Fallujah postmortem

The U.S. forces have declared victory over the insurgents in Fallujah. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/14/iraq.main/index.html So now it’s time for analysis in hindsight:

  1. Did this have to be done?

  2. Could it have been done better? E.g., with less loss of life? (38 American and Iraqi troops, reported dead, 1,000 to 2,000 insurgents dead, no estimate of civilian casualties mentioned.)

  3. Apart from overpowering organized resistance, were the attack’s objectives achieved? E.g., how many of the insurgents got away?

  4. What now? Will Fallujah be peaceful enough to participate in the January elections?

  5. Now there’s more violence reported in Mosul. Will that be the next battleground?

I don’t think we had any right to go in there and I just wonder how many civilians we murdered.

Waiting for the body count to tick up. The fact that we haven’t had any word yet is disturbing.

The elections are already a shambles, Fallujah or no Fallujah.

And I doubt the battle is over. The battle is never over. They’ll keep sneaking in and blowing something up every once in a while, just to make a point (by “they” I mean both the Americans and the insurgents).

We’ve declared victory over the insurgents in Fallujah? Well, you know what this means…

Mission Accomplished! :rolleyes:

Seriously - I doubt much was done; reports say that key insurgents already fled.

The net result is probably a few hundred insurgents dead, a few dozen dead on our side, and lots of wounded everywhere.

The insurgency will probably be affected little. I doubt their heirachy is very deep, so it’ll probably be easy to replace those lost and regroup: just gather some more angry Iraqis, give 'em an AK and some explosives, and then they’ll be back in business. And I’m sure we’ve created a lot of angry Iraqis with this.

With some luck, we may have destroyed some infrastructure - that would hamper their ability to regroup. But we’ve got to keep our guard up.

Only if you start with the premise that any Iraqi opposed to US occupation is either an “insurgent” or a “terrorist.” Do you?

Of course it could have. For one, there was little to no regard for the civilians stuck in the crossfire. No serious plan for evacuation, other than “leave or die” option – we don’t know how many just yet, but indeed, many died. Secondly, by announcing the siege/invasion for months, it only assured that all “high-value targets” (gotta love Orwellian language) had plenty of time to leave.

See prior response: in short, as many as felt like it. As for “objectives achieved,” again, you tell me – Mosul, Ramadi, Samarra and parts of Baghad have been pounded by the very ‘insurgency’ that the Falluja seige was supposed to squash. Of course, we’re now reading the expected disclaimers/propaganda that that wasn’t really the objective. As if they have a choice, because:

Attacks Spread Through Iraq’s Sunni Areas

Allow me to turn this question around. How would you feel about participating in an election run by the very people who flattened your home, your city, and killed friends and family?
Personally, I’d be more concerned about getting the killers out before I worried about ‘elections’ – an euphemism to crown the next American puppet. Which, contrary to CW in the US, is not lost on Joe Iraqi. Quite the contrary actually.

If you believe the US puppet, here’s your answer:**Iraqi security forces are massing in the northern capital of Mosul and will make a move “in the next day or so” to restore order**, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said on Saturday.

Probably, if you are looking to prop up the current interim government and if negotiations were truly at a dead end ( I am in no position to judge if that was the case ). Allowing hostile autonomous enclaves like that is just asking for warlordism.

44 allied dead - don’t forget the six Iraqi interm government troops. More telling is the high number of American wounded - 275. That’s a lot of men being shot despite the vast American superiority in firepower and bodyarmor, which would seem to indicate a pretty nasty fight.

As to whether it was a well-run operation, there is probably no way of telling at this point.

Could the attack have been avoided altogether by negotiating some more? Dunno.

Dunno. Not sure anyone does. The military was estimating “3,000-5,000 insurgents” in Fallujah recently. The claim now 1,000-2,000 insurgents dead and 1,000 people in custody ( who they seem to be indicating are mostly NOT insurgents, sicne they are leaning towards releasing 700 soon ). So they might have got almost all of them ( probably not ) or 20% ( who knows). That’s if those estimates are even as close as reported and they don’t count all of those who may have slipped away weeks ago…

Dunno ;). Probably, because it will be a showcase and January is only a couple of months away.

However the key in all of this is less bodycounts than whether security can be maintained long-term after a multiple number of these clearing operations and I still run across analysts that insist there just aren’t enough troops on the ground to do that. Well see.

There is violence all over. Ramadi might be more likely as the next target, as it is the provincial capital for that area and a number of the Fallujah-based insurgents seem to have switched operations to there. Large population centers like Mosul and Sadr City are potentially much bigger headaches ( they have populations that are about 10x Fallujah’s - evacuating a large portion of them ahead of any bout of high-intensity streetfighting like we’ve just seen would be a nightmarish task ).

  • Tamerlane

Eh, an insurgent is just a non-governmental fighter fighting a government. Since the interim government is about the only government around right now, the definition is pretty much de facto. Doesn’t really judge whether it is a good government or whether the insurgency is meritous.

A terrorist attacks civilans to promote terror. At that some of the Fallujah “insurgents” may have ( probably did ) qualify, no doubt many others did not ( or do not ).

  • Tamerlane

Any Iraqi (or visiting foreigner) violently opposed to the occupation is, by definition, an “insurgent” or a “terrorist” – or a “freedom fighter,” if the word like you better. Tomayto, tomahto. Anyone non-violently opposed to the occupation is merely a “dissident.”

If the objective was to get US forces into the center of the city then it succeeded. If the objective was to quell violence in general, then I think the operation was at best neutral, at worst massively counter productive (although I hope I’m wrong in this). The Iraqui people didn’t want to be invaded by America. By razing a city to the ground, killing God knows how many is not the sort of thing that will win the hearts and minds of an occupied people. For me the important question is not how many insurgents got away, but how many more shoe-makers or accountants who feel they have nothing to lose, are now prepared to pick up an RPG.

  1. Falluja, besides being a Talibanist hell hole, functioned as a staging area for attacks and abductions throughout the country. The insurgents, deprived of this safe haven, will find their struggle harder. Though, of course it’ll not be the end of it. Already there have been discovered bomb factories, and abduction and decapitation centres. Also it’ll help make the elections more valid.
  2. What lives? The allies, civilians or insurgents? Supposedly one of the objectives of the operation was to kill as many insurgents as possible. Getting the insurgents to engage in a regular battle and not attack-run guerrilla warfare and outright terrorism, giving the allies the chance to destroy them must be a boon for the allies. 1000 – 2000 killed sounds fairly impressive - if they indeed were insurgents.
  3. Mosul has a large Kurdish population. I doubt they’ll invite foreign insurgents, many former Baathists and Saddam loyalists, with open arms. Isn’t the poor areas of Baghdad a more likely candidate?

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/8760091.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

http://www.nouvelobs.com/dossiers/p2074/a246911.html

In the early 70’s the IRA had cordoned of some part’s of nationalist areas and called them “No go area’s” they put blockades up on the road etc. The army and police eventually decided that it had to take these areas back. They did this very aggressively and made many arrests. They claimed a big victory and talked about breaking the back of the IRA.

The IRA just slipped away into the public and reappeared as a more dangerous and secretive force using stronger terror tactics than ever rather than direct action.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3992315.stm
I hope this doesn’t happen in Iraq but will be amazed if something similar doesn’t occur.

I’m always suspicious of the passive voice, especially in so-called news articles. “A parallel is being drawn in some quarters” could mean that two pimpled teens are drawing the alleged parallel in their basement.

I think the idea was to set an example… but since the example took an awful lot of time and destruction… was it a useful example ?

Fallujah is a total mess… I wonder if the returning inhabitants (and rebels?) will be “thankful” for the non-surgical removal of insurgents ?

After the failed 1991 Kurdish uprising, Hussein tried to “Arabize” the biggest Kurdish cities in Iraq, Mosul and Kirkuk – colonize them with Arab settlers. Now the Kurds are trying to re-Kurdicize the cities, which inevitably means conflict with people who have been living there for a decade in houses that once belonged to Kurdish families. Thus, in those cities the general anti-American hostility is further complicated by inter-ethnic tension. There’s going to be a lot of trouble there.

I was being somewhat facetious with my query. Because to hear US propaganda tell it, only insurgents and terrorists die when they flatten a city:

Amazing accuracy? Or back to my original question?

I’d say yes, unless the US wants to just cut and run (seems many in this thread want just that). Basically Fallujah was a staging area and supply dump for insurgency throughout Iraq. Note the large amounts of IED’s (and bomb making materials), weapons and other supplies captured so far. It gave the insurgents (and terrorists) a secure base to stage out of…a bad thing in itself.

Sure, if the people in Falluja had of surrendered this could have been done without a single lose of life. Or had they negotiated some other kind of peaceful settlement with the new Iraqi government the same thing. Short of that its hard for me to picture how taking a city could have cost less lives. Frankly I’m amazed that we were able to take the city with such a small lose of life…city fighting is the nastiest and most difficult type, where defenders have a huge advantage. I’m also a bit amazed that it was over so fast…after all, these were supposed to be fanatics ready to fight to the last man and fight to the death and all that.

No idea how many got away…probably no one really does. My guess is that the leadership all flew the coup and took the cream of their folks with them…leaving the rest of those poor suckers to face the music and die gloriously. However, I’d say that most of the objectives (that I know of) were achieved, and that this is going to at least set back the insurgency a bit until (or if) they are able to establish a new secure base of operations.

No idea. If I were to guess, I’d say that there won’t be ‘peaceful’ ‘January elections’, but that they will still happen. As for Fallujah, it will probably be more peaceful than its been…which isn’t really saying much.

We’d be complete idiots to allow another city to devolved into chaos and let the insurgents gain secure control in either Mosul or any other large city in Iraq. Whether we are idiots or not remains to be seen however. I HOPE we aren’t that stupid.

-XT

To, that says definitively that no buildings were left standing. Even if you were employing hyperbole, you are stating that many buildings were leveled.

My impression of the Fallujah offensive was that it was largely taking and occcupation of buildings intermingled with street fighting. Can you cite your “razing the city” comment?

Yes, I was using hyperbole. But the USAF has been dropping laser-guided smart bombs on the city since day1. Add to that the bombs that were dropped during the first assault back in April. There’s plenty of damage. And regardless of the intentions of the Americans, and regardless of how accurate the bombing was, it’s not the sort of thing that going to get a previously neutral civilian waving the Stars and Stripes.

If you want to see some (offiicially sanctioned) pictures of what war looks like, the try the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4010467.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/3992623.stm

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3610523&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

and

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=582915

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/10185641.htm?1c

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it" – unattributed quote from the Vietnam War.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." – George Santayana