a real weakness. The car bomb attack and public demonstration of "fighters" who are apparently unable to hinder the comings and goings of snipers will be portrayed as a great jihadi victory but is pathetic in reality. They are being measured for a pine box and the best they can do is caper in the streets. In a few days 3rd Battalion will be back in Ramadi, together with powerful units currently busy in Fallujah and the dance tempo will change to a funeral march unless the enemy lays down his arms. Wellington once observed that "nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won." Nothing about it is nice; but better them than us.

Update

An Agence France Press report describes the terrible closed loop of networked firepower. For the first time in a major battle, guided artillery is being used quantity. In addition to the now familiar JDAMs, or GPS guided bombs, there are now GPS guided shells. Space based positioning satellites, laser range finding, robotics and networked computing are now as much a part of infantry combat as the boot heel.

"Body parts everywhere!" cries a US soldier as a shell crashes onto a group of suspected rebels in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, where a punishing torrent of firepower thundered down on Tuesday.

More than 500 rounds of 155-millimetre Howitzer cannon shells have been fired on the besieged Sunni stronghold west of Baghdad since a US-Iraqi offensive to take control of the city started on Monday evening, said Sergeant Michael Hamby. Using a global positioning system, each shell is precision aimed and fired at insurgent spots, while unmanned reconnaisance aircraft check whether the target was hit and feed back the information, Hamby told AFP.

"We probably had 20-to-30 air strikes in the Jolan and probably two-to-three times that in artillery missions," he said. Attack helicopters swooped overhead, dropping flares on buildings from where the muzzle of insurgent rocket heads jutted out.

Though the enemy is to be frank, very brave, news reports them falling back everywhere. The Washington Post says:

Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, commander of multinational forces in Iraq, predicted "several more days of tough urban fighting." He said insurgents were "fighting hard, but not to the death. They are falling back," adding that the U.S. advance was progressing "ahead of schedule."

The enemy withdrawals have sometimes been explained by suggesting that the enemy is suckering in US forces into a trap. But this is impossible. Their backs are to the river and the Marines are across that. Every retrograde movement compresses the enemy into a smaller area and forces them to leave behind prepared positions painstakingly stockpiled with food, batteries and ammo. Running backward with wounded, they can't carry much ammunition and won't find any unless a prepared position is already available. And how does anyone stand fast in the face of the otherworldly violence of the American onslaught?

Small bands of gunmen -- fewer than 20 -- were engaging U.S. troops, then falling back in the face of overwhelming fire from American tanks, 20mm cannons and heavy machine guns, said Time magazine reporter Michael Ware, embedded with troops. Ware reported that there appeared to be no civilians in the area he was in. On one thoroughfare in the city, U.S. troops traded fire with gunmen holed up in a row of houses about 100 yards away. An American gunner on an armored vehicle let loose with his machine gun, grinding the upper part of a small building to rubble.

This is a description of platoon-sized enemy units attempting to hold back the Martians. The bravado of Al Jazeera has this completely wrong. If classical history were still widely taught, these scenes would be instantly recognizable as a rout, that terrible disintegration of ranks as the foe closes in before and behind. Describing the rout of the Roman Legions by Hannibal at Cannae, Livy wrote:

It was a terrible slaughter. ... On a narrow area 48,000 corpses lay in heaps. ... Hannibal once more released non-Roman prisoners. ... Roman knight's gold rings were collected in baskets and later poured out onto the floor of the Carthaginian senate. One of the consuls Lucius Aemilius Paulus (and one of the preceding year's) were killed, as well as both quaestors of the consuls, 29 out of 48 military tribunes and 80 other senators.

There can be no joy in war: it is always repulsive in actual detail, but if we are not left with the facts, then the world is deprived even of the doleful experience of the battlefield. The jihadi dream was a fraud. September 11 opened the door, not to Paradise but the portal to Hell and the jihadi nightmare will continue for as long as they are nourished on illusion and false encouragement. We are not their permanent enemies; that foe is within their breast.  Tuesday, November 9, 2004

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com

*

WANTED: A MASOCHIST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

www.michellemalkin.com

*

THE PATRIOT ACT, JOHN ASHCROFT AND ME

By now practically everyone knows that John Ashcroft is resigning as Attorney General. Whether he was in any way pushed out or whether this is entirely his own decision, in part in response to his own equally well known health problems, I do not have a clue. What I do know is that when he was first appointed, I groaned. It was proof, if I needed any, that the new "Chimp" in the White House was a reactionary Christer. He had chosen one of his own to be the country's number one law enforcer.

Then 9-11 came and Ashcroft's job became quite serious. The Patriot Act was enacted and the attorney general charged with seeing to its enforcement. In short order, Ashcroft was the butt of almost every anti-Bush assault. "Ah, Ashcroft... Ah, the Patriot Act..." many of my friends and acquaintances said, rolling their eyes in disdain. Ashcroft was the scourge of democracy, the number one threat to our civil rights.

Yet, here's the interesting thing. Not one... I will repeat in bold face... not one of the people I knew who excoriated Ashcroft and the Patriot Act ever read the legislation, which is short and easily available on line. (I know because I asked them. The subject was quickly changed. Kerry, as we know, like virtually everyone in Congress, voted for it and then made his, as usual amorphous, assertions that some parts should be amended.) Furthermore, despite all the bad-mouthing of Ashcroft as if he were the second coming of A. Mitchell Palmer, only one... I will put that in bold again... only one person, as far as I know, in a nation of some three hundred million may have been illegally incarcerated - Jose Padilla. And even that is inconclusive.

Yet I would still agree, as Theo Van Gogh would, I am sure, were he still alive, that religious fundamentalism is a highly dangerous phenomenon in this world. But I am now absolutely certain that those who thought or are still thinking that John Aschroft is or was a dangerous fundamentalist are lying to themselves or to us. Ashcroft, whatever his indiosyncracies, his prudish desire not to be photographed with nude statues, etc., was fully aware of one of Jesus' greatest teachings - render unto Casear what is Caesar's - and behaved accordingly. Nothing remotely happened during his tenure to dispute this. We owe Ashcroft a debt of gratitude for his service during exceptionally difficult times. And personally, I think I have learned something from him in a strange way. I used to be rather intolerant of people of faith. I am now less so.  Tuesday, November 9, 2004

www.rogerlsimon.com

*

A MIDDLE GROUND ON ARLEN SPECTER

It feels a little funny to type that post title, as I don't often find myself seeking middle ground. But this is one time when it may be appropriate.

Like Deacon, I've been torn on the issue of Sen. Specter ascending to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. We have gotten many emails from readers encouraging us--that's a polite term--to unload on Specter and campaign against his chairmanship. And I entirely agree that what Specter did, in warning President Bush as to what judges he may or may not appoint, and implicitly threatening to torpedo any who do not meet Specter's litmus test, was outrageous and unacceptable. Specter's lack of loyalty would be appalling even if President Bush had not helped to save the Senator's seat by supporting him in a tough primary fight. Further, I am deeply concerned that Specter as committee chairman can single-handedly reverse what should be a political debacle for the Democrats by joining them in branding the President's nominees as somehow outside the mainstream.

On the other hand, I think Hugh Hewitt makes a persuasive case that the unintended consequences of attacking Specter and denying him the chairmanship he covets are likely to be worse than allowing him to succeed according to normal rules. The Senate is a place where rules and traditions are very important, and Specter is not alone as a squishy Republican in that chamber. There are at least three or four other Senators whose votes on judicial nominees and other matters will be critical, and who are likely to react adversely if Specter is deposed.

While I don't have much faith in Specter, it is a fact that he has supported every judicial nomination President Bush has made so far. In that context, it is hard to justify upsetting normal rules to deny him the chairmanship.

Here is my suggestion: Senator Bill Frist wants to run for President in four years. Management of the Senate majority is his job, and he has come in for criticism since he became Majority Leader. If the President's judicial nominations start going down in flames because Frist can't keep his caucus together, his Presidential hopes will be badly damaged. So I intend to call and email Senator Frist to express my extreme dismay at Specter's ill-advised comments; to ask Frist to consider seriously whether Specter can appropriately serve as chairman of the Judiciary Committee after pre-emptively seeking to limit the President's discretion in appointing judges; and to ask that, should Specter be allowed to become chairman, assurance be given that he will use his best efforts to secure the confirmation of the President's nominees.

I think the reality is that Specter is going to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The best impact we can have, I think, is to let the party's leadership in the Senate know how important this issue is to us, and that we intend to hold Frist responsible if the nomination process goes off the rails.

Emails can be sent to Senator Frist here. His office's phone number is 202-224-3344.

DEACON adds: This is a great suggestion. But I still fear that, whatever guarantees Frist and the White House extract from Specter, the Pennsylvania egoist will do wantever he wants once he takes over as committee chairman. I don't know the rules on deposing a chairman, but absent physical disability or criminal conduct, it must be extraordinarily difficult to accomplish.

Nonetheless, I'm tending to agree with Hugh Hewitt that Frist and the president should obtain whatever assurances they can, and then let Specter have his chairmanship. Consider a world in which Specter has been denied that post. It would probably look very much like the world we've lived in the past two years -- a world in which the White House has only about 51 Republican Senators willing to confirm conservative judicial nominees. The Democrats will still be able successfully to filibuster such nominees, and be in a position to claim legitimacy by pointing to the opposition to these nominees of Republicans like Specter, Chafee, and perhaps the Senators from Maine.

Now consider a world in which Specter is Judiciary Committee chairman. More likely than not, that world would be agreeable. Specter likely will support conservative nominees, though maybe not always the first choice, as he has during the past four years and (mostly) before that. The only price would be that Bush might have to appoint some moderate/liberal pals of Specter to the Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Democrats wishing to filibuster Bush's nominees will have no cover, and only a few Democratic defections will be needed to end the filibuster. Democrats from red states likely will think twice about going to the mat on behalf of People for the American Way and NOW after seeing what happened to Tom Daschle.

And if Specter decides to oppose conservative nominees, we won't be much worse off if he does this as chairman rather than as spoiler. True, Democrats will have total cover if the Republican head of the Judiciary Committee opposes a conservative nominee. But if I'm right that such nominees can't be confirmed if Republicans play hard ball with Specter, then little is lost. You can only kill a nominee so dead.  Monday, November 8, 2004

www.powerlineblog.com

*

HEWITT ON THE SPECTER DEBATE 

My anti-anti-Specter position continues to kick up dust around the blogopshere.  The estimable Peter Mulhern thinks my position is inane.  Andrew Sullivan is relieved that it is sane.

I like to think of it as prudent.

Let's be very specific.  If Chief Justice Rehnquist retires, and President Bush nominates Judge J. Michael Luttig, Judge Michael W. McConnell or Judge John Roberts --my personal favorites for that post and future vacancies-- do conservatives really believe that Chairman Specter would do other than get those nominations to the floor quickly?

But if Senator Specter is punished and humbled by the surging conservative majority, do you think he would be as likely to vote for any of them in committee or for the rule change to kill any misguided Democratic filibuster?  And might he lead a revolt of the moderate GOP senators sufficient in number to block the confirmation of these or other center-right judges?

The goal is a renewed Supreme Court, not emotionally satisfying but self-defeating embarrassments of Republicans that purists classify as RINOs. (Specter has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 43, and hit 65 for 2003.  Patrick Leahy's lifetime score is a 6.  That's a big difference. It matters. )

I think cooler heads will prevail, but I would welcome some additional reconsiderations among my colleagues of their positions.  The focus needs to be on winning the Supreme Court in the next two years and on keeping the Senate in GOP hands in November, 2006, not on scoring points against old thorns-in-the-sides.  There has not been a single persuasive argument yet put forward on how the denial of the chairmanship to Specter would increase the likelihood of confirming President Bush's nominees.  There is a lot of speculation on how Senator Specter has been a "terrible" senator in the past and will be one in the future, but on nominations, the evidence against him consists of the vote against Bork, which is balanced by the vote for Thomas.  And Specter has supported every Bush nominee.

Jim Geraghty of KerrySpot was correct to note the civility of the debate among conservatives, and I hope it continues.  Aside from the war, nothing matters more than the make-up of the Court. I hope those urging faxes and e-mails to The Hill have truly considered that their demands, if met, could squander the opportunity that will be put before President Bush.

Jeffords, Jeffords, Jeffords.  It was not "good riddance."  It was a disaster.  Wednesday, November 10, 2004

www.hughhewitt.com

*

To finish reading Wednesday's War Blog, click here.