« Regions, Hopelessness, Oratory | Main | Lazy Europeans »
Falluja Fun
Urban warfare. Not nice. And what's the point of capturing an empty, wrecked city?
November 9, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83424b97253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Falluja Fun:
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 1:52:03 PM
Comments
Did the Russians a world of good in Grozny.
Posted by: jimBOB | Nov 9, 2004 9:21:45 AM
We have to destroy it in order to save it.
Posted by: Slothrop | Nov 9, 2004 9:26:31 AM
Matt,
Haven't you learned by now that the point of war is the demonstration of American power and resolve? There are no strategic conquests, only will. GWB has heard reports of the dangers of urban warfare, but he is not afraid. Challenges like this only embiggen George W. Bush.
Posted by: theCoach | Nov 9, 2004 9:28:11 AM
I think the point is denying the enemy someplace to organize. If you'll check out this bit here:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/dark-networks-vladis-krebs-has-case.html
You'll see that there's been some research on the practical size of terrorist organizations, and denying them safe havens turns out to be VERY important, if you want to keep them small and disorganized.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 9:28:15 AM
What is the point of this? What do the people we're attacking in Fallujah want that we can't afford to give them? If what they want is for us to turn over the government of the country to Iraqis and get out, isn't that what we plan on doing? If we have some other plan, what is it?
Vietnam all over again, fighting battles to look "resolute" and for domestic political consumption, rather than to serve any partcular strategic purpose . . .
Posted by: rea | Nov 9, 2004 9:31:39 AM
It's a "capture-the-flag" thing. We have reached the center of Fallujah really really fast, just like we captured Baghdad really really fast. Now we garrison the city with a couple hundred Iraqi Army defectors or staked goats, pull our troops back to the green zone, bomb some more, and have a "Mission Accomplished" party on an aircraft carrier.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 9, 2004 9:40:46 AM
"What do the people we're attacking in Fallujah want that we can't afford to give them?"
Um, to rule over other Iraqis with terror and an iron fist? To kill anybody who thinks they've got a right to vote?
Why is it that the more evil somebody's behavior, the more inclined a certain segment of "liberals" are to presume they've got good motives?
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 9:41:01 AM
"You'll see that there's been some research on the practical size of terrorist organizations, and denying them safe havens turns out to be VERY important, if you want to keep them small and disorganized."
Small and disorganized, like the Atta cell.
Jesus. The fucking engineers are going to destroy us all.
Posted by: Thomas | Nov 9, 2004 9:54:17 AM
Ummm... We're not trying to capture the city, but kill the bad guys inside. That's not too hard to understand is it?
Posted by: Steve K. | Nov 9, 2004 10:01:15 AM
In other news, the US was driven out of Ramadi yesterday. It's whack-a-mole.
Posted by: ahem | Nov 9, 2004 10:05:26 AM
Careful Thomas. Your showing your Christianity.
Posted by: Michael | Nov 9, 2004 10:07:37 AM
"Ummm... We're not trying to capture the city, but kill the bad guys inside. That's not too hard to understand is it?"
That is wrong. We are trying to capture the city, and have explicitly taken measures to try to get the insurgents to leave before the assault. We have broadcast our intentions for weeks, and have not restricted travel out of Fallujah. Nominally, this was to get non-combatants to leave. From the sharp rise of attacks in the previously "cleansed" Samarra, it is likely that many insurgents have left Fallujah.
Most likely the insurgents left behind a fraction of their fighters. A small force that is very familiar with the city which has had time to prepare can make any victory very Pyrrhic.
Posted by: Njorl | Nov 9, 2004 10:21:09 AM
Body counts, baby, body counts.
Posted by: mat | Nov 9, 2004 10:27:14 AM
Aside from its actual military importance as an organizing center for the resistance, US leaders in Washington, and the US-Allawi government in Iraq, see Fallujah as the psychological center of the resistance and a potent symbol of open definace of their rule. I suspect their immediate hope is that by rapidly taking the center of city, they can send the message that Fallujah is firmly in US and Iraqi governement hands and that "the insurgency is over." Future acts of resistance - no matter how successful - will be described as the last gasps of dead-enders. This sort of thing hasn't worked before.
Just as in Samarra, there will probably be some stage-mangaged photo ops of new Iraqi soldiers and national guard units storming mosques. This is an attempt to send the message to insurgents that they can't hide in mosques anymore, betting that the US will not risk the political fallout of an infidel violation of an Islamic sanctuary, since now the government has its own native forces.
There may also be an element of troop morale involved - an attempt to buck up the American soldiers who are bitter and demoralized over the withdrawl from, and then loss of, the city back in April.
Here's what I am wondering: is the US going to sweep and clear the city, and go house-to-house to arrest every Iraqi male between 15 and 50? Or are they going to be satisfied with he photo op, and just try to buy a month or two until elections are held?
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Nov 9, 2004 10:29:36 AM
Body counts, baby, body counts.
How about baby body counts?
Posted by: grytpype | Nov 9, 2004 10:32:10 AM
Making peace is a messy business. The example of Berlin comes to mind. The quicker the fascists get sent off to enjoy their 72 virgin camels the quicker peace will be at hand.
Posted by: Abdul Abulbul Amir | Nov 9, 2004 10:42:11 AM
Iraq was peaceful before we got there, and it won't be peaceful again until we leave.
Posted by: grytpype | Nov 9, 2004 10:44:13 AM
"Iraq was peaceful before we got there..."
Right. People may have been fed into plastic shredders, or shot and rolled into mass graves, but they weren't putting up a fight about it, so it was ok.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Nov 9, 2004 10:50:45 AM
Brett, Bush is killing Iraqi civilians at a much faster rate than Saddam ever did. Why don't you try to learn the truth instead of being a smug idiot like your mongoloid leader.
Posted by: grytpype | Nov 9, 2004 10:55:28 AM
Brett has a point: "peaceful" is not the right word to describe Saddam's Iraq.
"Kite-flying," maybe.
Posted by: Grumpy | Nov 9, 2004 10:56:30 AM
" And what's the point of capturing an empty, wrecked city?"
So they can nice, orderly elections. And so we can have people like the Ledeens have jobs rebuilding them.
Posted by: jdw | Nov 9, 2004 11:06:39 AM
Let's keep our facts straight here. We invaded Iraq because they had wmd, atomic weapons, and were aiding the 9/11 terrorists. Uh, I mean, because Saddam was really, really a bad guy and we had to capture or kill him, so the Iraqis could form the government they wanted and live in peace. Uh, no, because we needed to establish a Democracy in Iraq to serve as a glowing example for the rest of the Middle East. Uh, no, make that establish a government in Iraq that........Ok, how about ........wait......I'll get it.........
Posted by: Vaughn Hopkins | Nov 9, 2004 11:07:51 AM
"Bush is killing Iraqi civilians at a much faster rate than Saddam ever did."
Immediately pre-war you have a point. However if you compare rates Iraqis were dying against Iran or in any of Saddam's major anti-insurgency purges, your case probably gets a lot weaker.
Posted by: Jeff the Baptist | Nov 9, 2004 11:08:27 AM
I've really yet to hear an explanation about how our strategy will work in Fallujah where the Russian strategy of leveling Grozny failed. Anyone want to provide one?
Posted by: Constantine | Nov 9, 2004 11:09:10 AM
Son, all I've ever asked
of my marines is that
they obey my orders as they would the word
of God. We are here to help the Iraqis,
because inside every
hajji there is an
American trying to get out. It's a hardball
world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until
this peace craze blows
over.
Posted by: Jimmy Jazz | Nov 9, 2004 11:10:28 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
