Ground assault on Faluja commences
 

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Sad...81272661.html#

And from earlier today...

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Sad...781250203.html


I've highlighted portions I think are noteworthy.

I guess the desertion of an Iraqi who has first-hand knowledge of the assault plans is not a good thing.

Hopefully it won't turn out to be a massacre; either of civilians or US/Iraqi forces.

And now my own, non-partisan, question.

How on Earth can this battle be won? I don't want a political answer. I'm just at a loss as to how this kind of resistance can be overcome without wholesale death and destruction being inflicted upon the Iraqi people. And even then, that's not a real victory.

What do you think about the suggested compromise that would allow the Sunni's carefully guaranteed freedom to contest the poll in January? Would the US allow that and, if not, why not? Fear of another Iran? But if it was democratic, would that not be hypocracy?


Mr Mephisto

I'd love to hear the rationale behind this:

How much combat experiance do you think our guys had when the war started?

They did pretty good.

But now a lot of our guys have combat experience.

I spoke with a guy who returned from Iraq and he wanted to go back. His wife wouldn't let him. He told me they've been pulling out all the experience and replacing it with fresh off the boat. He was pissed.

If a lack of combat experience somehow equates to a greater ability to achieve objectives, then maybe I'm wrong.

This is going to be absolutely fascinating, and I hope it is covered as much as humanly possible. The application of state-of-the-art intelligence and technology in an extremely volatile, difficult and dangerous urban military application. Marine Commanders have had months to plan this; it will be most interesting to see how things now actually unfold on the battlefield. This Fallujah campaign will no doubt serve as a prototype (win or lose) for modern urban warfare for years to come.

As far as taking the hospital first, I understand it is "so that workers there could attend to casualties without facing intimidation by insurgents, and to end its use as a source of anti-U.S. propaganda, as well as prevent insurgent medical care" under the assertion that "...In the past, hospital officials had said U.S. airstrikes killed only innocent civilians, a claim that the U.S. military disputed." Makes sense.

Well it's been building for awhile, guess it was bound to happen sometime. My video game warped mind doesn't see a way to take the city without first leveling it, but I'm no general, unless of course they have Tommy Vercetti, he seems pretty good at single handedly taking over a city ;)


In all seriousness though, it makes me sad to know a lot more people may die before this is over.

I'm not one to pray, but I wish our men and women in the armed forces luck and success in Fellujah.

No highlights here? Why?

These are murderers, fanatical zealots who kill innocents every day. Now it's time to put down the insurgency. Best of luck to my brothers and sisters on the ground, hopefully their stories of heroism in combat won't get buried behind the partisan garbage this war generates daily.

-Mikey

this had to happen sooner rather than later because we wnat a stable i raq as soon as posible. without that stability our economy is suffering this war was about oil and that is what our economy is based on. you have to give one to your side to be president and thats what bush did hopefully we can start to take some real control there.

That's about all I can say. I don't think there's anything else I can do or say.

You didnt expect bush or whoever really runs this country to do this BEFORE the election, did you?

this is clearly a post-election move.
i am not optimistic about how this will play out since it looks like a general retaliatory move rather than a precision one.
i do not watch this with any fascination.
i hope for minimal deaths all the way around.

Definately a post election move, I agree. It seems like the decisions of a wise and rational commander-in-chief, all things considered. (not that Bush is that, just that the decision to wait till after the election is sound).

I don't follow what you mean by "general retaliatory move rather then a precision one." Both can easily co-exist and one doesn't negate or even require the other?

I also hope for minimal deaths, but realistically understand that minimal is more likely for the US and massive is probably what's in store for the insurgency.

-bear

btw Roachboy...fwiw, I've been meaning to compliment you as your wriiting style, vocabulary, and passion in your posts is extremely captivating. I rarely agree with your position, but certainly read your opinions with interest. You're a diamond in the rough!

wow... sounds like we're gearing up again.

as always, i pray for my brothers and sisters in arms and their families who wonder if they'll see them again.

the new iraqi soldiers are also on my mind. they're in the difficult position of laying siege to a city in their own country. it must be hard for them to stay steadfast and resolute... yet the stability of the country and it's future are on their shoulders. i pray that they have the courage to win decisively and maintain the discipline necessary to avoiding more divisions w/their fellow iraqi countrymen down the road.

the loss of iraqi lives is simply staggering. i simply cannot see an end to the bloodshed...and perhaps that is a sin of inactive imagination, but i fear what we have unleashed is a genocide.

No highlights there because I didn't highlight them.

Are you trying to imply I was biased in my opinion of what was noteworthy? Do we really have to go down this route again?

SIGH

Mr Mephisto

Richard Clarke predicted this offensive months ago on the Daily Show, turns out he was right. Of course that also means that any Iraqi insurgent has seen this coming for months as well. Obviously the insurgents will flee or hide during this offensive and strike again once the pressure is off "The US military said it expected about 5000 insurgents in Falluja but revised its estimate to 1200 at the weekend." duh ever heard of guerilla warfare? Apparently our generals have not.

Since there were negotiations for months, this doesn't take a great brain to figure out.

I'll trust the generals more than you.

Taking a city that is defended, house by house, is nigh near impossible.

Just ask the Israelis.

Mr Mephisto

Wanna bet?

I think Mr. Mephisto has a good point. I'll admit that i don't know too much about military engagements, but take a look at Somalia and Stalingrad, both were as tough as nails to conquer.

Ustwo, this is not a war nor a battle fought by the generals (not that I have infinite faith in them, either). This is a war created and fought by Bush and his neocons. Generals were ridiculed when they asked for more troops; soon enough, the Bushies were pushing a backdoor draft to supply them with enough men. The attack on Fallujah could have taken place over a long period of time. It waited until now because Bush put what he felt was the best plan of attack in Iraq on hold until after the election for no reason other than to futher his personal desire to be reelected.

Not that I think that the attack on Fallujah is good policy (it is quite the opposite), but Bush did. And he held off until it would help his reelection chances the most. In the mean time, soldiers and civilians were dying in droves every day.

What a guy, that Bush.

Yes. Yes I do.

I also suggest you ask the Russians and the inhabitants of Grozny.

Of course, it all depends upon your definition of "victory". If you believe whole-sale destruction, high casualties for Allied troops, unknown but doubtlessly very high civilian casualties and a complete PR disaster are acceptable in your idea of victory, then you may continue to disagree.

But of course, if you believe that, why not simply carpet bomb the entire city?


Mr Mephisto

Don't worry, no matter what the outcome the press will do their best to make it a complete PR disaster.

Hah... Well, I guess that's a fair comment.

But isn't the press in a fair and open society meant to criticize the government and/or expose and report topics of interest? That's what we were always told when growing up. Another reason why Fox News is both lauded and laughed at (depening upon where you stand on the issue of independent media), as it so obviously does not follow an independent line.

Mr Mephisto

Please, CNN, CBS News, ABC News, C-Span, or USA Today aren't exactly what I'd consider "indepedent" media either.

I haven't been paying attention to the news lately, but why is this battle so important (more so than any other in the past?)

So we win the battle in this next round of heavy advancement, then what? I know it's an enemy stronghold (or as some like to call it "terrorist" stronghold), but aside from that.. what's the big deal here?

Is taking this city supposed to suppress most of the random attacks over the country or something?

Fallujah is the ideological, spiritual, financial, strategic and physical center of the insurgency in Iraq. The city itself is run by insurgents, meaning it is out of the control of Prime Minister Allawi and the Interim Govt. The theory is that, when Fallujah (and a few other cities overrun by insurgents) goes, so goes the insurgency, so goes the intimidation/killing of potential voters. And with the insurgency gone (or diminished), elections in January will be more of a possibility.

powerclown:
i wonder whether what you say in no. 28 reflects the same kind of wishful thinking that you saw in the algerian war and again in vietnam: what the adversary is, at some level, centralized, that it has a command structure that is symmetrical with that of the national army, that it has a head that can be cut off. do you think that this characterization is accurate with reference to american strategy here?
do you think that strategy sits on an accurate assessment of the opposition in iraq?

i am not an expert on military strategy, but it does not seem accurate, given the diffuse character of the insurgency, physically, tactically, in iraq.

it is because i am skeptical about this that i wonder whether the attack is a general response (this is what happens if you fuck with us) rather than t specific one (this operation will incapacitate a particular insrugent organization or series of them)--i cann see this going either way. if the former, i expect the actual battle will be about brutality because it is the brutality itself that is sending the real message. if the latter, then things might go otherwise.

I do, yes. Its been 6 months that the Coalition has had to gather intelligence and satellite recon, so I believe the situation is well understood by all parties involved. Its a simple strategy: wrest control out of the hands of the insurgents, deny them their sanctuary, destroy their command & control structure (which is believed to be based in Fallujah), put the town back under the authority of the Iraqi Government, stop civilian intimidation and allow for popular election. What is unfortunate is that this should have been done back during the War in 2003; its just going to make things that much harder and bloodier now, as the insurgents have had time to dig in and fortify their defenses.

Hi-Resolution Map of Fallujah (3.7mb)

The Operation is now fully underway.

In April, Coalition Forces tried to take Fallujah from the SE. This time they are entering from the NW, based on a peninsula lying West of the Euphrates. Two bridges (one of them the same bridge where insurgents had strung up the mutilated US contractors) and a hospital have been secured; the most dangerous sector of Fallujah is considered the Jolan District in the NW quarter of the city, which might explain the new incursion point. The Campaign will be in three phases: Phase I: Shaping the Battlespace, Phase II: Ground Assault, Phase III: Exploitation, Pursuit, Reconstruction.

British forces of the Black Watch have moved to positions east of the Euphrates, at the request of US military commanders, in order to "stop reinforcements moving north and block the way of insurgents leaving the city."

SIGH

Well, firstly I never said they were.
Secondly, Fox is universally acknowledged as being more partisan than others.
Thirdly, Fox is used as an example of a biased network.

I couldn't care less about arguing the CNN vs Fox nonesense anymore (I got so tired of it in the run up to the election), but I was simply using Fox as a perfectly appropriate example of a skewed news network.


Mr Mephisto

Only amoung the liberal circles. When it comes to the average person ALL networks are considered equally biased.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Broadcast%20Bias.htm

In fact Fox is viewed as LESS biased then some. Also note this report was done before CBS tried to win one for Kerry.

at some point, you might try looking at actual studies of netowrk biais, ustwo, instead of simply repeating the conventional "wisdom" that circultes in right circles about how you are o so persecuted.

thanks for the information, powerclown: when i have a bit more time, i'll check around and have a look at your map as well.

Oh Mr. Mephisto...... what is nigh near impossible again?

:lol:

ha ha, true it's over but did it help?

next target is the triangle of death, which was called the sunni triangle until two days ago? i do hope they get it all ship shape-ish for the election. i guess i'm kind of skeptical but i would really like a success over there. 5 bil a month is starting to hurt.

The fight is over now but whether or not it was successful is yet to be said. We will see if the resistance lives on or not. The big problem is while we were assulting Falluja we lost control of every other major city.

looks like i might have been closer to right than i thought, eh?
fallujah was predicated on the illusion that there was a centralized, single movement runing the show. there isnt.
there have been a number of articles appearing in the non american press concerning protests by various countries/ngos of american "excessive force" in fallujah--which pushes interpretation of it toward a show of brute force, like amsterdam in 1940, then toward the precision operation it was marketed as being for domestic consumption.

funny, isnt it?

Overstatement of the year award.

yeah we really won their hearts and minds. Showed them the beauty of American style democracy. Any day now they´ll start throwing those flowers.

Look on the positive side. There are now 1200 dead bad guys. No matter how you slice it, that's a good thing.

Or there are 1000 dead bad guys and 200 dead innocents. I doubt that this whole seige happend without the deaths of innocents. Unfortunatly there is no way to kill the bad guys without killing innocents also. Another unfortunate side effect is every time we kill Iraqi's especially innocents we just add more people to the resistance.

When the US first invaded Iraq there was very little Iraqi resistance. But we started down a slippery sloap where we killed Iraqi's which angored other Iraqi's and no matter how many we kill/killed there were always more in their place.

This is the situation were in now. We will NOT win this war by simply killing people who choose to fight against us. We need to win this war by winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Get them to work with the process not against it. (I hope that this is still possible) Displacing an entire city does not help us acheive this goal.

Maybe it is time we start working with the clerics instead of against them. They are the key to this whole conflict. We cannot let our irrational fear of muslims effect our judgment. Muslims are not the enemy. If it takes a Islamic government in Iraq to bring stability and peace then let it happen. I'd rather have a friendly Islamic government then civil war and 4 more years of death on both sides.

I seem to recall an irrational fear of an ideal causing simalar problems in the past. Let's see wasn't it called communism?

Ah so it was just the US accidentally killing Iraqi civilians which led to the problems?

Not the 1000's of foreign terrorists who came into the country?

You do realize if it were a true uprising of the Iraqi people we would be in a hell of a lot of trouble. It isn't.

Of course innocents were killed.

When you hide in schools and mosques and use crowds of civilians as cover to fire on soldiers, civilians will get killed, unless we don't respond, which is not really an option.

There are actually estimates in the tens of thousands of civilians by agencies like the International Red Cross. They claim that hundreds of thousands of women and children are in refuge, but they aren't able to get adequate supplies to them. I have yet to see much on how they are faring the winter months. But in light of how the international aid agencies are saying that they were blocked from fallujah for weeks before the operation, and that they can't get adequate medical, food, and shelter supplies to the refugees who have left, it didn't look promising.

Ustwo claims that the Iraqis as a whole aren't engaged against the US troops. But the witness accounts claim that no men were fleeing the city. They either stayed behind to fight or were killed in rubble defending their homes from marauders.

The Lancet (one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in the world) claims that over 100,000 civilians have been killed since the invasion began in 2003. The article I read argued that was equavalent to 1 million US citizens by population. My bad, Lancet doesn't "claim" this, I worded the conclusion poorly (based on their title). This number was derived from an extrapolation of the data. Hopefully people will read the study, however.

I watch Link TV occasionally and they have a show called Mosaic, which is a series of international news channels. They also feature independent journalists (who have been cordoned off from the action, whereas embedded reporters are granted access but their reporting is sanitized before dissemination) who risk life and imprisonment to report from inside the hot spots. Reports are coming back that Al Jazeera reporters have been detained and whisked away without anyone hearing from them again. Presumably they are sent to detainee stations where there wouldn't be much incentive or method to differentiate them from insurgents.

Regardless of how one views the words they may use to describe the situation, the pictures I have seen of the place (the rubble, the sheer destruction of the city) doesn't mesh with the sanitized presenations on our American media. Bluntly, the city is in ruins. The US is offering something like $500 to $2K for families who can prove damage was done to their homes by the operation.


There is no head to lop off, there is no backbone to break, there is no command center to disrupt. These are decentralized cells operating both among and automously from one another. It must be increasingly clear to the civilians that our actions are less about tactical evisceration of the enemy and more about symbolic might. But I don't know how many people are being added to the insurgency roster. My guess is not many from these shattered places. That is, this kind of destruction is just more of the same and they are just waiting for the bombs to quit dropping in the middle of the night. Just praying to Allah that they live one more day, and that the men can continue to provide shelter and resources for their families. Just faith and prayer day in and day out to keep going. Some are picking up rifles they see laying around, but most are probably just hunkering down and waiting.

That's because men in the age range of like 18-40 weren't allowed to leave the city.

I keep forgetting that only forgein terrorists are fighting us. My bad sorry.

(Ustwo do you believe everything the conservitive press tells you?)

Some of you are so amazingly anti-american, pro terrorist, I have to repeat what I said in another thread.


Such outcry over the corpses of dead terrorists.

If only the left would outcry over the dead these poor defiled corpses killed with their suicide bombs.

When the left sides time after time with the forces of ignorance, oppression, and murder, I have to wonder the motives of the leaders and the intelligence of the followers.

They should ask themselves, how long would their views last in a Palestinian controlled area? How would tolerance for their version of free speech last? How long they would be alive? While they complain in the comfort of Western Civilization, knowing its very nature will not allow them to be harmed, no matter how warped their statements, a boy who breaks his fast on Ramadan is beaten to death, women are subjected to second class citizens, and children are taught that suicide is what is expected of them.

If the left had any honesty, they would cry out against these injustices, and fight them, not aid them.

Your comments like that used to be insulting. Now they are still inflammatory, but you've shown yourself repeatedly to be like one of those immature brats that plugs his ears and goes nah, nah, nah nah. How you don't get warned for shit like that is beyond me, but at least everyone can see your spiteful comments in their full 'glory.'

I disagree. Clearing out Fallujah and starting over was necessary. Hopefully, the law-abiding people of Fallujah will welcome (then demand) the absence of lawless gangs and bands of thugs controlling the city. Assuming Iraqi police can competently safeguard the city and fight off the insurgent organizations, the seeds are now planted in Fallujah (and elsewhere) for a representative local government operating under the rule of law and order, answerable to the National government.

Smooth, where do you think these 'decentralized cells' are going to operate once they can no longer operate from the cities? Are they going to set up shop in the middle of the desert? They'll be decimated by Air Power. The point is, they are no longer in control of entire cities, which means they no longer can terroize the populace, which means the populace is free to choose who they want running their city. Once they do this, the city will be strong enough to protect itself from insurgents.

Powerclown,

two of us now have pointed out that all the men were engaged with the US military (either directly fighting or hunkering down on the receiving end) and the women/children fled to even worse conditions.

Do you deny that occurred or could you explain how that reality will translate into positive interaction with the US invasion? I see that you have addressed the fact that the majority of thugs and insurgents have now moved on leaving a power vacuum that might be used positively, but please address who is going to be wanting or able to fill that vacuum given who was left behind in the city and the negative feelings those who fled are likely to have about US intervention.

Yes I deny this occurred, are you kidding? The population of that town was 300,000. Are you saying that every man in the city of fighting age out of 300,000 people was an insurgent fighting the Americans? That would mean tens of thousands of insurgents in battle.

Again, I will say that its up to the Iraqis whether they want a city of law and order, or a lawless city run by gangs. The latter scenario is incompatible in a democratic system, where a centralized ruling government needs to be in control of its cities to be in control of its country. What this campaign did was show the people of Fallujah that its now possible to live in peace, without fear of intimidation. Ideally, they will now have a say in who runs their city. The Americans will rebuild the city better than it originally was.

No, I'm not kidding. First of all, where do you get 300,000 from? You need to recheck your math--that includes women and children.

Read what I wrote again and then look at the past couple of posts by both me and bodyhammer.

What we said is that there were a) insurgents and b) innocent men between 18-40 who were prevented from leaving.

Then I posted information that tens of thousands of civilians have been getting killed while waiting for the fighting to cease.


But now I know where you stand--you are denying this occurred so I don't know what space is left to discuss the facts as reported.

Fallujah is a city of about 350,000 inhabitants.

Now show me a reliable link saying tens of thousands of civilians were killed in Fallujah.

How many times will we have to "take" Fallujah? Or the next city? Or the one after that?

It'll only take a couple of cities to maintain the insurgency. Are all of them going to fall into line? That's what it is really - each city held by insurgents and demolished by the U.S. is going to face a decision - the hell of insurgent rule vs. the hell of destruction by the U.S.

How quickly can a city be rebuilt? The people can't live there very well during that time - but I'd bet the insurgency can still survive.

Fallujah was nothing more than a grand showcase of American might. It cannot possibly convert the average Iraqi's heart+mind to the U.S. cause. There will always be a city or two or three that will be ruled by insurgents if there is no U.S. military presence - as long as the U.S. military action is to completely sack an insurgent city.

This military policy is like bringing in an exterminator company to remove cockroachs and ants, and in the process of killing off the bugs in each room, the exterminators leave piles of rotten food for the next wave to feed off. It's a lose-lose scenario.

This is from your own link, is that reliable enough for you?

So, the first problem is I asked you to check your math. You instead continued to post the population of the city ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have fled the city since that count. It was in this context that I type above regarding a growing humanitarian crisis as reported by international aid agencies.

So far, it appears as though your own link supports everything I've been talking about. I also posted above that the Lancet had just completed a study. Use google to find it. If you don't think that's reliable (btw, I already wrote that it's considered the most respected peer reviewed journal in the world), I don't feel the need to dig out more evidence. You are demonstrating that you would rather ignore these facts because they don't fit with your concept of what we are doing over there. So be it, but I'm glad you finally admitted you would rather just toss the evidence out.

You didn't answer the question.

Because the answer you're looking for doesn't exist. As much as you seemingly wish they did, the Marines didn't kill tens of thousands of civilians in clearing Fallujah. They didn't need to, because there weren't tens of thousands of insurgents fighting, as you stubbornly insist there were. If there were 30,000 insurgents fighting from the onset, the Marines would never send in only 10,000 troops.

I get the sense that whatever the Americans do in Iraq, you will continue to criticize them. Thats fine, and I'll do it too when I see the need for them to be criticized. I don't see the clearing of Fallujah as a bad thing. I see it as a necessary step in the process of steering Iraq towards something resembling an orderly, law abiding society. Just my opinion.

Let's not forget, though, one of the reasons we took control of the hospital before engaging the city. Since the American military refuses to attempt to account for the numbers of dead civilians, the local hospitals are one of the most important sources of these counts. In order for us to clamp down and control the information leaving the city, which would include the unsavory reality of innocent civilians being killed in the fighting, we've now turned off one more independent source of information, so that the only voice remaining for information is ours. We can claim as few casualties of war as we like in order to continue to put a shiny, happy face on this disastrous and illegal war.

Or one of the most fervent sources of anti-American propaganda through massive exaggeration of civilian casualties. Depends how you look at it.

Holy Fuck! Are you blind?
This is from the link you posted. I quoted in the first line of my reponse to you because it was evident you hadn't even read the link you provided.

10,000 civilians killed by the US in Fallujah, from your own link.

I didn't feel the need to pull the Lancet study because you are obviously so stubborn as to deny the facts presented in your own link.

For anyone else interested in more details from independent journalists on the ground, the following is a transcript of an interview I watched on Free Speech TV:

-- http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111904C.shtml


EDIT: Here is the blurb about Dahr:

Mr. Mephisto, my understanding of the Sunday Herald is it's a top notch paper in Australia. Is my understanding correct?

I consider people like powerclown and ustwo lost causes in discussions like this. Powerclown already stated that he wanted reliable links to support my assertions. I don't know what his criteria is, presumaby he would only listen to the military itself explaining the thousands of civilians it's killing. So I used his own link, figuring that would at least be a good starting point to feel out whether he was just trying to create an impossible standard; that is, his mind is already made up on the matter and he will continue to reject any sources to the contrary. But I know that people lurk around and so I post the following for their consumption:

--http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041213&s=schuman


Now, I'll ask people reading this to determine for themselves whether it makes sense to claim I am desiring more civilian deaths. When confronted with these posts, both powerclown and ustwo reply that the US citizens posting in this thread are anti-US, anti-military, and anti-whatever else they can pull out of their rhetorical hat.

My contention is that our actions are going to create blowback. And here's the kicker: it doesn't really even matter if the evidence presented in these posts is real (although I believe it to be true--along with the fact that it seems logically incomprehensible that 350,000 people just wandered off into the desert 2 weeks before the military invaded a city, and that they would have somewhere safe to go), people in Iraq and around the globe believe them to be accurate portrayals of the ground war. So, even then, the consequences of those beliefs must be addressed.

Excuse me while I happen to believe Los Angeles is the next prime target. So I'll have to just leave the absurdity of the assertion that I actually relish these conditions sit in the air like a rank fart.

The last dozen threads were based on your comment regarding civilian casualties specifically in Fallujah Nov '04:

You respond (from my link) with civilian casualty figures that had nothing to do with Fallujah Nov '04. Those figures were for the entire Iraq War. You insist that every man in Fallujah Nov '04 of fighting age (out of 350,000 residents) must have been killed. I say there were nowhere near tens of thousands of civilian casualties in Fallujah Nov '04. I think I'm done here.

Here we go again (for powerclown, who evidently has comprehension issues):

Doesn't get any more clear than that sentence I bolded that the figure is referring to fallujah.

The bar keeps getting higher. Now we are only talking about '04? Pardon me, but people in Fallujah are going to be affected by civilians killed by the US throughout the entire invasion. So, yeah, I don't know the number killed in the past 2 weeks. But I don't see how that new limitation on the discussion is in any way helpful when one is considering the overall impact of the assault on fallujah (which is and has been ongoing save for breaks).

I never said that every fighting age man in fallujah has been killed.

I said (once again);

a) check your math. You keep using the figure of 350,000. Since that number includes women, children, and aged, there are probably only like 50,000 fighting age men in that figure.

b) not all of them have been killed, nor did I ever claim they were. The military has reportedly killed about 1,000 insurgents. That leaves at least 50,000 men in the city that aren't insurgents because they haven't been allowed to leave since they are of fighting age. Regardless, they are in the city and hunkered down waiting for the attack to stop.

They are engaged against the US whether they like it or not because the US military can't distinguish between insurgents and innocent 18-40 year olds. They also are witnessing the civilians (men, women, and children) who didn't leave dying in the rubble. That will create blowback, whether you admit it or not.

I certainly hope you are done here because repeating myself isn't very productive.

EDIT: I actually didn't see this question, powerclown, I wasn't avoiding it.

I believe that is exactly what is happening and will continue to happen.

Although I should add a point to this: you are evidently lumping the organized resistance movements with terrorist cells. Decentralized cells refers to terrorist cells. They can always hide in a city because they are formed from 3-4 or sometimes as much as 10 people, but nothing that wouldn't prevent them from living normally in a community until they are activated.

The organized resistance movements are tribally based. They have lived in the desert for millenia. After the cities are demolished (which would be the only way to ensure someone can't hide in it), they certainly can continue to be mobile in the desert and operate from it. In fact, their entire infrastructure is based on ancient modes of transport, trade, and communication. There is nothing within their infrastructure that I am aware of that depends on an urban environment.

Verily we come for you Zarqawi.

What’s so amusing, is look to where they are asking for help. Apparently the 22 million Iraqi's are not enough. So continue your unfounded and ludicrous claims that its the Iraqi people that are causing the fight vs. the coalition forces, while the desperate leaders of the 'resistance' call for help from other nations fanatics.

These were the alleged casualties in Fallujah FOR THE ENTIRE IRAQ WAR!

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT JUST TOOK PLACE THERE THIS MONTH.
NEVER MIND, YOU WON'T STAY ON TOPIC.

On topic?

The topic is the fallujah offensive is "commencing." It is continuing!

Here:
I can see how limiting the discussion to the past few weeks helps your point in believing that the US military isn't creating more problems for itself when it kills civilians.

But just because we held off during the election doesn't mean you get to start a new casualty tally!

Yours is a silly distinction, one which I'm hoping most readers understand and certainly any Fallujah resident would wonder what your point was in differentiating between innocent civilians (and their loved ones) killed last year versus those killed this year.

We don't know what is going on this month, save for the reports the military allows.
Brave independent sources are claiming it looks just like the operation has been in the past--massive civilian casuality and limited success against the insurgents.

EDIT: of course, I should have seen it coming given how you entered the thread:
State of the art technology? Our military levels the city and searches for stragglers by night.
Absolutely fascinating indeed.

it seems pretty clear that the results of this action are not yet fully understood by the public--while trying to get an idea of what was being talked about above, i looked at a site called occupation watch, which is for the most part an accumulation of wire service stories.

on the death toll (official iraqi version)--around 2100.

source:
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=7998

this is an ap story attributed to the boston globe--so i assume that the numbers are quite official.
this number was cited in le monde yesterday as well, with the additional information that most of the dead are not identifiable (no papers, whatever) which would make any meaningful distinction insurgent/civilian impossible. draw from this the conclusions that you like.

it is obvious that these numbers are preliminary---
the figure has climbed by 500 over the past few days, as has been noted above.
i have seen other, higher numbers but was not in a position to track anything down about them, so only mention them here.

i assume that 2100 is low and partial.

for a glimpse of the action in fallujah, not prechewed for american conservative consumption by the sycophants in the dominant media here, check this out:

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=7987

fallujah was the type of ringing success that i expected in another way as well: it seems that a dozen of so iraqi political parties are looking to push the elections back six months from jan. 2005.
cowboy george of course is not pleased.

i am not sure from this what the administration can do about it, but it looks to me like this is the best index yet that fallujah was not as the american right preferred to imagine, that there was no big confrontation with a (hallucinated) centralized opposition, that nothing is more secure for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/26/in...rtner=homepage


but there are alot more people dead.

So, you're proposing that we rely on the occupying army that would be responsible for those deaths as an accurate source? Clearly logic has left the building.

When you believe the word of terrorists over your own government it signals several potential problems.

One of them is that logic has indeed left, and its not my logic or powerclowns.

For one thing the US does travel with its own reporters from various news agencies. We all know what that can lead to. Do you not think if there was massive civilian death caused by US forces we would not have heard of it?

You of course can continue to trust those who put car bombs near schools to give accurate accounts but don't expect any thinking people to trust your logic.

nice attempt to derail the conversation with more inflammatory rhetoric.

unfortunately for your position on this matter, we are relying on the statements from doctors, international aid agencies, and independent journalists. Are they terrorists now?

I do agree that if there was a massive civilian death caused by US forces we would have heard about it, but obviously not from the people causing it. Hence, the articles from other sources.

I don't expect anyone to 'trust' my logic. I'm hoping they'll rely on their own, and I've provided more evidence to plug into their equations concerning the situation.

EDIT: and the US media correspondents don't go wandering around. They are part of a media pool and attached to troops. I already posted a few places back the reports coming from independent reporters (some of them from the US, but feel free to disregard them as partisan hacks) regarding what happens to them when they are found in areas they aren't supposed to be in.

And I certainly do take the word of journalists over my government. That's the point, as I understand it, of having a free press.

ustwo: if i understand your "argument" above, any manner of question about the fallujah operation--or anything else really--would make the person posing that question a "terrorist" or traitor?

you other interesting claim seems to be: because information about american actions is fallujah is just surfacing now, and is not already known, it is therefore suspect?
gee, that seems a bit--o what's the word---ridiculous, dont you think?

because you **are**hearing of large-scale casualties in fallujah
but it turns out that most of the dead had no identification on them
so who's to know whether they were insurgents or civilians?
that works out pretty well, dont you think?
obviously no-one but a terrorist or traitor would question any of this.

Powerclown,

Here's the scorecard as I see it:

Summary as follows:

1. You stated facts.
2. Smooth posted erroneous information, and used it to win an argument with himself. This is a frequent starting point, i.e. a "straw man argument."
3. Next, after posting the following GLARING error,

thereby including all casualties from the beginning, in a thread entitled "Ground assault on Faluja commences,"

4. He forgot that many men in the age range of 18-40 weren't allowed to leave the city. See below:

5. Finally, he attempted to obscure the mistake by making personal attacks:

Watch for this pattern in future threads. Then decide if you want to continue responding to such tactics.

But don't hold your breath waiting for a warning about the personal attacks.

Now that I've covered that, any bets on how the following is going to turn out?

Al-Zarqawi Lieutenant Reportedly Arrested in Iraq
Troops Find Weapons Cache in Fallujah
By SAMEER N. YACOUB, AP


AFP/Getty
Marines prepare to destroy weapons found Thursday in Fallujah.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FALLUJAH, Iraq (Nov. 25) -- A lieutenant of Iraq's most feared terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was captured a few days ago in Mosul, and Iraqi troops searching suspected terrorist hideouts in Fallujah discovered a laboratory with manuals on manufacturing explosives and toxins - including anthrax, Iraq's national security adviser said Thursday.

Also, the U.S. military said it discovered the ''largest weapons cache to date in the city of Fallujah.'' The weapons - including anti-tank mines and a mobile bomb-making lab - were found inside a mosque used by an insurgent leader. Troops also found documents detailing hostage interrogations, the military said.

Five Arab foreign fighters who escaped from Fallujah were arrested near southern Basra, where they were planning to attack coalition bases and police stations, authorities said.

National security adviser Qassem Dawoud identified al-Zarqawi's alleged lieutenant as Abu Saeed, but he gave no further details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It continues to amaze me that the people here who express such concern about civilians don't seem to care about how many civilians would have been injured with these weapons, or with anthrax.

I guess it's because the insurgents take such care to avoid collateral damage.

Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't feel like responding to your posts. But almost everyone of them is directed at me, which is amusing when I'm bored. So I'll indulge this time, I wouldn't want to disappoint my greatest fan.

I don't see these forums as a place to carry scorecards around. But all three of you: powerclown, ustwo, and sob, do and repeatedly say things that frame discussions in some sort of fight to be won rather than points of view to be shared. Perhaps that is the main reason discussions dissolve like this one and so many before.

I didn't post erroneous information, as I see it. Mr. Mephisto asked how the battle could be won. Mephisto may have labeled the attack as "commencing," but it isn't beginning. This attack is a continuation of the one started earlier last year.

Rekna entered the discussion and questioned the positive effect our tactics were having in light of the civilians we were killing.

At that point, I entered the thread and added some contextual information. Mainly, that we have in fact killed tens of thousands of civilians in our fight for fallujah. Rekna, Mephisto, myself, and a I wager a bunch of other people probably consider that our cumulative actions are going to determine when or if we can, in fact, "win" anything resembling peace and democracy in fallujah.

If some of you want to slice that history of our actions out of the equation, fine. But that doesn't make the historical context less relevant to US success in the region or in fallujah, in particar. Fallujah's residents aren't going to forget the civilians killed simply because it was last april.

I didn't forget anything. This is from the original post from Mr. Mephisto:

and this is from one of my own posts:
So it appears that 18-40 year olds have been allowed to leave the city. The reality is that up until a short while ago, everyone was told to leave.

How the fact that our soldiers more recently barred innocent civilians from leaving the city shortly before the newest attack helps your case, I don't know. I didn't feel the need to type it out explicitly since it was contained within my comment that the people left are a) fighting or b) hunkered down praying that they don't get killed, but still are dying in the rubble.

Secondly, what I was pointing out was that the men who are left, regardless of their reasons for staying behind, are engaged with the US military now whether they like it or not. Our soldiers can't distinguish them from the enemy. So even if there are non-militant men in Fallujah, it doesn't matter for all intents and purposes. They are either picking up a rifle now before they get shot or are dying in the rubble while hunkering down waiting for the fighting to cease. Some of them are guarding their homes from marauders since there hasn't been any law and order for so long. Inevitably, our soldiers are going to shoot these innocent men down after kicking in their doors during their house to house sweeps.

hmm. the context is lacking, but I certainly wasn't trying to obscure any mistake since I didn't make one.

It should be pointed out that my first post was just a general comment on the amount of civilians being killed in our offensive against fallujah. Powerclown took it upon himself to bog the discussion down by requesting proof of every line of my statement. Ustwo didn't supply much other than inflammatory comments about the anti-everything ness of quite a few contributors to the thread.


So, as I see it, the original question was how can this thing be won?

A few of us are wondering the same thing given that so many corpses are rotting in the streets that people can't bear the smell and are dumping bodies in the river. That larger picture of the situation points to the reality that I don't think we can win anything resembling peace and democracy. Powerclown thinks after the insurgents are gone, the city can be rebuilt. I was asking him to step back, take a more holistic view of the situation, and assess where the impetus for peace with the US would come from, given the historical reality of our actions there.

He refused and instead wanted to engage in point for point haggling. That certainly is the conduct some of you guys consistently choose to engage in. That kind of conduct is appropriate for "scorekeeping" as you put it, but not for assessment of the general picture and productive discussion.

Of all the many misstatements in your post, the sheer magnitude of this one is breathtaking.

The fun doesn't end...

How exactly do you think our soldiers are going to be able to distinguish between a 24 year old insurgent and a 24 year old kid sitting in his living room guarding his shit?

Actually, I sort of agree with this one.

With the insurgents waving white flags, hiding in crowds, and trying to act like civilians before opening fire, it will be hard to distinguish between someone who genuinely is a civilian and one of these jokers.

Not saying we shouldn't keep trying, but it will be difficult.

Smooth, i think you're forgetting that admitting to the fallibility of the american soldier and/or american foreign policy is exactly what the terrorists want.;) Clenching our fists and pretending that the death of innocents is not going to be a direct result of our foreign policy helps us sleep better at night.

Amid the nonsense that the board usually is, here is a serious question for you.

Do you think that the Arabs hold any responsibility in this? The insurgents (non-Iraqi and Iraqi)?

Or do you think the current situation is all the United States' fault?

Well, i think america in this situation is the big bear that went and stuck its nose in the wrong bee hive. Clearly, if we hadn't invaded iraq we wouldn't be in this kind of situation. That being said, i don't believe the insurgents are any more noble than the americans are. I think the homegrown insurgents have more to fight for than the americans, and have an advantage in being on their home turf with their backs to the wall. War is hell, boys, and if you're interested in being intellectually honest, you should acknowledge that the urban war we've chosen to wage is the kind that results in large numbers of civilian casualties. Don't pretend it isn't happening, or that american forces are immune to it. Just admit that war is a horrible thing and, if you were one of the hawks, chicken or not, take responsibility for the fact that this is what you asked for.

Was it the beheadings or the school bombings that made you come to this conclusion?

How many dead iraqi civilians are worth one beheaded civilian contracter? Answer me that, and then tell me how they are any worse than our soldiers.

At least they have the courage to fight, how cushy is your armchair? This is the war you wanted, enjoy it while it lasts. It's going to be a long time before we'll be able to do it again.

Hmmm, a few beheadings compared to tens of thousands of civilian deaths, doesn't make for much of an argument. Let's not forget the torture at Abu Ghraib, or the recent murder of a wounded Iraqi caught on film, or all the other acts of murder by American troops that you always fail to mention. As for bombing of schools, well, American troops bomb schools and mosques as well, but lets not bring that up, after all, its the "terrorists" fault for hiding there.

Now you're getting it!!!!

And for all who claim to support our soldiers, but condemn that Marine, I offer the following (emphasis in bold is mine):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1282211/posts

Slandering Private Ryan – in Fallujah


By David D. Perlmutter


November 17, 2004

It's an irony that the week that some American television stations pulled "Saving Private Ryan" because of harsh language, many others aired parts of a video that purports to show an American Marine shooting a wounded and unarmed civilian in Fallujah.

The link between Steven Spielberg's fictional (but realistic) film about World War II and a real event in the Iraq war is a reminder that, with so few of us having combat experience or studying warfare in school, the historical context of modern combat needs to be explained better.

Television networks were responsible in that most of them edited the Fallujah images when, apparently, a Marine thought an Iraqi man was faking death and shot him in the head. But the incident also requires a detailed discussion (and visualization) of its historical context. The truth is that this is how you fight a war against an amoral terrorist enemy. Further, what that Marine did was commonplace in the history of America at war: if you condemn him, then you also attack the "greatest generation" veterans of World War II.

Take a famous scene from "Saving Private Ryan." At Normandy Beach, American soldiers, after terrible losses, finally knock out one enemy bunker with a flamethrower and Germans tumble out on fire, screaming in agony. "Let 'em burn," responds one GI without remorse. Witnessed from the comfort of our living room, it is a shocking statement and scene. But in the context of the film and of war it is understandable.


I show this clip regularly to my students and invite reactions. One young woman said, "I can imagine being so angry, so vengeful at the enemy that just killed your buddies that you don't care what happens to them." I would only add one factor to her analysis: uncertainty. In a study I conducted on police work, the most fearful thing about a cop's job, I felt, was that you never knew who would pull out a gun and who wouldn't. In a war against terrorists everybody is a potential combatant and every doorway a potential deathtrap.

American warriors of the past knew this. Michael Lee Lanning wrote in his account of "Vietnam, 1969: A Company Commander's Journal" that Viet Cong or North Vietnamese army fighters regularly feigned surrender, incapacitation or death in order to lure GIs into grenade or rifle range. Even the actual dead were booby-trapped. The average GI learned quickly to "shoot and throw grenades at the body" rather than risk enemy treachery. No surprise that war historian and analyst James F. Dunnigan estimated that, "Historically 50 percent of those surrendering [in war] do not survive the process."

In Iraq, American servicemen and women face insurgents who hide, store weapons and fight from hospitals, homes and religious places and from among civilians, booby-trap their own dead as well as those of our soldiers, disguise themselves as women and noncombatants, and, yes, fake surrender as a prelude to murder-suicide. Early in the war, British soldiers even reported insurgents picking up small children to use as human shields during a fire fight.

So what was that young Marine in Fallujah to do: wait until faking Iraqis blew him, his buddies and the camera crew up? He played it safe: he's alive, and so are the embedded journalists.

In fact, we can estimate that a sizable number of U.S. casualties in Iraq were because of the basic decency of the America soldier, sailor, Marine and flier.

That is the story that needs more reporting.

Prison scandals aside, the record of the American combatant for humanity even in the most chaotic circumstances is unequaled. In World War II, Japanese and German troops were often astonished at how well they were treated. Axis POWS in the United States, for example, were fed better food than found on the average (rationed) American civilian dinner plate. One German POW, asked about his experiences, commented that the smartest thing to do in war against America is to "get captured – you'll have it made." An exaggeration? Yes, but also the most important message for the world about our latter-day Private Ryans in Fallujah and elsewhere. If you want to fight America and die, then your wish will be fulfilled. If you want to live, surrender to American mercy.

For ourselves, we now have two generations of Americans whose only experiences of battle have been watching the news and movies and playing "Halo." Years ago I did a study of the pictorial depiction of warfare in high school history textbooks. Among my findings: actual grim combat received almost no attention. It was censored as being too disturbing for young minds. We need to upturn that illogic by teaching all Americans what combat entails: the good, the bad and the necessary.

I doubt that the observations displayed above provide much consolation to
the survivors of the dead and wounded Iraqis or of the Americans caused by
this "war of choice".
Pointless war......too many Americans steadfast in their cluelessness.

And now bringing to the discussion evidence of what we've been saying... we're not just the merciful, benign liberators of Iraq that many posters to this thread have been trying to portray:

What's done is done.

Fallujah had to be taken for elections to be held in January. Extraordinary steps are being taken to ensure insurgents don't flow back into the city. Look around for details, its quite interesting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an excerpt from a Marine Lt. who fought in Fallujah, describing the experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have been really busy out here lately and therefore I haven't had the opportunity to write too many updates. Sorry.

As many of you know I have been involved in the Battle of Fallujah (Operation Phantom Fury) for the past few weeks. It has been the wildest experience of my time in the Marine Corps.

My Battalion was the Main Effort during the attack. We were given the Jolan District and the southern suburb we call "Queens." These two areas, without a doubt, were the insurgency stronghold in the city.

We cleared every house (3 times) (bulldozed over a hundred with a D-9) and faced the insurgents one-on-one. This is the way they preferred it. For these guys, there is no honor in being martyred by a Abrams Tank or a Bradley. They want the opportunity to take out an American Marine. That was fine with us!

We were led into the city by the Army's 2/7 Cavalry. They had the Tanks and Bradleys but only had about 90 dismounted troops who were capable of clearing out the small areas these guys hide. They did a great job though.

We have about 900 Marines in my Battalion. Every single guy performed like a seasoned professional and all did so with honor. They really gave it their all. 22 Marines in my Battalion gave their lives for our country during this fight and over 200 Marines earned the Purple Heart. Without a doubt, Third Battalion, First Marines (3/1) had the toughest mission for a reason. We did the dirty work no one else wanted to do. Thousands of dead insurgents will back me up on that statement.

We had been prepping for this fight for the past few months. We made numerous "feints" or false attacks into the southern portion of the city where all of their bunkers and fighting positions were located.

We would act like we were moving in for a large attack (with tanks, air strikes, lots of troops and trucks, etc...) and take pot shots at the city. After doing this a few times it was obvious they thought this was the direction we would do our major attack when the time was right. This was the side of the city that the Marines attacked back in April. Closer to the actual attack date, we dropped leaflets, passed messages over the radio, television and mosques speaker systems warning the "good citizens" to leave the city. Furthermore, we shut off all the electricity, water, cell phones, etc.. a few days prior to the attack. Finally, we continuously sonic boomed the city with jets at the speed of sound (this really pissed them off), played Rap/Rock 'n Roll Music and taunted them over loud speakers (this really! , really pisses them off!!) and began to shape targets with bombs and artillery.

We attacked the city from the North, under the darkness of night, and took them by surprise. For the first day or two the insurgents were exposed outside of their houses while trying to get to alternate fighting positions in the North of the city. Our pilots picked these guys off one by one. Once we entered the city and started to move south, the fighting was up close and personal and the use of mortars, artillery and air support was really limited. It is too complicated to know where all of the friendly units are within the city.

Booby trapped doors, car bombs, trip wires, dropping grenades through spider holes in the rooftops, pre-positioned machine guns, RPGs, snipers from the rooftops and minarets (mosque steeples), mortars, and land mines. These were their means of fighting (we encountered all these types at some point in time). They knew the houses they were hiding in and where the most complex hiding spots were located. The spots that gave them the best geometry to fire on us without us seeing them. These guys were smart, well trained and worst of all, willing to fight to the death. These were not the nickel and dimers we have been facing on the outskirts during the months leading up to this.

They knew how to fight us in an urban environment. They didn't challenge the tanks and armor and blended in the city without obvious signs to target. They would move house to house and fall back as we approached. They had weapons/ammo staged in every house. It was really complex.

After clearing the houses (over 3000) 3 different times and still finding insurgents, we just started to bulldoze the houses with D-9's.

It was awesome. They were not expecting it and it was hilarious to watch. I have some great photos. I have great photos of the whole attack. A ton of good stories too. You will have to buy me a beer or two to get the good ones out of me though.

Bored yet?

My Battalion is the unit that had Kevin Sites (NBC Reporter) attached.

We had the guy who allegedly murdered a wounded insurgent (I think he is faking it!). There is an investigation and I am sure the military will come to the correct conclusion. Not much else to comment on there.

We also found/searched Zarqawi's house (it was really shabby), tons of propaganda, money, weapons, ammo, torture chambers (sickos out here), videos of suicide bombings and beheadings, and the list goes on. We killed Chechnyians, Syrians, Moroccans, Saudis, you name it. This was the "show" for all of the weirdo terrorist/jihadist in the world. We found other things that are still classified and I hope will be made public someday soon. You wont believe it. Bottom line is, this was a necessary mission.

The day before we step off on the attack, my Battalion had the 1st Annual Ben Hur Thundering Third Chariot Race. You might have seen a few pictures on the news. It was the tension breaker we all needed.

We had confiscated some horses and carts a while back. We dressed up a number of Marines to look like chariot drivers (Spartans, Romans) and race the horses. These horses were in terrible shape. One was named "Ribs" -- for obvious reasons if you had seen the horse up close.

Eventually only one horse would race so we had time trials to determine the winner. It was hilarious. I will never forget it.

I am just back to get a shower and change of uniform (it's been 17 days) and then I am heading back into the city. We should be there until the elections are done with and then we can come back home. We haven't let the people back into Fallujah yet. That is when it will get interesting. I am sure we will see roadside bombs, car bombs and suicide bombers by the truck load. We are trying to clean up the dead bodies and clear the streets of rubble before they can come back in.

Wow, that is extremely sad, even after these poor souls complied with the Americans orders they were still shot dead, how unfortunate. Sadly, these same people are the ones that are going to be praised upon return; I think we have our perceptions on terrorism extremely mixed up.

May the innocent lives that were taken in away so fast (especially those of the children) for no reason rest in peace. Hopefully their killers will be brought to justice in some way shape or form, in this life or the next.


__________________