Falluja: Dire Results.....

[Kodiak]

Didn't we surround Fallujah early on making it a bit more difficult for the terrorists to get away?

\

Yes. 15,000 US soldiers and marines in and around Falluja, opposed by approximately 3000 insurgents. The city is surrounded and all exits, including bridges and tunnels, have either been destroyed or taken. Armor and infantry have moved deep in the city on several fronts, and have taken control of the local hospital.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Iraq

Yes, but how many of them are still in Falluja?

A few, perhaps, but how many vs. how many aren't?

No, they aren't stupid. Vicious, fanatical, and violent, but unfortunately, it seems, not stupid.

Approximately 3000 (20% of which are believed to be foreign jihadists) when "the lid was shut" and OP Phantom Fury commenced...

What is the average learning of your local Iraqi insurgent, other than the Koran and basic weapons use?

 

[jj]

\

Yes. 15,000 US soldiers and marines in and around Falluja, opposed by approximately 3000 insurgents. The city is surrounded and all exits, including bridges and tunnels, have either been destroyed or taken. Armor and infantry have moved deep in the city on several fronts, and have taken control of the local hospital.

And, of course, we know all the hidden ways in and out of the city, all the places to hide for the long term, and so on, right?

Um, well?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm perfectly serious, we don't have enough people on the ground to keep them from reforming elsewhere. It's a short term victory at best, with the long term issue of possibly making it easier for the insurgents to recruit.

You missed my point: they cannot simply reform elsewhere, as if by magic, even if they leave. That takes time, effort, and resources, and even if they do that, that's still time, effort, and resources they aren't spending on the offensive. They are fighting for Fallujah because Fallujah matters to them, and their cause will suffer when we take control back from them. See my Belmont Club link above.

Please, go to the link I provided, those folks aren't a bunch of wild-eyed liberals. They are very conservative people, with a great deal of knowledge in things military.

I browsed around a little. Yes, they aren't wild-eyed loonies, but I still think they're wrong. And more importantly, they don't seem to have any better plan. In other words, if an assault on Fallujah is really the wrong thing to do, what's the right thing to do? And what are the consequences of doing that? Because the consequences of not taking Fallujah aren't a decrease in the power and effectiveness of the insurgency, it's an increase. Yes, the problems they point out are real, but I don't see any of them as insurmountable, and without a serious alternative plan (feel free to point to one, but I don't have time to read their entire site), this really doesn't amount to anything more than just carping.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq

Approximately 3000 (20% of which are believed to be foreign jihadists) when "the lid was shut" and OP Phantom Fury commenced...


Does anyone have a good idea of what %age of the total number of insurgents/jihadists/etc this represents?


What is the average learning of your local Iraqi insurgent, other than the Koran and basic weapons use?

Good question, very little, I suspect. Were most of these people city folk beforehand or not? I'm not sure of the general state of education in Iraq post-Saddamn, pre-second-war, so I don't know who would have an actual education, and what it would be like.

 

[Kodiak]

And, of course, we know all the hidden ways in and out of the city, all the places to hide for the long term, and so on, right?

Um, well?

Um, well, you ever hear of ground sonar? The Pentagon has. In addition, reports say that as many as twenty infiltrators have been in and around Falluja for months, looking for secret exits, weapons caches, and likely defensive rallying positions.

Geez, you almost sound like you're hoping for a mission failure in Falluja...

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq

Does anyone have a good idea of what %age of the total number of insurgents/jihadists/etc this represents?

No, but estimates of total insurgency in Iraq ranges from 5000-20,000.

That would make Falluja any where from 60%-15% to the total.

 

[IllegalArgument]

You missed my point: they cannot simply reform elsewhere, as if by magic, even if they leave. That takes time, effort, and resources, and even if they do that, that's still time, effort, and resources they aren't spending on the offensive. They are fighting for Fallujah because Fallujah matters to them, and their cause will suffer when we take control back from them. See my Belmont Club link above.



I browsed around a little. Yes, they aren't wild-eyed loonies, but I still think they're wrong. And more importantly, they don't seem to have any better plan. In other words, if an assault on Fallujah is really the wrong thing to do, what's the right thing to do? And what are the consequences of doing that? Because the consequences of not taking Fallujah aren't a decrease in the power and effectiveness of the insurgency, it's an increase. Yes, the problems they point out are real, but I don't see any of them as insurmountable, and without a serious alternative plan (feel free to point to one, but I don't have time to read their entire site), this really doesn't amount to anything more than just carping.

One small article, I'll have to dig around more after work.

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_10_21_04.htm

 

[Chaos]

Geez, you almost sound like you're hoping for a mission failure in Falluja...

If he does, then, well, so does everybody who ever seriously planned a military operation.

It´s called "considering all possibilities".

Remember, usually it´s not the stuff you know about that gets you, it´s the stuff you don´t know about. And a lot of the preparation for military operations is minimizing the "don´t know about" part.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by LTC8K6From what I have seen, Iraqi civilians and insurgent combatants are indistinguishable much of the time.

That's the beauty of the win-win for Bush. He can kill all the innocents he wants and hey presto, they all look like terrorists. I mean, a huge number Americans still believe the lie peddled by their men of God (funny how often men of god lie to us) that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Those dead towel heads just must be guilty of something. Right? I mean, they're dead aren't they? Praise the lard and Gawd bless us.

 

[Ziggurat]

One small article, I'll have to dig around more after work.

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_10_21_04.htm

It's not very good. For one thing, it seems to make the assumption that we haven't been taking advantage of internal friction within Fallujah. But we have. Reading milblogs, I hear stories of families from Fallujah who get kicked out of their home by insurgents, then go to the army and ask them to do air strikes on their own homes to get rid of the terrorists.

On another level, the writing is actually quite partisan. Here's some examples:
"Many Iraqis will die, the city will be wrecked (as always, we will promise to rebuild it but not do so)..."
How, exactly, does the author know we won't help rebuild? And it's quite simply not true that we never help rebuild after we attack, as the history of WWII shows. This isn't an analysis, it's a screed.
Or this:
"Of course, we claim we are hitting only Mr. al-Zarqawi’s fighters, but anyone who knows ordinance knows that is a lie."
A rather choice straw man. I don't think the army ever claimed that. They claim that they only target fighters, and that the vast majority of casualties are legitimate targets, which is not the same claim. You can make arguments about relative levels of collateral damage, how much we're actually doing and how much is acceptable, but the absolutist phrasing clearly shows that this isn't about analysis so much as emotion. The fact that it's from a "conservative" doesn't make it any less partisan - there are splits within the conservatives, just as there are in the liberals.

Oh, and here's another problem with the proposed approach: it runs the very real risk of giving birth to conspiracy theories in which the US actually wants the insurgents in Fallujah to succeed and create chaos. Yes, it doesn't make sense, but there have already been a number of claims that we're supporting the insurgency in order to maintain an excuse to stay in Iraq. Conspiracy theories thrive in the arab world, because of a long history of information suppression that is only beginning to change in Iraq. If we are seen to not be confronting the terrorists in Fallujah (and the proposed approach amounts to that), the conclusion will be that either we are weak (very dangerous impression to leave, it encourages further attacks) or that we support the terrorists (spreading discontent to moderates who just want peace). And that plays right into the hands of the insurgents, because that split will play out along Sunni vs. Shia lines, with the Shia believing we are the enemy for supporting Sunni terrorists who kill Shia (as has already happened a number of times in and around Fallujah).

 

[a_unique_person]

It's not very good. For one thing, it seems to make the assumption that we haven't been taking advantage of internal friction within Fallujah. But we have. Reading milblogs, I hear stories of families from Fallujah who get kicked out of their home by insurgents, then go to the army and ask them to do air strikes on their own homes to get rid of the terrorists.

On another level, the writing is actually quite partisan. Here's some examples:
"Many Iraqis will die, the city will be wrecked (as always, we will promise to rebuild it but not do so)..."
How, exactly, does the author know we won't help rebuild? And it's quite simply not true that we never help rebuild after we attack, as the history of WWII shows. This isn't an analysis, it's a screed.

You show, in two paragraphs, just how selective you are at seeing what you want to see. One tells you what you want to hear, you accept it uncritically, the next doesn't, the skeptic in you discounts it.

FYI. The 'history of WWII' is not a catalogue of the results of US military actions. Eg, the US promised to help Vietnam rebuild post war, nothing ever happened. Vietnamese are still being killed and injured by unexploded US ordnance.

 

[jj]

Um, well, you ever hear of ground sonar? The Pentagon has. In addition, reports say that as many as twenty infiltrators have been in and around Falluja for months, looking for secret exits, weapons caches, and likely defensive rallying positions.


Hello, bear-brain, I'm an acoustician, right? Remember? I do signal processing for a living, remember? Who's telling WHO about sonar, guy? Tell you what, Fraunhoffer Diffraction Integrals at 50 paces.

It's not all that simple, especially in "busy" ground with lots of ground workings or unstable regions.

It's also not infallable. I give the infiltrators as much value as I do the ground sonar. That doesn't mean either is useless, but depending on the local terrain either may be better. (Note, I don't know what kind of ground/rock the city sits on, and that makes a great big difference. Sand, for instance, could be a real pain.)


Geez, you almost sound like you're hoping for a mission failure in Falluja...

You just gotta vilify, don't you? Couldn't help yourself, could you? Just had to imply something dishonorable about your opponent.

You're another example of the "compassionate conservative", I see.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq

No, but estimates of total insurgency in Iraq ranges from 5000-20,000.

That would make Falluja any where from 60%-15% to the total.

Ok, that makes it " a real good start " then.

 

[jj]

And a lot of the preparation for military operations is minimizing the "don´t know about" part.

*)&&^$%*&&*() AMEN to that.

 

[Troll]

Ask and ye shall receive

Well now it is confirmed. Have you ever skimmed through that site? They reported and counted 2 boys who drowned while swimming as a result of the US being there. That site is worthless and lacks credibility.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well now it is confirmed. Have you ever skimmed through that site? They reported and counted 2 boys who drowned while swimming as a result of the US being there. That site is worthless and lacks credibility.

The question was, does the US count civilians casualties. The answer is, 'no'. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Troll]

The question was, does the US count civilians casualties. The answer is, 'no'. Ignorance is bliss.

I'm aware of the answer being no. But that does not negate the fact that the site linked to in response to the question lacks credibility.

How bliss are you?

 

[Hutch]

Orignailly posted by KodiakGeez, you almost sound like you're hoping for a mission failure in Falluja

You just gotta vilify, don't you? Couldn't help yourself, could you? Just had to imply something dishonorable about your opponent.

No, jj, Old Ursus is practicing the noble art of "death by 1,000 innduendos". He'll apologize and/or say you were reading too much into it and shouldn't be so thin-skinned (cleverly ju-jitsuing it into being your fault).

Back on topic, I am reading "On Intelligence" by John Keegan and the one thing (besides logistics) that the military never has enough of is intel on the enemy. 2,500-3,000 is at best an educated guess...hopefully a bloody good one, but still an unknown. And any good skeptic will be..well, skeptical, of information put out by a source (the US Army) which has a vested interest in what goes into the media. So we shall see.

And a General that does not anticipate the worst usually gets it--ask BGSPC (sic) about General Hooker and Chancellorsville.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm aware of the answer being no. But that does not negate the fact that the site linked to in response to the question lacks credibility.

How bliss are you?

If you want to debate the site with yourself, please do, no one was asking your opinion about it. The question was, does the US count civilians deaths, the answer is 'no'.