Assault on Fallujah - Justified?

[MountainPro]

It seems strange that the Americans felt the need to launch such an aggressive assault on a city well after the war has been declared 'over'.

The question is this. Will the assault only strengthen the resove of the Iraqis to throw off the invaders?
It happened when the British were bombarded by German bombers during the Blitz. It happened when America was attacked on 9-11. The attacks only made people stronger and more determined.

You can't argue that America is acting as liberators because there are not many Iraqis that believe that since the war was supposed to be over long ago.

Fallujah is a sacred city and the residents of Iraq will see the flattening of the city as an unessesary and non-tactical process similar to the unjustified firebombing of Dresden.

A female resident of Fallujah said on Monday, "why are they fighting here in the streets, why not fight out in the deserts instead of in the school yards and peoples houses?" - all the America tanks are out there in the desert forcing the insurgents into urban conflict. These people do not want their cities destroyed no matter how fundamental thier belief.

Robin Cook, a former British Minister said that the residents of Fallujah, whether still there or have already evacuated before the assault, will be more inclined so side with the insurgents due to the nature of the attack by the Americans, stiffening Iraqi resolve and worsening the eventual outcome. These people still have to return to their homes when the Americans have left. Will they be thankful? After all, Saddam is already gone and dealth with, so why continue the war in Fallujah?

My view is that this is another total military disaster by the Americans, but then their objective was never to gain an ally in the Middle East, rather, they needed the oil revenue. The destruction of Fallujah will leave Iraq even more unstable, will unite the citizens and the rebels and for all the dead insurgents in Fallujah, twice more will sign up to fight for Iraq.

 

[fixit]

The destruction of Fallujah will leave Iraq even more unstable, will unite the citizens and the rebels and for all the dead insurgents in Fallujah, twice more will sign up to fight for Iraq.

This is a fact Amerikkka will never understand.
Anybody watching french News? They have a few Reporters in or around Fallujah covering the events from the other side. Scary

 

[MountainPro]

Cook went on to say:

"But I don't think it will make a difference to the insurgency. I don't think it will be a defeat for the insurgents.


The American forces are configured in a way to fight a conventional war against a major enemy. They seem to believe they are taking an important base. They don't understand that they are fighting a guerrilla war against an enemy that will fade away in front of them and appear around them as it has done in the last two days, launching attacks in a half a dozen other cities."

 

[limerickman]

The assault of Fallujah is unjustified.

Data might well show that there were terrorists based in Fallujah.
It may even be the base of Al Zarqawi & Co.
But attacking a guerilla army in the way that the USA have done - by attacking Fallujah - make no sense militarily, politically.

Think about it.
Military history tells you that a guerilla war - where the enemy quantity is unknown and mobile - cannot be won by conventional means.
The tactic adopted by the USA is naive in the extreme.
It is launching a full scale attack (10,000 troops) to capture a city.
The USA will claim that city but it will not claim that force that occupies that City.
The "terrorists" will simple diappear and re-group somewhere else.
They've started to do so already.
Sumara, Ramadi, Baghdad, Mosul : have all been subject to "terrorist" attack.
The USA are attempting to fight an enemy who is mobile.

Politically of course, the attack in Fallujah is very damaging.
The veracity of the USA's case is diminished, as soon as fellow Muslims see their fellow Muslims under attack.
The USA are seen as occupiers in Iraq - they have lost the hearts and minds
issue long ago.
Already, the Sunni party has said that it will not take part in the January 2005
elections because of the attack on Fallujah.
Sunni make up 35% of the Iraq nation.

The problem here is that the USA are afraid to commit the levels of troops required to successfully take on and beat the insurgents.
The USA assume that superior weaponry and hardware will win the fight
against the "terrorists".
Their thinking is flawed.

The enemy will regroup and will restage.
The indigenous population have no time for the USA : they're seen as occupiers.

The ones I feel sorry for are the Iraqi's army volunteers.
Economic necessity, rather than political ideology, made them sign on and fight with the US army.
People have long memories.
The Iraqi's know that President Allawi is a USA stooge.
When the USA gets tired of the fight in Iraq - and it has a long record of leaving countries in the **** after they've left them - the retributions will be
terrible.

Failed policy, of a failed President.

 

[pomod]

Cook went on to say:

"But I don't think it will make a difference to the insurgency. I don't think it will be a defeat for the insurgents.


The American forces are configured in a way to fight a conventional war against a major enemy. They seem to believe they are taking an important base. They don't understand that they are fighting a guerrilla war against an enemy that will fade away in front of them and appear around them as it has done in the last two days, launching attacks in a half a dozen other cities."

As I wrote in a previous thread – it’s like bailing a canoe with a sieve.
Funny how this assault was timed after the election, wouldn't have wanted to spoil that. Its the same old hawkish medieval mentality. if our square ideology won't fit your round hole we'll pound it and pound it till it fits. Maybe if the US stopped occupying the freaking country, the so called "insurgents" would have less of a beef.

 

[Weisse Luft]

With body counts ranging from 70 to over 100, its looking great. 70% of the area is under control and valuable intel has been found.

 

[fixit]

With body counts ranging from 70 to over 100, its looking great. 70% of the area is under control and valuable intel has been found.

Just watched the news, people demonstrating in almost every city (the Iraqi 'Government' gets it now), fighting broke out in northern Fallujah, familymembers of Iraqi President kidnapped, 15 GIs dead.
70% under control? Don't think so.

 

[zapper]

Just watched the news, people demonstrating in almost every city (the Iraqi 'Government' gets it now), fighting broke out in northern Fallujah, familymembers of Iraqi President kidnapped, 15 GIs dead.
70% under control? Don't think so.

Hey mr. fixit, you left out a key statement in yoiur summary... Update: American forces in Iraq cornered insurgents today in a small section of the militant stronghold. An Iraqi general said troops found "hostage slaughterhouses" where foreign captives had been killed.

Try to be fair and balanced if it's possible. I know that it's difficult to watch the news since you are so busy counting my savings account that I stashed in your county...uh I mean country

 

[limerickman]

With body counts ranging from 70 to over 100, its looking great. 70% of the area is under control and valuable intel has been found.

Indeed, White ****.

Tell that to the 20 Iraqi soldiers serving with the US cannon fodder,
who are being paraded on TV tonight, after being captured.

Our perhaps the views of the stooge Aallawi's relatives, who have been threatened with beheading might be interesting.

Before signing off - you never did answer my question.
Just where do your loyalties lie ?
You can't serve two country's.
So which country is it ?

I know your kind are good at doublespeak - so I await an answer, with interest (not of the Usuary variety, needless to say).

 

[zapper]

Indeed, White ****.

Tell that to the 20 Iraqi soldiers serving with the US cannon fodder,
who are being paraded on TV tonight, after being captured.

Our perhaps the views of the stooge Aallawi's relatives, who have been threatened with beheading might be interesting.

Before signing off - you never did answer my question.
Just where do your loyalties lie ?
You can't serve two country's.
So which country is it ?

I know your kind are good at doublespeak - so I await an answer, with interest (not of the Usuary variety, needless to say).

Lim, you are out of control...such hostility...Now, sing this little tune to yourself...I feel pretty, I feel pretty.......

 

[limerickman]

Lim, you are out of control...such hostility...Now, sing this little tune to yourself...I feel pretty, I feel pretty.......

It's Iraq that's out of control, my dear Zapper !

 

[The Cheat]

Being in the TA I have a (limited) insight into the situation and i know that i speak for my work plas when i say that no one in my unit aproves of the way the US are handling this. The only way to beat this kind of enemy is to win over the Iraqi civilians. The US will never b able to do this if they are too scared to even talk to these civis without being fully decked out in Kevlar and having a m8 of theirs point a pistol at him.

Those Black Watch lads, even though they've had about 16 casualties (4 of which were fatal) in the 6 days they've been at Dog-wood , are still wearing the tam-o-shanters and not their kevlar helmets, and they are actualy trying to make bonds with the Iraqi's who live their... I only hope that the americans who were there first didn't ruin their chances...

 

[MountainPro]

Being in the TA I have a (limited) insight into the situation and i know that i speak for my work plas when i say that no one in my unit aproves of the way the US are handling this. The only way to beat this kind of enemy is to win over the Iraqi civilians. The US will never b able to do this if they are too scared to even talk to these civis without being fully decked out in Kevlar and having a m8 of theirs point a pistol at him.

Those Black Watch lads, even though they've had about 16 casualties (4 of which were fatal) in the 6 days they've been at Dog-wood , are still wearing the tam-o-shanters and not their kevlar helmets, and they are actualy trying to make bonds with the Iraqi's who live their... I only hope that the americans who were there first didn't ruin their chances...

Yep, nice one mate.

As lim pointed out, the basic difference between British and American troops is professionalism.

 

[ItsikH]

Unfortunately, as long as the allied forces are present, such measures are required. However, they totally ignore the effect on local population, and their hostility is the worst outcome: It is practically impossible to control a hostile population for a long period, without a huge price tag. In this kind of war you never win, at best score some points and lose others, and the trick is to minimize cost and maximize benefit - just like running a business.
Having said that, I still believe this war has been (and still is) a big mistake that could eventually lead Iraq and the region into chaos that could be taken over by Islamic fanatics .

 

[fixit]

Hey mr. fixit, you left out a key statement in yoiur summary... Update: American forces in Iraq cornered insurgents today in a small section of the militant stronghold. An Iraqi general said troops found "hostage slaughterhouses" where foreign captives had been killed.

Try to be fair and balanced if it's possible. I know that it's difficult to watch the news since you are so busy counting my savings account that I stashed in your county...uh I mean country

Sounds like propaganda to me. 'Hostage slaughterhouse', sounds even more like propaganda. What's Abu Ghraib then, a 'slaughterhouse for innocent civilians'? Come on man.
Nobody is cornered, they just moved to Mossul. Do you really believe that the info we get from the US military is anywhere near the truth? The last thing you wanna do in an ongoing conflict is to supplie the enemie with info about progress made.
Always remember: The first thing to die in war is the truth!

 

[limerickman]

Being in the TA I have a (limited) insight into the situation and i know that i speak for my work plas when i say that no one in my unit aproves of the way the US are handling this. The only way to beat this kind of enemy is to win over the Iraqi civilians. The US will never b able to do this if they are too scared to even talk to these civis without being fully decked out in Kevlar and having a m8 of theirs point a pistol at him.

Those Black Watch lads, even though they've had about 16 casualties (4 of which were fatal) in the 6 days they've been at Dog-wood , are still wearing the tam-o-shanters and not their kevlar helmets, and they are actualy trying to make bonds with the Iraqi's who live their... I only hope that the americans who were there first didn't ruin their chances...

Finally, a voice of sanity from the military perspective.

The Black Watch have been hung out to dry.
They're part of the most professional fighting force in the world - the British Army.
Now they're expected to take commands from the an army which has been shown to be inept, unprofessional - the US Army.
Let's be clear - Bliar has hung out the Black Watch.

I feel very sorry for those lads.
They have no choice but to obey orders.
Imagine being caught in that compromise where you're political masters sell you down the swany and let you be ordered around by the most inept
army in the world.
Doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[FredC]

Unfortunately, as long as the allied forces are present, such measures are required. However, they totally ignore the effect on local population, and their hostility is the worst outcome: It is practically impossible to control a hostile population for a long period, without a huge price tag. In this kind of war you never win, at best score some points and lose others, and the trick is to minimize cost and maximize benefit - just like running a business.
Having said that, I still believe this war has been (and still is) a big mistake that could eventually lead Iraq and the region into chaos that could be taken over by Islamic fanatics .

We like you, and generally you post well. Don't you think it better, now that Yasser has died to concentrate on your own doorstep as most of your post will apply in the circumstances, unless Bush & Co can bang a few heads together in the Knesset, or is Sharon still controlling America as he stated in a cabinet meeting to Peres broadcast live on Kol Yisrael. How did your ride in the Negev go. I want to know if it was a success?

 

[ItsikH]

We like you, and generally you post well. Don't you think it better, now that Yasser has died to concentrate on your own doorstep as most of your post will apply in the circumstances, unless Bush & Co can bang a few heads together in the Knesset, or is Sharon still controlling America as he stated in a cabinet meeting to Peres broadcast live on Kol Yisrael. How did your ride in the Negev go. I want to know if it was a success?

It feels good to know that my posts are read and appreciated - thanks!
Iraq is just a few miles away - I should say a cycling distance. The future of Iraq is almost as relevant to Israel as the furure of the occupied territories. As you may have noticed, I am quite pessimistic about both. Still there is always a chance, and I would be happy to be proven wrong. In the Palestinian context, the expected outcome of Arafat's death would be anarchy followed by extremists taking over and escalation of the conflict (yes, it could get much worse). The optimistic alternative would be the relatively moderate Abu Mazen and Dachlan taking control and this time with a far better chance for a real peace process. Even then, an Israeli partner might not be available this time.
BTW, Sharon is not controlling America, he is barely controlling his own cabinet.
As for the cross-country tour - incredible! Next time in the spring. See my post http://www.cyclingforums.com/t192544.html.

 

[FredC]

It feels good to know that my posts are read and appreciated - thanks!
Iraq is just a few miles away - I should say a cycling distance. The future of Iraq is almost as relevant to Israel as the furure of the occupied territories. As you may have noticed, I am quite pessimistic about both. Still there is always a chance, and I would be happy to be proven wrong. In the Palestinian context, the expected outcome of Arafat's death would be anarchy followed by extremists taking over and escalation of the conflict (yes, it could get much worse). The optimistic alternative would be the relatively moderate Abu Mazen and Dachlan taking control and this time with a far better chance for a real peace process. Even then, an Israeli partner might not be available this time.
BTW, Sharon is not controlling America, he is barely controlling his own cabinet.
As for the cross-country tour - incredible! Next time in the spring. See my post http://www.cyclingforums.com/t192544.html.

Any ideas why Sharon said Israel controlled America, when he attacked Prime Minister Peres in public, or have you already answered that above in your post? I noted that Binjamin Netanyaou castigated Yasser, and I think that BN was one of the worst, even though he did get reelected after gross failure. I think that it's best to stay in the Negev with the Sabrees.

 

[ItsikH]

Any ideas why Sharon said Israel controlled America, when he attacked Prime Minister Peres in public, or have you already answered that above in your post? I noted that Binjamin Netanyaou castigated Yasser, and I think that BN was one of the worst, even though he did get reelected after gross failure. I think that it's best to stay in the Negev with the Sabrees.

I rarely listen to Sharon or any other polititians in this country - they can't tell the truth even if their lives depended on it . BN is much worse than Sharon when it comes to integrity (poor choice of word for both of them, I must say).
As for "controlling" America - no point in even referring to such nonsense. Maybe he thinks that voters might believe that - either he or his voters aren't so smart. As I said - he can't control his cabinet ministers, how could he control America?
BTW, you called Peres PM - he is not neither has ever been the elected PM! The sad history of Shimon Peres: His first attempt was in 1974, after Golda Meir's resignation, he was defeated by Rabin, who later won the general elections. In 1977 he won the party, then lost to Begin in the general elections. It goes on and on (excpet for a short rotation period in the 80's with Shamir) until 1992 when Rabin won the party and the general elections. When Rabin was assasinated (may his murderer rot in hell), Peres replaced him until defeated by Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been said that Peres felt defeated for the last time - he didn't even get the martir's death.