Iraqi Prime Minister: Fallujah Assault Imminent



Note: Mr. Chirac decided to skip the meeting in Brussels...yet found the time to visit Arafat.


Questions for Debate:
1) Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq?

2) Would the capture of Zarqawi equal a great victory in the War on Terror?

3) Now that political pressure is off of President Bush, do you think he will be {should be} more aggressive when it comes to the insurgents?

There must be something I totally don't understand about this Fallujah offensive: who are we going to fight there? There's no regular army, no uniformed soldiers, just insurgents which enjoy the support of the population. We have been trumping up this offensive for weeks, all the insurgents probably laid down their arms (temporarily) and returned to their families, effectively turning themselves into civilian population. What good does it do to have tanks, aviation, heavy artillery, and 10,000 marines? Either we are going to round up every able-bodied man in Fallujah and send them to Guantanamo for a few years, or this offensive is doomed for failure.
Russians have a good proverb which would be a good fit here: "You can't kill a sparrow with a cannon."

1) Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq?

Its possible. I suppose it depends on how much the Iraqi's have learned. They seem to be doing quite well for themselves, considering the amount of fire power they are up against.

If they are really stupid and the coalition forces are lucky, then the insurgents will stand and fight... but if they are as smart as some of their more recent actions have suggested. Then the insurgents will be long gone when the Iraqi and US troops arrive in Fallujah.


2) Would the capture of Zarqawi equal a great victory in the War on Terror?

It would certainly be hyped as such, but in all honesty I doubt it will make much difference. Zarqawi is sort of like Che Guevarra (sp?) figure. High profile but without any real power. Killing him probably won't make any difference to the Iraqi rebels... though it would be sweet for the Americans and the Allawi government.

Its almost funny though to be reading Eads telling FOX "I think the one thing al-Zarqawi knows after Nov. 2 is that he's a dead man,"

... Does he mean dead like Usama Bin Laden I wonder?

seems to me that this Lt. Col. Tim Eads has made the first error already by counting his chickens before they've hatched. I hope this is only a sign of enthusiasm and not an ill omen of over confidence. It is pure folly to underestimate the enemy.


3) Now that political pressure is off of President Bush, do you think he will be {should be} more aggressive when it comes to the insurgents?

This is the question though that really makes me smile. Its repeated in this article:
...just how exactly were GW Bush's hands 'tied' before? and just who was holding him back?

But to answer the question... well, in all honesty I don't know if it will make any difference one way or the other. Its the people of Iraq who have to make their democracy work. They could end all of the uncertainty today by simply rising up against the dangerous religious freeks who threatened to drag them back down into the past again.

Some how though I don't think their hearts are into a democracy foisted upon them by an invading 'christian' army.

1.)English Horn really hit the nail on the head on this one. Other than a few die-hards who will stay to inflict casualties and become casualties themselves, the majority of insurgents will be elsewhere. Why anyone would believe that they would make a big stand in Fallujah to no one's benefit but our own is just truly something else to believe. Horn's statement that: also points to another truth. We can have low casualty numbers and Fallujah itself, and the importance of such a victory would be very small. The terrorist won't say: "Oh, Fallujah fell, we'd better give up getting this occupier out of our midst." We held every major city in South Vietnam, look where that got us.

2.)On a justice/legal level, it would be greatly beneficial in regard to seeking justice for those whom he murdered. On a political level, it wouldn't matter much at all since someone would step up to fill the void.

3.)He would undoubtedly increase the pressure now that he doesn't have Kerry looking over his shoulder second-guessing him. I'm not sure if I agree with giving him the reigns to conduct this war, but that's how the people voted, we'll see what he gives them in return. Whether it will be Iraqi democrcy or body bags is anyone's guess.

Hospital gets destroyed



1) Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq?

Liberation? Is this liberation? Is this the process of 'freedom?' Not by any definitions I ever learned - or want to believe in. The turning point in Iraq was last March - when we began to 'shock and awe' the Iraqi people into submission.

2) Would the capture of Zarqawi equal a great victory in the War on Terror?

No. Iraq has nothing to do with the WOT. Our government knows this. Our intelligence community knows this. It is some of our citizens who seem to be unaware of this. Even if it was, how can there be 'victories' in such a chimeric endeavor? Bah.

3) Now that political pressure is off of President Bush, do you think he will be {should be} more aggressive when it comes to the insurgents?

He probably will be, so he can hurry up and move us on to the next country on the neocon hitlist.

Could you back this comment up? Last I heard is that only 50,000 resident's remain out of a pop. of 250,000. Also that doesnt mean that those remaining 50,000 resident's support the insurgent's. Can you back this up or are you just throwing out rhetoric unsupported by the facts?


Really? Care to back that up in this thread?
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=8417

OR how about this thread?
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=8175

OR this thread.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=8331

Or tell that to the people that made this documentary.
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?moviei...018153&trkid=73

Back up your accusations, I would love to debate this subect in these threads. I hope you are informed on this subject, ive yet to have a reasonable debate that backs up your comment.

Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq?

That depends on the Iraqi's. In the words of a staff sargent in the new Iraqi army "They murder civilians and hate the Iraqi security forces, I want to fight them as soon as possible".

In the words of another Iraqi soldier "These terrorists are evil men, they hide behind children and families and kill the Iraqi people" (do you disagree?).
http://premium.cnn.com/pr/video/world/2004....cnn.jsp?(none)

Over 700 Iraqi security forces have died to date in the battle and yet more enlist. Alot of westerner's are out of touch with reality. Goto Iraqi blogs and documenteries from Iraqi's. The MSM will always report the bad and paint a picture of choas.

Here is a good place to start.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com//

Would the capture of Zarqawi equal a great victory in the War on Terror?
Yes. How anyone can deny this is beyond me.

Now that political pressure is off of President Bush, do you think he will be {should be} more aggressive when it comes to the insurgents?

As opposed to his current policy? I dont believe he will be "more agressive" yet keep his current policies in place.

Questions for Debate:
1) Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq?

No. The heavy bombardment and airstrikes will have already generated more new insurgents and terrorists than the assault on Falluja will kill or capture. As the goal of the offensive is to cripple the insurgents and terrorists by reducing their number the battle has already been lost.

I also have to agree with moif, after giving the insurgents so much warning I should imagine there will be very few left in Falluja by the time the offensive begins.

2) Would the capture of Zarqawi equal a great victory in the War on Terror?

Of course not. It'll result in two weeks worth of propaganda for Bush while the terrorists find a new leader. A couple of suicide bombs and kidnappings later and bingo! You have your new boogy man and the cycle begins again.

3) Now that political pressure is off of President Bush, do you think he will be {should be} more aggressive when it comes to the insurgents?

I would of thought he'll be more aggressive. Although there is evidence which points towards this tactic increasing insurgency rather than dampening it. Russia's battle against terrorists in Cheneya is a stark indication of the dangers of this approach. Putin has razed Chechnya to the ground, (70% of women of a marriageable age are now widows) yet they still committed one of the worst ever acts of terrorism at Belsen.
The IRA is the only example of terrorism defeated that I can think of and the concessions given to the terrorists were extensive.
But it is the stratergy Bush believes is right, and the proficiency of his leadership is based on steering his ship in one direction.

1) Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq? I hope so. At this point things are looking pretty grim. From what I've read, Fallujah is basically one large area completely run by insurgents and terrorists. They have kicked vast numbers of residents out of their own homes in order to operate out of them, slaughtered and tortured policemen who won't allow them to own the town, turned hospitals into ammunition storage facilities and sniper vantage points. So, if a new terrorist is made from a civilian through every death of an innocent family member, I'd expect an end to terrorism in Iraq soon. There have been so many terrorist-induced innocent fatalities the mass outrage of the population should be overwhelming and people willing to commit suicide in order to kill the ones who bombed their children while the received candy, bombed their clinics because the west built it, bombed their schools (same reason), and killed, beat, and/or tortured their family members for blackmail purposes. Or, maybe it doeesn't exactly work that way.

This letter from a marine to his father gives some idea of what is happening in Fallujah.

The false ideals to believe that the insurgents are untrained warriors. The insurgents have been trained in camps and fighting since they were 7 years old. Zaraqawi was trained by the Russians while in Afghanistan. The question is will the Iraqi or insurgents stay and fight, or run like cockroaches into the walls.

I understand the point that we may have over kill, yet I will have you keep in mind that we are not hunting men, we are securing a city of 300,000. What does it take for the NYPD and LAPD to secure its areas? Zaraqawi is a trained military man with a force (small but not something we should claims as not a threat) that is a target in order for Iraq to feel secure prior to its elections.

1. Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq?
   
   YES. The resistance to an Iraqi democracy resides in Fallujah. Putting an end to the resistance will allow Iraq to become the democratic nation its people want to be. The biggest turning point is that this is the first time that Allawi is saying when to attack to the US troops (not how to attack but when) and the Iraqi troops have a strong presence securing areas like hospitals, mosque, and schools. The turning point really comes from the fact that for the first time Iraq is taking control of its country.
   
   
2. Would the capture of Zarqawi equal a great victory in the War on Terror?
   
   Zarqawi, OBLs right hand man, umm...yeah.
   
   
3. Now that political pressure is off of President Bush, do you think he will be {should be} more aggressive when it comes to the insurgents?
   
   I don't think this was Bush's call. I really think it was Allawi saying (back when Kerry came out against Allawi) that Iraq needs to put an end to the insurgents. Bush has authorized the use of US troops, has used US Intelligents to plan the attack, has used US funding to back the troops, and US training to prepare Iraqi troops. Yet it is Allawi who called for martial law, and it is Allawi who gave the order to enter Fallujah. Now whether Allawi is a puppet, I do not know, nor have I seen proof one way or the other to suggest such a thing. To make that statement is to claim a conspiracy theory, and I really don't play those games.
   
   Besides to even claim that this had anything to due with lack of political pressure is wrong. The plans to go into Fallujah the week after the election has been known since Blair sent troops into Baghdad in order to release more troops for Fallujah. I think that Bush would have went into Fallujah to free Iraqi elections, which would have completed his main objective (after WMDs and removal of Saddam): a free democratic Iraq.

I never said they are "untrained" - they could very well be able soldiers, but they are ununiformed - meaning that it's hard to distinguish between a male civilian and an insurgent. Those insurgents who stayed in Fallujah to fight will, no doubt, be killed; I just doubt that insurgents are stupid enough to do that. You know, the most dangerous thing in war is to underestimate menthal capacity of your enemy.
As for Al Zarqawi, I'd love to see some sources where you saw that he was trained by Russians in Afganistan. That means that he was fighting on the side of godless anti-Islam Afgan communists against bin Laden who was trained by Americans... I assume this is a typo and you really meant to say "trained by CIA"... because otherwise it doesn't make sense one bit.

Edit: Here's one of many links debunking your post:

Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq?

Possibly it may be considered so to the citizens of Fallujah, who are abandoning the city in droves. That turning point might possibly be increased hatred, hostility and disgust at the occupation of their country as troops tell them they will be forbidden to enter or leave the area once the fighting begins.

I'm sure this an excellent way to win "hearts and minds".

A side note: I understand that Iraq is a bit more religiously progressive than other Muslim nations, but I think that Muslim women in general do not travel without their husband or a close male relative with them. Where are these women and children supposed to go while the Americans bomb the snot out of their home town?



Yup, smells like democracy to me…

Would the capture of Zarqawi equal a great victory in the War on Terror?

No. It would be a coup for the Americans, but it will also make a martyr/hero out of Zarqawi. Depending just how badly things go in Fallujah, it will also serve as a wonderful recruiting tool for terrorist groups worldwide.

Now that political pressure is off of President Bush, do you think he will be {should be} more aggressive when it comes to the insurgents?

Like what has been happening for the last 20 months somehow ISN’T aggressive?

That is the reason for the marital law and the curfew. Those who are out walking around carrying guns at night are insurgents, those who are in their house, might be, that is why our troops have been training in urban warfare, going door to door. They have contacted people who were at Imo Jima, Seoul, and others who survived urban warfare as to give hints on fighting 'non-uniformed soliders' in urban settings. The military has trained for this.

The question is will these forces escape, blend in with the refugees and flee the city or will they make their last stand? Only time will tell.

Okay I am going to do a leap on this one, but if you follow it you will believe Soviet trained, if not, you'll believe he was Taliban trained, meaning US trained with tactics piked up by Soviet (either way Soviet influence, direct or indirect, is apart of any Afghan trained fighter).

in 1989 Zarqawi went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, however this was at the point that the Soviets were withdrawing troops. The CIA pumped 2.1 billion over a ten year period building up a resistance. While in Afghanistan, the Soviets controlled the city of Herat. Herat was resisted by Ismail Khan (the now leader of the Northern Alliance). After the Soviets left, Khan took control until 1995 when city was captured by the Taliban.

While in Afghanistan, Zarqawi established a terrorist training camp near Herat (Soviet control center). The training camp specialized in poisons and explosives. Here's the leap. His location and specialization point to Soviet tactics. Not to mention his brief time of resisting Soviets in Afghanistan leads to an understanding of Soviet tactic. It is CIA tactic to kill the leader quietly, it is Soviet tactic to blow a hole in the side of the bus.

Yes I know the argument is weak, but it is hard for me to believe that anyone who fights an enemy for 10 years would not pick up on their tactics and use them.

(Source)

Well remember that next time Germany attacks the UK. Because fighting is useless right? We will end up killing people and that will enrage their relatives causing more people to fight you than you kill so why bother.


Tell that to Nicholas Burg, oh that's right he was beheaded. So much for "the boogyman".


You forgot Afghanistan.

Thanks for the sarcasm. We carpet bombed Germany (especially Dresden) knowing that it was not a military target in retaliation for the blitz on London. In both instances the huge civilian casualties resulted in a greatly increased will to resist and in effect a boost to moral which served both sides very well. Not only that, the anger caused by the unnecessary bombing still burns. Only last week the Queen on a state visit to Germany to promote better relationships was asked to apologise for the bombings. My worry is that in Falluja the airstrikes will not just generate a stronger will to resist but greatly increase the number of recruits to the insurgency. Is this really such a ridiculous concern to have?



Does it make any difference if a man was beheaded by the current terrorist leader or a new one? Do you think the victim cares? Terrorist cells are not like snakes, if you cut off the head of the leader it does not die, it simply grows a new head. Do you honestly think that if Zarqawi is captured or killed the rest of his group will think - Our leader is gone, let us disband as quickly as possible! Personally I have my doubts...



No I didn't. I won't go in to this any further as it's off topic, but I don't believe that Afghanistan's problems are fully resolved yet. Although good progress has been made.

1) Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq?
I just want to answer this one question, and the answer based on what we are seeing there is No. This article on MSNBC describes what is going on there.

On the positive side, it looks like we'll take the city, and honestly there wasn't ever any doubt in my mind that we would. If the insurgents and terrorists stood out in the streets and fought us, they'd lose pretty quickly.

The fact that only small numbers of insurgents are engaging US troops says to me:
- The insurgents are staying hidden until this blows over
- Or they have fled the city, because with the number of troops we have there it would be impossible to completely seal it off.

It would be illogical to believe there are only a small number of insurgents in Fallujah.

Either way I don't think we are going to be making a significant dent in the insurgency and we are not going to capture or kill Zarqawi. It was pretty well known that a Fallujah offensive was coming, I honestly don't think there is anyone left there to fight. I'm also pretty sure that Zarqawi is either in hiding or has left the city for the time being.

So once the US inevitably takes the city that leaves them two options:
1. Pull out and essentially give the city back to the insurgents
2. Stay there and hold the city and become car bomb fodder and face daily sniper attacks.

I personally don't see either one as being a very good option. So at this point I'm going to have to say that I am highly skeptical that the Fallujah offensive will make one bit of difference in the big picture. The facts coming in just don't seem to support that conclusion. Sure we'll take the city, but the question is will it matter and what do we do once we have taken it?

I don't think that our military has learned the lesson from Vietnam if they think they can beat a guerilla force by simply taking a city. It didn't work 35 years ago and it won't work now.

My edit window from yesterday has expired, but I also wanted to add this article published today which describes some of the effects that Fallujah is having, and could have on the future of Iraq. In the final analysis the article concludes that if Fallujah can be brought under control (control does not equal taking the city alone in my mind) that would have a positive impact, but signs point to that not completely happening. Aside: there are some good (free) pictures of the offensive in here.

The analysis here backs up what I posted yesterday:



It may well be the turning point in Iraq, but not in the direction the US is hoping for. I sincerely hope these analysts are wrong, but in my gut I don't feel they are.

Three of PM Allawi's relatives have been kidnapped and are being threatened with beheading, backing up Cube Jockey's assertion of the increase in violence. I wonder how this will affect the Fallujah offensive...Mr. Allawi had better be prepared for 3 dead relatives.

An update from MSNBC:



Like I was saying before, it doesn't take a military genius to figure out that insurgents will not be waiting for face-to-face combat with United States Marine Corp. I am surprised that we encounter any resistance there at all - some die-hards, I guess. Media doesn't really do a service to a military by trumping up the unreasonable expectations...

My guess is that some were ordered to stay behind and hold the fort while the bulk of the insurgency slipped away to make trouble in other parts of the country. By keeping some parts of the insurgency behind it ensures that there will be fighting and more importantly death (both civilian and insurgent). This plays into the hand of Zarqawi and his ilk because it gives him a good propaganda tool to recruit more people for the cause.

What we just accomplished militarily is the equivalent of pouring water on a grease fire.

Quick Question:

How is it so easy to assume that some of the best trained military strategists in the world are complete idiots?

I would assume that The surrounding cities in the Sunni triangle will not escape the hand of coalition forces, Fallujah is just first because it forces the bulk the the hard-core insurgents to pick up and move, it gets them off-balance for round two...

Probably the same thing that brought about the belief that military intelligence is the best example of an oxymoron since jumbo shrimp.

It is hard to give faith to the military strategists in this war after 18 months of poor post-invasion efforts.

Including looting, firing the military, being under manned, inability to restore basic facilities, abu ghraib for starters.

So in my humble estimate some of the best trained military strategists in this case are not a lock to solve the problems in Falujah any better than their past attempts.

It all still seems like a quagmire to me. I fail to see what martial law and the Falujah campaign will be able to do to turn the tide in Iraq. We can hold the day but we have not won the hearts. We have taken out a stable brutal regime and without our stewardship the country seems to be destined for a period of unstable lawlessness and a future of civil war. Hussein's regime was no hotbed of fundamentalist terrorism, but this new Iraq seems to be good at pawning power and influence for Zarqawi. There is probably going to be room for more like him to emerge.

As much as I hate Bush and this whole fiasco they call a war, I have to agree. Simply regaining control is beneficial to everyone. And no matter how we feel, losing this is not beneficial to anybody.

However, I'm disappointed that we waited until the election was over because that's probably what the rebellion forces did before hiding/burying their weapons, disappearing into the population, and waiting to emerge later somewhere else. The timing worked to their advantage as well as Bush's.

But as long as we're in control, the violence won't stop, but it will be limited in scope. The less areas they are in control of, the better.

Look at the results Turnea.

1. This attack was telegraphed weeks before it happened. In fact I think that our intentions were basically broadcast on CNN. That gave the insurgents plenty of time to hide and/or flee to other areas. It generally isn't a smart idea to announce that you are going to attack an enemy before you attack him.

2. As I cited in my previous response, violence has increased elsewhere in the country in response to Fallujah. Not exactly the response we were looking for.

3. The Sunnis have pulled away from the political table, putting the elections in Jan in jeopardy. Again, not the response we were looking for.

4. The insurgents have kidnapped 3 members of Allawi's family. I'm sure that isn't what he expected. If they can get to his family, they might be able to get to him.

All of this proves to me that our military strategists haven't learned their lesson because they are trying to fight this war the same way we did in Vietnam 35 years ago. You cannot fight a guerilla force effectively by taking a city, that has been proven not to work and I don't really think it is even debatable.

I also don't think this "failure is victory" mantra is really helpful. I don't see how anyone can say that taking fallujah, but spreading the violence to every other part of the country = success.

It's sort of a catch-22. If you don't take control of Fallujah, the insurgents will continue to have a base of operations. If you do take control, the insurgents will just spread like rats to other areas. The hope is that this will weaken them, that they were too dependent on centralization. Somehow, I doubt this is the case, but it was the only choice available. Now, if there were vastly many more occupying troops in Iraq, then it would have been possible to catch the insurgents as they were scurrying to new locales. It appears to me as if we're shuffling troops from one hotspot to another in hopes the insurgency will lose its will. We're betting that thinning troop presence in areas where there hasn't been alot of fighting won't backfire. Finally, we're depending on Iraqi police/military units to take up the slack which as of right now seems to be a poor bet.

My answer to your question of the best trained military strategists is very simple. The truth is in the pudding. This last 18 months has been nothing but a fiasco from the beginning. No one has to assume they are complete idiots. They have proven themselves that they are complete idiots.

1) Could the liberation of Fallujah mark a turning point in Iraq?

Fallujah was the wound that was allowed to fester.

Of course we cannot leave terrorists with a stronghold within Iraq proper. Of course this action needed to be taken.

These types of insurgents have been defeated before, all it takes is the will to do so. We need the will to do this, because it needs to be done.

The fact that we found some of the areas in which people were being beheaded demonstrates that Fallujah is the cess pool of Iraq. Allowing these insurgents to use Fallujah as a safe haven for so long has added to the overall problems in Iraq.

Now that Fallujah is removed as a base of operations, we should not be naive to think that the insurgency will end. Of course it will relocate. However, it will need to relocate to an area in which the US has had contact with the population. Those that have contact with US soldiers and have seen them rebuilding Iraq will be more disposed to revealing any insurgents (especially foreign terrorists) that try to establish a base. All it takes is one tip to take these guys out.

I think the idea that new leaders will emerge automatically is ridiculous. Leaders do not simply show up. Leaders are unique men. There is a limited pool of them. However, if the last three guys who tried to be leaders are all riddled with bullets, some would-be leaders will have second thoughts. Killing the leaders of a rebellion is always the best way to quell it (the "kill the head of the snake" stratagem).

I think the broadcasting of our intentions to go into Fallujah was a mistake, but an understandable one. We wanted to allow innocents to flee. Of course, that also allows insurgents to flee. Sometimes, we are too nice for our own good.

I couldn't disagree more.

Militarily speaking it is foolish to allow the enemy a safe haven. Wherever he goes, you go and kill him. The only mistake made was allowing Fallujah to exist as an insurgent base for so long. The Marines should have been allowed to finish the job in April.

The alternative to taking down Fallujah was allowing it to remain in insurgent control, and giving the enemy a place to plan and operate from freely. Fallujah was a cancer that was spreading instability to the entire region. Taking down Fallujah also increases the likelihood that the US will get Zarqawi. If he remains in Iraq, he now remains in a country where the coalition has control of all the population centers. This increases the likelihood that his movements will be detected, or that someone will dime him out for the money.

The alternative was to use baking soda to cure our problem and not water. You are concerned that Fallujah was a cancer spreading to the rest of Iraq? It has spread to the rest of Iraq as a direct result of our actions. Iraqi Rebels hit back.

As of today Mosul has become the new hotspot and it happens to be the third largest city and 10 times the size of Fallujah - are we to march in there and take it next?

You will get no argument from me that we needed to do something about Fallujah, but a big army style offensive was not the appropriate response. The appropriate response would have been smaller, more surgical actions. The appropriate response would have been to use intelligence rather than bulldoze the city with troops.

What has effectively been accomplished is the insurgents have spread to other cities and every bomb or bullet that killed a civilian in Fallujah has made a new potential enemy for our troops of the surviving relatives.

We haven't increased our chances of finding Zarqawi, we have worsened them! At least we knew what city he was in before, now he has had ample time to flee to anywhere in the country.

And what baking soda would that be? Surgical strikes (that the US military has been doing for the past 4 months)?

It's allready spread to other part's of Iraq prior to the offensive.

Prior to the invasion the situation was...

1. Truck in materials from other parts of the country and outside of the country to Fallujah.

2. Build the bomb's in Fallujah.

3. Bring recruit's into Fallujah to train them.

4. Send them outside of the city to their objective.

Now they are deprieved of that sanctuary. They have to risk their planning, rectruiting, and bomb making operation's within the reach of US military personnel.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/12/...main/index.html



So we are supposed to bomb every mosque in the city with an airstrike?

500+ insurgents have been killed, huge weapon cache's have been discovered, hostage slaughterhouses have been discovered with a wealth of information, a prisoner has been set free, and more importantly large amounts of bomb making factories have been uncovered.

It's obvious that Fallujah was the main base of operations for the insurgents. Spreading out into other towns only make's them more vurnerable to the Iraqi government. Sure it save's them from imminent death, but it also weaken's there ability to create bomb making factories, a sancuary to plan operations as well as training.

It's easy to hide a few gun's in your house but it will hardly go unnoticed for long by trucking in materials to an area to make bombs.

500+ insurgents, huh?

Exactly, how do you know that?

First, body counts always get exagerrated. This war is no different than any other war. Body counts keep score. And in this war, there is a total blackout of that type of information. And in most cases, for good reason. How demoralizing is it to your enemy when you say you killed 500+ of their comrades versus 50?

Secondly, how could you tell they were insurgents? We are not attempting to defeat another nation's armed forces. We invaded their country and are killing civilians. They have no rank. Now, don't get me wrong, if anybody even remotely threatens our troops, I hope they take them out swiftly and conclusively. But we are in a civilian area killing civilians. There is no way to determine who the bad guys really are unless you saw them shooting at you. Counting the dead tells us nothing about who we killed.

It was quoted from a much more informed source than you or I.



Ask the people on the ground and air in the offensive, im sure they are the one's making the estimate, not me or someone sitting in Washington D.C..

From Lebanon:

The article ends on this note:

From France and the UK:

Why is it the rest of the world can see the folly in what we’re doing in Iraq but our own government turns a stubborn, blind eye? I wonder if the presidential election would have gone the same way if the Fallujah offensive had happened before Nov. 2? The wheels are falling off the wagon, and no one seems to notice-they just keep stubbornly plowing ahead. How many more “Fallujahs” are there in Iraq? As others have stated, the insurgents just move on to another city, and the cycle starts all over again.

Even people in Montana (hardly a hotbed of “bleeding heart liberals”) are having doubts about this "war".

And on Veteran's Day Bush finally sees fit to visit a grave…the tomb of the unknown. But he still hasn’t seen fit to attend one funeral of the thousand plus deaths he is responsible for. I’m sure my statement will be misinterpreted, but it takes an awful lot of chutzpah for Bush to stand up there and say:

How delusional can one man be?

And now that his biggest ally, Tony Blair, has stated publicly that solving the Israeli/Palestinian problem is a number one priority, how will that affect the Iraq situation?

What a mess.

Lebanon and France hardly account for the rest of the world DaffyGrl.
I have been somewhat surprised by the lack of condemnation in the press...especially the Arab press on Fallujah.
Here is an article with a round up of reaction from the Arab world:
Arab Response to Attacks Reveals Mixed Allegiances
Registration is required..I know I hate that too..I always use me dad's login.. but I will PM the article by request

A few notable quotes from the article ..
When an Islamist member of the Parliament in Bahrain on Tuesday proposed condemning the United States-led assault against Falluja, one of his 39 colleagues angrily rejected the idea as supporting "terrorists" in Iraq, and a heated debate ensued. In the end, a compromise was reached: a statement censuring the death of innocent civilians.

In addition, the bloodshed fomented by the resistance in the past months - including car bombings that killed children and the slaughter of young Iraqi policemen - has diluted support for the insurgents, although the American presence remains widely abhorred.

The government in Syria described the attack as "another chapter of the terrible human massacre" in the city, noting in an editorial on Wednesday in the government-run Tishreen newspaper that "occupation and security chaos in Iraq serves the interests of no one."

So yeah I will agree that in large part the Arab world condemns this violence...but it is coming with conditions and it seems that they are finding it very difficult this time around to lend support to the insurgents.



This is not the first time Mosul has been in the headlines..is it? We all know that the violence was never contained..ever.

I think smaller, more surgical actions is what we had been previously pursuing and I don't think it works. I also feel just because we have the big guns drawn now it hardly means that we have neglected our intelligence

I have noticed something else taking effect or being accomplished in regards to the insurgency. As I mentioned early in my response the insurgency is losing support..the more babies they bomb, innocent Iraqi's they execute, the more they threaten to barbarically murder men and women who have devoted their lives to the Iraqi people and their future, the more and more their support erodes away. It is different this time in comparison to the last Fallujah offense...I don't think we are making insurgents out of mourners anymore...because the insurgents have caused much mourning in Iraq themselves.

What, exactly, is the alternative at this point, Daffygrl? Allow Fallujah to stay a safe haven so that the insurgents and terrorists can continue to build bombs and decapitate and torture people from the abandoned houses of inhabitants they ousted?

Bucket, I’m sorry I wasn’t able to provide more sources to satisfy you, but I hardly have time to peruse the entire world’s newspapers.

Russia is expressing some concern about the situation, the UN and humanitarian organizations are also. Less than a third of Britons believe it was a “good idea”. One Source



Well, I guess that kinda IS the point - that there is no point. I'm sure the insurgents have no shortage of "safe havens" within Iraq. When one becomes too hot, they simply move to another. The point is that we got ourselves into this mess, and we don't seem to have a clue as to how to get out of it...short of carpet-bombing the entire country and starting over with a clean slate.

If we were to "take over" all terrorist "safe havens", it would be like playing Worldwide Whack-a-Mole.

Exactly. This is the catch-22 or the "damned if you do; damned if you don't" problem. However, there is one solution that I'm pretty sure will work: 500,000+ troops. Currently, there are insufficient numbers to execute the mission. Security and stability requires overwhelming troop presence everywhere in Iraq. It's simply not gonna work with the current numbers. Because of this, I believe the US is hurting their cause more than helping. It's Vietnam syndrome.

Mrs Pigpen

There is no alternative any more. Once you've painted yourself into a corner, all you can do is sit there and wait for the paint to dry.

There were alternatives. For example GW Bush could have appointed some body else (Colin Powell perhaps) as Secretary for Defence. Or Rumsfeld could have listened to the advice of his military planners at the Pentagon when they told him him that taking and holding Iraq would require a minimum of 400,000 ground troops.
GW Bush could have listened to Tony Blair and used the UN to create a much broader coalition instead of abusing the UN and having no international support worth mentioning.

Even after the invasion happened, the alternative could have been to bring far more troops into Baghdad and secure the entire city instead of just the airport and the oil ministry.

...but of course that would have required more troops.

Also, it might have been a really good idea to have had an army of Iraqi soldiers already in place before the invasion took place! A well trained, well equipped force made up of Iraqi's opposed to Saddam Hussein. Maybe only a few thousand of these would have made all the difference to the US troops who had to police Iraq with no reliable method of communicating with the locals.

Another really good idea would have been to secure Turkish help so that a fledgling Iraq would have had at least one useful neighbour instead of no useful neighbours at all.

There were options and possibilities available all along but these were ignored for for an 'us-against-them/ your-either-with-us-or-against-us' attitude by an American government that scorned advice, disencouraged assistance and now must reap what it has sown.

This is what America voted for.

editted to add:

logophage

You may be interested in this article:

http://www.comw.org/pda/041022milops.html

What evidence currently available makes you think they need a sanctuary? If they want a training camp they could easily go to some smaller town or out in the middle of the desert and no one would probably find them. If you think that these insurgents won't be welcomed and protected in many other cities in Iraq then frankly I don't think you understand what is going on. There is growing discontent within certain segments of the Iraqi population for the US government particularly and I don't think it is that much of a stretch to assume that these insurgents will find safe harbor in many other cities. The US was using white phosphorous rounds in Fallujah which is technically against the Geneva Conventions but of course we didn't sign that part. How many pictures of melted civilians do you think it'll take to garner a little support for the insurgency?

As a result of Fallujah the Sunnis have pulled away from the table (unless that has changed in the last 24 hours and I am unaware of it) and elections won't be possible without their cooperation. What is going to happen is that the country will continue to dive further and further into chaos.

Are there any "safe havens" in America for terrorist? A place where they can control the city, behead the nationals, punish the wicked and create bombs to be used on bus of people? If there is I have yet to see it. I mean we have terror attacks, but we have no terror friendly area's in the entire country.

The Worldwide Whack-a Mole game will not happen, because there is no Worldwide "safe haven." And as history has shown, the terrorist find their little nest and stay there. Arafat in Palenstine, Saddam in Iraq, Osama in Afghanistan. What the offensive say to the terrorist is that Iraq is no longer a "safe haven." No matter where you live in Iraq, the Iraqi government will go in and destroy you. This is not Zarqawi's Iraq, this is the peoples Iraq and the will stop at nothing to remove the terrorist. Or less we forget that this attack was implemented by the Iraqi President and carried out by the Iraqi Army with some help.

You know, I've tried every way I know how to get the pro-war people to see that we can't fight this global war on terror ourselves and that without the Germanies and Frances of the world, we can't win. Half of our "coalition of the wiling" don't even have a military - let alone real soldiers. But I love this comment:


That says it better than a 40,000 word thesis. We can't even beat them at this "Whack-a-Mole" game in Iraq, let alone the entire world. 500,000 troops would not be enough. The only thing that would be enough is force nations to clean up their own backyard even if that includes our allies that sponsor, harbor, and support terrorism (you listening Saudi Arabia?).

I don't know who told Shrub that this plan would work, but they should consider getting a CAT scan.

Why so snarky? I was really hoping you would address my point..but you actually did ..altho I do feel it was unintentional.
The article you offered is titled...World reaction to battle muted Which was exactly the point I was making. This offense in Fallujah is gaining far less attention and condemnation worldwide then the last one...why? And less than a third of Britons support this..and?..you have told us nothing new. Russia expresses concern..yeah and when didn't they?


We did they are called the Kurdish Army.


This was already an idea that was offered and Iraqis rejected it. The last thing they want...especially those in Northern Iraq... is the Turks invading. Other Iraqi neighbors have also offered help and Iraq has basically said if you share a border with us..you are not welcomed. I don't really think Iraq sees it's neighbors as useful as you do.
I gave links to these events reported in another debate..here

This is an interesting development, not being reported in US Media. From Asia Times:

It certainly sounds to me like we have made the insurgents stronger not weaker, through our actions. It also appears that we may have taken a few steps backwards as far as control goes.

While I agree with the sentiment here, the way I see it is there are only two viable solutions to Iraq: pull out or add alot more troops. You may not believe that 500,000 troops are sufficient, but would you agree that there is a number which is sufficient? If not, then the only viable solution is to pull out. I believe that it is possible to squelch the insurgency if and only if the chaos being engendered is stopped.

moif, thank you for the link. I understand that US forces are stretched to the limit. In order to maintain 500,000+ troops in Iraq, the US must institute a draft. There is no other way.

And I agree with CJ. By any objective measurement available, the insurgency appears to be getting stronger and more aggressive. Hope does not quell an insurgency...

I would like to take issue with the last part of your post, which says'And carried out by the Iraqi Army with some help'.

If I remember correctly we have somewhere around 10,000-12,000 troops involved with the Iraqi Army numbering approximately 2,000. Do you REALLY THINKthat the Iraqi Army is doing the brute of the fighting with SOME HELP FROM US.

I can't believe anyone could really believe that unless you have been listening to the Bush propaganda machine.

The latest figures I saw were 18 AMERICANS KILLED and only 5 IRAQIS KILLED.

I even saw reports that a few Iraqis deserted, but not sure if that is true.

Well, I don't think that's entirely true. There is another option.

And that would be for the Iraqis themselves to take over. And to be fair, that is part of Bush's plan. The problem is, why should they? Why should they line up to die when the Americans will?

It's easy to say "for their freedom", but maybe they don't care about it as much as we think they should. We had to fight the British on our own and fight a civil war on our own to get this country where it is today. And why? Because collectively, we want our freedoms more than life itself. We have always been willing to die for freedom. But that's our culture - not Iraq's or anybody else's.

Collectively, Iraq doesn't give a crap about freedom or they'd be lining up alongside us. That's just not happening and at this late of stage in the game, never will.

It's no coincidence that we hear reports everyday about our troops dying, but hear nothing about Iraq losses. They simply aren't fighting for their freedom - we are.

This is a quagmire of epic proportions. Everything we bet the farm on (WMD, links to Al Qaida, liberation, the war funded via Iraqi oil) has come up empty. So, we broke it and need to fix it. And it will take more troops. Since Bush thumbed his nose at the international community and the Iraqis won't fight, what's next? Either we declare victory after the elections are over and clear out (the most probable), implement a draft, or just up and leave.

September 11 proved that it wasn’t all that difficult for terrorists to find a safe place in this country to dig in and plan their attacks. Granted, security measures have supposedly tightened in the US, but just how hard do you think it still is for terrorists to burrow in some town in the US? The whole world is both the terrorists’ base and its target. Members of the IRA are arrested in Colombia, and OBL has influence in the Philippines, Pakistan, the Middle East, and who knows where else? Then you have your homegrown terrorists and wanna-be’s like Tim McVeigh, Richard Reid (oops, I think he's a Brit), David Walker Lindh, and Adam Yahiye Gadahn.

Edited again to add: And then there's the "SIA's" sneaking over the Mexico/US border.

Terrorism is everywhere. It’s like a weed you can’t kill. Waging a "war on terrorism" is folly at best, disastrous at worst.

The FBI’s current most wanted terrorists hail from the following countries:

US – 1
Kuwait – 1
Saudi Arabia – 5
Egypt – 6
Comoros – 1
Kenya – 2
Tanzania – 1
Libya – 1
Lebanon – 3
Source

Here’s a list of known terrorist organizations around the world: Info

Perhaps this should be taken to another thread..but the draft thing sure gets thrown around a lot in all kinds of discussions.

I think everyone one of us...Americans that is..knows that a draft just would not happen here unless there was some huge dramatic event that occurred in the GWOT. It would have to be HUGE.

Regardless I had always thought there were other alternatives the gov can take to provide more troops in Iraq then just the draft..it just seems like a massive leap to me.. Doesn't congress limit the number of troops the US military can have? Meaning couldn't we up our troop enlistments? I had thought that was what Kerry was proposing when he said he would increase our military numbers?

I know the US military..or really I only know that the DOD and the US Army can't do anything employment wise without the Congress approving it in their budget...and then the many other authorizations as it trickles down. My husband has been waiting almost for 4 mos. to be put into his new position because of budget approvals. If it is this difficult to get raises and positions approved..I seriously doubt we will all go to sleep to awake to the draft being reinstated.

I would imagine that we would be run out of Iraq faster than we would get a military draft in operation.

While we're dreaming, I could propose other "solutions": the insurgents just stop their insurgency or the insurgents commit mass suicide or the Iraqi elections will be a magic salve of unification/pacification. But, you do make a good point with your rhetorical question. Perhaps, pulling out is the only way to get the Iraqis to accept their part of the security burden. It's a pretty tough call.


On the contrary, we do see Iraqis fighting for their "freedom": they are called insurgents or sometimes terrorists.


Agreed and well stated.

Edited to add response to bucket:

I believe you are correct, bucket. Congress could permit increased recruitment. Perhaps, that's the answer. Free up the necessary funds to get another 300,000 troops into Iraq via enlistment and not the draft. Of course, the troops would have to undergo a rotation schedule so the number of recruits would have to be higher than 300,000.

I'll take your need to vent sarcasm as lightly, however to deal with my main reason for putting the offensive in those terms, is in two fold. First was to remind those that want to skew the offensive as a 'Bush wrong move wrong time' that this offensive was called by Iraqi's, and Iraqi's are there too, fighting for their country. Kind of like the French during the American Revolutionary War, over in America, teaching them how to shoot, how to fight, how to battle, while at the same time using their ships to knock out the British Navy. The second was to remind people that Iraq is not yet full ready to being attacks on their own, but they are working hard for it. Don't give up on the Iraqi's yet, who knows where they will be in two hundred years.

As to the deserts, I have heard the same. One was a commander that had fled and had knowledge of the attack. The troops changed plans and was able to continue with ease. This was necessary for two reasons as well. One was to people Iraqi';s build a stronger army by understanding where they went wrong with this commander, and second teaches Iraqi's what to do when someone steals your plans.

Ah but I gave props to this. I was asking for examples of a strong hold in America like the one in Fallujah. Can you find a place in America where the run a part of the country like al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Zarqawi in Iraq? Everything is done in secret and quiet with no attention being dragged to them. That is NOT a strong hold. Find a strong hold in America.

The examples I would give would include your list of "home grown" terrorist. The Michigan Militia as one has a seeming strong hold in Northern Michigan. They train, fire their guns, prepare for war on the weekends, but none of the status OBL in Afghanistan or Zarqawi in Iraq. Zarqawi was judge, jury, and executioner in Fallujah. Michigan Militia would never dream of such a thing. That is the goal in Iraq. Not to rid these terrorist, but to make them afraid of what will happen to them. To tame them like the Michigan Militia.