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

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 shit after they've left them - the retributions will be
terrible.

Failed policy, of a failed President.

pomod

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

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.

limerickman

Indeed, White Arse.

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).

limerickman

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

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 .

__________________
Kan Ya Ma Kan...