Why Fallujah probably won't be that "Decisive"

[preslove]

So We Win Fallujah. Then What?

This is the best analysis of the mission and its likelyhood of success. Here's the heart of the article:

The problem is that the insurgents are active all over the Sunni Triangle. They dramatized this fact over the weekend. In Samarra, attacks on Iraqi police stations killed 33, including the local national guard commander, and injured 48. In Ramadi, a slew of suicide car bombings wounded 20 U.S. Marines. In Haditha and Haqlaniyah, guerrillas raided three police stations, killing 22 officers. In Diyala Province, the governor's aide and two members of the provincial governing council were killed. Bombs also exploded across Baghdad, at a Catholic church, and against U.S. convoys along the main road to the airport.

The highly coordinated attacks in Samarra are particularly disturbing, as U.S. and Iraqi forces supposedly pacified that city just last month. They might now accomplish the same feat in Fallujah; between 10,000 and 15,000 American soldiers and Marines are involved in the offensive, after all. But after the fighting is over, the siege can't be sustained for long. Residents, who have fled the city in anticipation of the battle, will want to return home; commercial traffic will once again flow; and it will be hard to block a new crop of insurgents from coming and going?especially if many of the soldiers and Marines move on to the next insurgent stronghold. As has widely been noted in many other contexts, the U.S. troops in Iraq are too stretched to run a tight occupation in one area while waging full-blown combat in another. (In the old days, "two-front war" meant fighting simultaneously in Europe and Asia. Now, apparently, it means Fallujah and Sadr City.)

Within a month of now there will be hard core attacks on police/troops within Fallujah, you can bet on that.

 

[IEC]

No doubt. They're only fanning the flames. Burning, burning, burning... always burning...

 

[dinkhunter]

Originally posted by: preslove
So We Win Fallujah. Then What?

This is the best analysis of the mission and its likelyhood of success. Here's the heart of the article:

The problem is that the insurgents are active all over the Sunni Triangle. They dramatized this fact over the weekend. In Samarra, attacks on Iraqi police stations killed 33, including the local national guard commander, and injured 48. In Ramadi, a slew of suicide car bombings wounded 20 U.S. Marines. In Haditha and Haqlaniyah, guerrillas raided three police stations, killing 22 officers. In Diyala Province, the governor's aide and two members of the provincial governing council were killed. Bombs also exploded across Baghdad, at a Catholic church, and against U.S. convoys along the main road to the airport.

The highly coordinated attacks in Samarra are particularly disturbing, as U.S. and Iraqi forces supposedly pacified that city just last month. They might now accomplish the same feat in Fallujah; between 10,000 and 15,000 American soldiers and Marines are involved in the offensive, after all. But after the fighting is over, the siege can't be sustained for long. Residents, who have fled the city in anticipation of the battle, will want to return home; commercial traffic will once again flow; and it will be hard to block a new crop of insurgents from coming and going?especially if many of the soldiers and Marines move on to the next insurgent stronghold. As has widely been noted in many other contexts, the U.S. troops in Iraq are too stretched to run a tight occupation in one area while waging full-blown combat in another. (In the old days, "two-front war" meant fighting simultaneously in Europe and Asia. Now, apparently, it means Fallujah and Sadr City.)

Within a month of now there will be hard core attacks on police/troops within Fallujah, you can bet on that.

its ok, we are going to turn it into grosny this time round.

 

[maddogchen]

wow how shocking...not.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Then will that satisfy your bloodlust?

Hey look you look right at home at P&N with your 9 posts. I wonder why...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Hopefully, this time, the Iraqi nationals will be redy to take over control, instead of having a black hole for a government in the city.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: preslove
So We Win Fallujah. Then What?

its ok, we are going to turn it into grosny this time round.

Well, looking at what the children of grosny have been doing to the children of russia... I guess everything's gonna turn out swell!

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Hopefully, this time, the Iraqi nationals will be redy to take over control, instead of having a black hole for a government in the city.

I find that scenario pretty doubtful.

also, from the original article.

First, the offensive is billed as a joint operation by the U.S. military and the Iraqi national guard, but it hasn't worked out that way. National Public Radio's Anne Garrels, who is embedded with the Marines in Fallujah, reports that of the 500 Iraqi soldiers originally deployed to go in alongside U.S. forces only 170 were still on station when the operation began. The rest had deserted?whether simply to flee for their safety or to join the other side. And these Iraqis were members of the 36th Special Operations battalion, the elite of the country's new security forces. In short, quite apart from what happens in Fallujah, the Iraqis are not remotely ready to provide defense by themselves.

If almost two thirds of the best soldiers they have desert/change sides before the decisive battle, I doubt the regular troops and cops can keep order.

 

[dinkhunter]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Then will that satisfy your bloodlust?

Hey look you look right at home at P&N with your 9 posts. I wonder why...

fallujah is indian country, what do you care if there is some limited collateral damage.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Then will that satisfy your bloodlust?

Hey look you look right at home at P&N with your 9 posts. I wonder why...

fallujah is indian country, what do you care if there is some limited collateral damage.

:frown:

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Then will that satisfy your bloodlust?

Hey look you look right at home at P&N with your 9 posts. I wonder why...

fallujah is indian country, what do you care if there is some limited collateral damage.

What do you mean by "indian country?"

 

[dinkhunter]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Then will that satisfy your bloodlust?

Hey look you look right at home at P&N with your 9 posts. I wonder why...

fallujah is indian country, what do you care if there is some limited collateral damage.

What do you mean by "indian country?"

the tribal enemies we are fighting. they are tribal peasants who only understand the use of force, so the sooner we kill off the fighting ones and corral the others with fear, we will have then under control. turning a blind eye to it like many of the hippies here want to do will only make them more powerful.

 

[CycloWizard]

If we kill 1,000 insurgents every time we pull off a major offensive, do you think an equal number will step up to replace them? I can only hope that eventually they will realize that they're only hurting themselves and that trying to stand against our military is futile. Of course, if they were reasonable people, this would have likely happened a long time ago, so what choice do we have except to root out all the unreasonable people? We reach an impasse when we realize that there are only unreasonable people or that people are driven to be unreasonable by our actions.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Then will that satisfy your bloodlust?

Hey look you look right at home at P&N with your 9 posts. I wonder why...

fallujah is indian country, what do you care if there is some limited collateral damage.

What do you mean by "indian country?"

the tribal enemies we are fighting. they are tribal peasants who only understand the use of force, so the sooner we kill off the fighting ones and corral the others with fear, we will have then under control. turning a blind eye to it like many of the hippies here want to do will only make them more powerful.

I don't buy your bogus separation of human beings into good and bad or capable of learning and incapable of learning. All humans deserve the right not to be destroyed by violence. The civilians do not deserve death and our troops have no business killing innocents in Iraq. It's clear you have disdain of "others" though...

 

[dinkhunter]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Then will that satisfy your bloodlust?

Hey look you look right at home at P&N with your 9 posts. I wonder why...

fallujah is indian country, what do you care if there is some limited collateral damage.

What do you mean by "indian country?"

the tribal enemies we are fighting. they are tribal peasants who only understand the use of force, so the sooner we kill off the fighting ones and corral the others with fear, we will have then under control. turning a blind eye to it like many of the hippies here want to do will only make them more powerful.

I don't buy your bogus separation of human beings into good and bad or capable of learning and incapable of learning. All humans deserve the right not to be destroyed by violence. The civilians do not deserve death and our troops have no business killing innocents in Iraq. It's clear you have disdain of "others" though...

you have no knowledge of non-modern arabs. they only understand force, and the trible, its like say sicily 50 years ago. i might add that most of the resistance is coming from the working class and thugs from the baathists. they also have popular suuport which has to be broken.

 

[TMPadmin]

http://www.nypost.com/img/front111004.gif


Thanks to those out there!

 

[eigen]

By reasonable do you mean that they should allow themselves to be broken. As in Vietcong be reasonable you cant stand up to our ARCLIGHT bombing campaign ..so be reasonable and give up.You should be reasonable and realize we will either have to pull out or kill EVERY man woman and child in order to "win"

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eigen
By reasonable do you mean that they should allow themselves to be broken. As in Vietcong be reasonable you cant stand up to our ARCLIGHT bombing campaign ..so be reasonable and give up.You should be reasonable and realize we will either have to pull out or kill EVERY man woman and child in order to "win"

By 'reasonable' I mean that they should realize that perpetuating this fighting is only keeping us there longer, resulting in more of them being killed and more civilian deaths. The Vietcong were fighting for something. These people are essentially fighting for their own destruction. I don't see what they're trying to accomplish. If they want us to leave, all they have to do is stop fighting.

 

[dbzwukan]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If we kill 1,000 insurgents every time we pull off a major offensive, do you think an equal number will step up to replace them? I can only hope that eventually they will realize that they're only hurting themselves and that trying to stand against our military is futile. Of course, if they were reasonable people, this would have likely happened a long time ago, so what choice do we have except to root out all the unreasonable people? We reach an impasse when we realize that there are only unreasonable people or that people are driven to be unreasonable by our actions.

Remember how we lost the Korean wars? We almost had them, until we cross the Chinese border and them Chinese hordes, The horror!

 

[cwjerome]

Preslove, if the goal is to stabalize Iraq enough so that national elections can take place, what would you do in the case of Fallujah?

IMO, Iraqi independence can't survive with a hellish nest of insurgents at the center. Fallujah must fall. With terrorists operating unfettered from a secure base, how can anything be accomplshed? The point isn't win defeat them outright. Who in the hell thinks this or any other operation will somehow create a peaceful Eden? The point is to scatter and drive these enemies of Iraqi independence into hiding. The point is to make it very difficult for these people to operate. It's not just about killing them, it's about "controlling the battlefield" in a way that puts great hardship on the enemy. Also, it's a statement from the interim government -and the people- that Iraq will not put up with terrorist-controlled areas and will stand steadfast in their goals for a democratic Iraq.

As long as the apologists and appeasers whine, the road to stability will take that much longer.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dinkhunter

Then will that satisfy your bloodlust?

Hey look you look right at home at P&N with your 9 posts. I wonder why...

fallujah is indian country, what do you care if there is some limited collateral damage.

What do you mean by "indian country?"

the tribal enemies we are fighting. they are tribal peasants who only understand the use of force, so the sooner we kill off the fighting ones and corral the others with fear, we will have then under control. turning a blind eye to it like many of the hippies here want to do will only make them more powerful.

I don't buy your bogus separation of human beings into good and bad or capable of learning and incapable of learning. All humans deserve the right not to be destroyed by violence. The civilians do not deserve death and our troops have no business killing innocents in Iraq. It's clear you have disdain of "others" though...

you have no knowledge of non-modern arabs. they only understand force, and the trible, its like say sicily 50 years ago. i might add that most of the resistance is coming from the working class and thugs from the baathists. they also have popular suuport which has to be broken.

If you are going to parrot the DOD propaganda then at least provide proof for it. How do you know they only understand force? We don't need them to understand anything. They never did anything to us.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: dbzwukan

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If we kill 1,000 insurgents every time we pull off a major offensive, do you think an equal number will step up to replace them? I can only hope that eventually they will realize that they're only hurting themselves and that trying to stand against our military is futile. Of course, if they were reasonable people, this would have likely happened a long time ago, so what choice do we have except to root out all the unreasonable people? We reach an impasse when we realize that there are only unreasonable people or that people are driven to be unreasonable by our actions.

Remember how we lost the Korean wars? We almost had them, until we cross the Chinese border and them Chinese hordes, The horror!

We lost the Korean War(s)?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Fallujah is a decisive demonstration to the Iraqis who count - that majority that doesn't support the insurgency and/or who are not insurgents themelves - that it's time to get serious about security. They tried negotiations and the Sunni tribal leaders made sectarian demands that shocked many in Iraq. It also lost any sort of support and respect for Fallujans and exposed them for the religious bigots they are. If you haven't read about some of the negotiations between the interim government and the Fallujan tribal leaders, I suggest you do because without that background you're missing a major part of the story here.

To start off, go here:

http://healingiraq.blogspot.co...tml#109993230684467994

Zeyad is a Sunni Muslim himself and even he can't see to support the ridiculous demands that were made.

The demands of the Fallujah negotiants from the government weeks ago were obscene and they clearly reflect the overt sectarianism and regionalism of the armed groups in the area. The demands were not released to the Iraqi public at the time for unkown reasons but they have leaked out days ago. Here are just a few of them:
-A clear timetable for the withdrawal of foreign occupation forces (fair enough).
-Immediate withdrawal of US and Iraqi security forces from the Anbar governorate and the handover of security responsibilities to former army officers from Anbar.
-The appointment of ministers from the Anbar governorate to the ministries of Interior, Defense, Oil and Finance.
-The removal of certain officials (most of them from Shi'ite Islamic parties such as Ibrahim Al-Ja'fari) from governmental positions.
-The complete return of Ba'athists, army officers, Republican Guards, Mukhabarat, intelligence and security personnel to their former positions.
-The removal of Shi'ite Edhan (call for prayers) from official television and radio programs.
-Incomes of Shi'ite sacred shrines should be returned under the control of the Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs.

These last two demands have been allegedly added by Sheikh Harith Al-Dhari (head of the Association of Muslim Scholars) and are said to have been a major reason behind the failure of negotiations with the government.

Iraqis here in the south were shocked to hear of these demands and sectarian tensions are on the rise. It scares me to see the reaction of people around me whenever Fallujah is mentioned. The director of a primary health care clinic was remarking the other day that "Fallujah should be burnt upon its residents and then razed to the ground. They are the sons of Mu'awiya, may Allah curse them all." Sidenote: Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan was the governor of Syria during the 7th century and he fought Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (Muhammed's son-in-law) over the Caliphate after the assassination of Caliph Othman. He became the first Ummayid Caliph and two decades later, under the Caliphate of his son Yazid, Imam Hussein bin Ali (grandson of Muhammed) was killed by his armies at present day Karbala. Someone hushed the director and pointed out to him that I'm Sunni. He was a bit embarrassed and tried to explain that he was referring to Wahhabis and foreign fighters. It was a bit uncomfortable and I could feel that people were giving me furtive glances.

 

[ajf3]

Babysteps... We'll get there. Forward progress continues.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Hopefully, this time, the Iraqi nationals will be redy to take over control, instead of having a black hole for a government in the city.

I find that scenario pretty doubtful.

also, from the original article.

First, the offensive is billed as a joint operation by the U.S. military and the Iraqi national guard, but it hasn't worked out that way. National Public Radio's Anne Garrels, who is embedded with the Marines in Fallujah, reports that of the 500 Iraqi soldiers originally deployed to go in alongside U.S. forces only 170 were still on station when the operation began. The rest had deserted?whether simply to flee for their safety or to join the other side. And these Iraqis were members of the 36th Special Operations battalion, the elite of the country's new security forces. In short, quite apart from what happens in Fallujah, the Iraqis are not remotely ready to provide defense by themselves.

If almost two thirds of the best soldiers they have desert/change sides before the decisive battle, I doubt the regular troops and cops can keep order.

Good news. Help is on the way.