Fallujah: What's going to happen?

[XT]

Well, at least ONE of my predictions came true it seems. Heya Alde…I thought you would show up in here eventually.

-XT

[Capt_B.Phart]

@Malodorous

The Americans did take the hospital, but I doubt they’ve blockaded it. Do you have a cite?

From SentientMeat’s link above:-

A medical dispensary in the city centre was bombed earlier.
I don’t know what has happened to the doctors and patients who were there. It was last place you could get medical attention because the big hospital on the outskirts of Falluja was captured by the Americans on Monday.

I’d guess the Americans aren’t deliberately “blockading” it – but no Iraq civilian is going to approach a building held by US troops for fear of being shot as a suicide bomber

[laigle]

I’d say it’s the Iraq invasion on a mciro-scale. The stupid insurgents will fight. The smart ones and the leadership will either hide, flee, or wave American flags as we enter the city. Then we’ll get a steady stream of casualties from small-scale violence. In the meantime, we’ll take a big hit on the hearts and minds front from the collateral damage.

[Rune]

A while back I read this article by Sara Daniel of an interview she conducted with the terrorists inside Fallujah. It some of the most chilling material re. terrorism in Iraq I’ve read, but I don’t think it was ever translated to English.

Some quotes [my translation, I’m sure clareobscur can do it better]:

The many paged report makes it run cold down your back. After months of preparations the journalist Sara Daniels from the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur [the new observer] has succeeded in meeting the Islamist who has abducted and killed several foreign hostages in recent months.
In the headquarters of the Islamists inside Fallujah, where American soldiers have not dared venture since their withdrawal April 29 they tell laughing about how they have cut the throat of hostages and why the world can expect more hostage takings in the future: it works.
“I’m responsible for the decapitation of the American agent Nicolas Berg, of the Korean Kim Sun-il and of Iraqi spies working for the Americans” says the chief of the new military top command of the Islamic groupings – a man of about 30 years, whose name in the article is changed to Abou Rachid.
Video with murder
When the journalist listen with horror Abou Rachid laughs loud and recommend her to watch the DVD with the murder of Nicolas Berg twice – then she’ll get used to it. Meanwhile he offers her to participate in the next.
Abou Rachid denies that foreign troops control the fight against the Americans. After the Americans’ withdrawal Fallujah is considered the first liberated city in Iraq; an Islamic emirate. A common court of the chiefs for 13 Islamic groups have installed a religious regime of terror with summary execution of opponents, spies or people who will not subject to the draconic Islamic rules.
According to the leader, all the Islamic groups now cooperate and abductions and attacks are planned in Fallujah.

“Just look at the just reaction of the Philippines. Thanks to their attitude we could free the hostage and show the world that we too love peace and leniency. I by the way tried to negotiate a transfer of Nick Berg with Iraqi prisoners, but the Americans refused. So they are the true responsible for his death.”
According to Abou Rachid, the 13 Islamic groups have different tasks, but they have centralised the negotiations in cases with hostages and the struggle across the whole of Iraq inside Fallujah, the better to be able to increase the number and coordinate future attacks and show their strength.
The Islamic leader acknowledges that many foreign Arab holy warriors participate in the fight on their side, but deny that the attacks are controlled by foreigners. When several of the hostages have been executed by Arab warriors it according to Abou Rachid is because they have reached a higher religious level.
“But little by little the Iraqis learn to imitate their Arab brothers” he says and promise the struggle not will end before the occupation has ended and Islamic Sharia introduced in Iraq.

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

Higher religious level, huh? It appears clear in this interview that the terrorists consider Falluja to be a secure base wherefrom they can plan and execute terrorists operations throughout Iraq. Denying them that base seems to an effective method to combat terrorism – though surely noone is claiming it’s going to be the end. Also I should think it’ll give the Iraqi troops participating in the attack some battle experience and self-confidence. And lastly it’ll hopefully kill some terrorists.

[Sevastopol]

@Ryan_Liam

In Vietnam, there was a good alternative to the shithole government we were supporting, which even offered some stability. This however is different, what the insurgents offer is nothing more than the next Taliban, and we aren’t going to tolerate that.

People forget that we’re fighting an aggressive religious ideology, which will not stop or relent in its attacks unless we take the fight to them, the fight though to win will be long, hard and bloody.

And the US is going to lose.

[Monocracy]

@Malodorous

The Americans did take the hospital, but I doubt they’ve blockaded it. Do you have a cite?

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=288469&lang=e&dir=news

and

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=580940

According to The AP, Dr. Salih al-Issawi, head of the hospital, said he had asked U.S. officers to allow doctors and ambulances go inside the main part of the city to help the injured but they refused.

“The American troops’ attempt to take over the hospital was not right because they thought that they would halt medical assistance to the resistance,” he said by telephone. “But they did not realize that the hospital does not belong to anybody, especially the resistance.”

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1292052004

For those who remained in the city as the major assault got under way, conditions can only be imagined.

Doctors yesterday urged aid groups and the health ministry to send medical help to the city, where they say clinics are struggling to cope. “There are dead and wounded, but I cannot tell you the number because we are still busy dealing with casualties,” said doctor Ahmed Ghanem at the Central Clinic, which has replaced Fallujah Hospital as the main treatment centre.

"Fallujah Hospital and its medical team are now under American control. We cannot use their services.

“There is a health crisis in Fallujah. We are only a few doctors with moderate means offering our services to casualties.”

Add to all of this the fact that there is an around-the-clock curfew in Fallujah, civilians have virtually no means of medical attention.

[Capt_B.Phart]

@laigle

I’d say it’s the Iraq invasion on a mciro-scale.

I was thinking that it’s sort of fractal – the detail resembling the whole

A certain military victory by overwhelming force rendered useless by no ability to control the aftermath

[Ryan_Liam]

@sevastopol

And the US is going to lose.

Yes :rolleyes:

Moron.

[furt]

@sevastopol

And the US is going to lose.

Not anti-war, just on the other side…

[TonyF]

@furt

Not anti-war, just on the other side…

Indeed! sevastopol, why do you hate America?

@xtisme

…perhaps we might retake the city with a minimum of death and destruction…wouldn’t that be nice? I’m not holding my breath though.

I agree. But I’m saddened - it seems in choice of prediction the only logical options are: a fast, easy fight that does nothing or a slow, bloody fight that makes things worse. The hospital and refugee situation is becoming problematic on the PR side; reports that insurgency leaders have already escaped would render the operation pretty useless.

I have a bad feeling this is another victorious battle that leads us no closer to winning the war.

[Sam_Stone]

If the insurgents in Fallujah know what they are doing (and if they are Saddam’s Fedayeen and others with training, they do), then they’re going to fight in ‘classic’ insurgency style. Harass the troops, put civilians between them and the Americans, force the Americans to inflict casualties on the civilians, then withdraw. The U.S. will take Fallujah, and discover that they’ve only killed a few hundred insurgents, but an equal number of civilians (if necessary, the insurgents can kill civilians themselves just to raise the body count).

Then the U.S. will occupy the city, and start getting sniped/suicide bombed/booby trapped. Eventually they withdraw, and the insurgents pour back in. If Fallujah is completely controlled, the Insurgents just set up shop in Ramadi, or some other ‘friendly’ city. Repeat as necessary, until the damage to the infrastructure and civilian casualties becomes so great that there is a general uprising.

That’s how insurgencies are fought.

This sounds like a no-win situation, but one thing everyone here is forgetting - the U.S. military is damned smart, and it knows exactly what the insurgents will try to do. This is what wargaming is all about - predict your enemy’s moves, and counter them. Then the enemy predicts the counter to their moves, and plans a counter-counter. Then the other side does the same.

Both sides have advantages and disadvantages in this fight. The insurgents can blend into the population, and they have time on their side. On the other hand, the coalition forces have vastly superior arms, experience, and numbers on their side. The insurgents also have to walk a fine line - they are trying to turn the population against the coalition forces, but it’s entirely possible that the population will turn against them. Right now, people in Iraq are still not sure whether the U.S. is willing to see this fight to the end. Until they do, they will be terrified to oppose the insurgency, lest they wind up hanging from a lightpost when the U.S. leaves. But the insurgency is a huge strain on the average Iraqi, and if they become convinced that they have more to lose by living through an extended guerilla war, they may decide to back the new government and U.S. forces, and start turning in insurgents.

An insurgency needs the support of the population. That’s why it’s restricted to the small number of Sunni cities - they’re the only ones where they can get the popular support they need. If they don’t have the support of the people, they wind up like the Sadr army’s failed insurgency - pushed out of the city, shot in the back by their own citizens, and eventually surrendering.

It’s going to be tough, and bloody, but it’s not a foregone conclusion. I think the U.S. forces still have the upper hand. And I think you’ll see some surprising moves from them in the coming days and weeks.

[Sevastopol]

Thinking about justice, what does she dictate in the circumstances? Let’s consider the facts, merely the salient ones as the mundane ones are common knowledge.

The position: - “It is right because the US does it”

This does not exactly correspond with respectable principles of justice. So if justice is the principle that guides your judgement, then you are short of arguments for backing the US.

Now, thinking about government, what is necessary to the stable political state? Legitimacy is one of the better answers. It may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.

The US long ago lost any claim to act justly in Iraq. Consequently any action it takes is poisoned with illegitimacy.

Villainy is a quality many people are relectant to find in their national character. The agility of Americans in this endeavour is especially energetic. Iraqis are not similarly motivated when the heart of the US is in the balance. And they are the people that matter.

Why attribute delusions that are popular in the US to Iraqis? How stupid do you think they are? They have a pretty shrewd idea why the US is in Iraq.

This explains why America has already lost.

I mourned and consoled after the events of 11 Sept 2001, US time. Seeing what the US has done since, I regret that now.

[TonyF]

… All of that considered, the question here is what will happen with respect to Fallujah.

[MEBuckner]

@Ryan_Liam

Yes :rolleyes:

Moron.

Moderator’s Note: Ryan_Liam, that’s not acceptable. Personal insults are forbidden in this forum; you’ve been here long enough you should know that.

[hildea]

@Sam Stone

the U.S. military is damned smart

Cite?

[Sevastopol]

@TonyF

… All of that considered, the question here is what will happen with respect to Fallujah.

True, but the wider implications are interesting. Not just to me. Look at the text I quoted earlier in my reply.

Further, the inestimable Riverbend recently spoke of Falloojeh. Always a moderate and placid Iraqi voice, she shocked me recently by concluding that discussion as follows:

“Rule of Iraq assassins must end…” I couldn’t agree more: Get out Americans".

So I don’t see my own opinions as so very irrelevant to the Falloojeh question.

Lastly,

Originally Posted by Sam Stone
the U.S. military is damned smart

I agree. How about we rename this war “Operation Cassandra”?

[Ryan_Liam]

@sevastopol

True, but the wider implications are interesting. Not just to me. Look at the text I quoted earlier in my reply.

Further, the inestimable Riverbend recently spoke of Falloojeh. Always a moderate and placid Iraqi voice, she shocked me recently by concluding that discussion as follows:

So I don’t see my own opinions as so very irrelevant to the Falloojeh question.

Lastly,
I agree. How about we rename this war “Operation Cassandra”?

Ahh Riverbend, the voice of the anti-war left. So unbiased, so truthful so full of honour and love :rolleyes: the same person who writes about the daily abuses of the Americans, but yet fails to mention with the same ferocity insurgent atrocities. Makes ya think, don’t it?

Riverbend is as moderate as Michael Moore is impartial.

so I will provide my biased link as a source of impartiality.

IRAQ THE MODEL

[Sevastopol]

She’s not the voice of the anti-war left at all. She is her own woman.

The ability to counter with a opportunist and a sycophant doesn’t impugn Riverbend in the slightest.

[Capt_B.Phart]

@Ryan_Liam

Ahh Riverbend, the voice of the anti-war left.

She may or may not be one of the “anti-war left” but she is a pro-western moderate - one of the “hearts and minds” that **must ** be won if Iraq isn’t to turn into complete chaos

Riverbend is as moderate as Michael Moore is impartial.

You are in for a lot of serious disillusionment if you think Iraq is populated with people who will react more “moderately” than Riverbend to the mess that’s been made of post-war Iraq, to being turned into refugees or knowing friends and family living under bombardment - let alone stuff like Abu Garib. (Which, incidentally, Riverbend and others were aware of at a time when you would have been shouting "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!)

She is the bearer of bad news and she may have different politics to you or I, but if you just stick your fingers in your ears and go “Nerr ,Nerr, Nerr” at any negative view coming out of Iraq you’re not going to know much about what’s going on at the moment

[Ryan_Liam]

The thing is people talk about this as if there is a way of not attacking the city, but thats rubbish, a city packed with insurgents and terrorists is just an open invitation for an invasion.

And about Riverbend, of course she’s going to complain, she’s Iraqi and would naturally dislike the fact her country has been invaded and occupied on a flimsy pretext. But the fact of the matter is, theres no viable alternative in dealing with terrorists who have no centralised command structure, no proper manifesto in dealing with post occupation Iraq, nothing, its just violence for the sake of violence and there is no level in which they would stop at to get maximum coverage from the world press, and I’ve just heard the PM’s cousins have been abducted.

A democratic and secular (somewhat) state within a region which has not experienced such levels of freedom before would be a deathknell for any hardcore Islamists within the region, this is why they fight they fight to keep their power and maintain the climate of fear as to keep their subject people in line.

Can you see the problem here? I wonder whats shes got to say about that, or anything which is remotely terrorist like. The thing is, its good for her to complain etc, but she doesn’t accept the fact that their isn’t any viable alternative. If she wasn’t Iraq she’d be probably wearing ‘meat is murder’ and protesting for a free Palestine, her viewpoint is biased.

You take someone from Korea, or Japan and see if they loved being occupied by American troops, of course they didn’t but in the long term interests they knew they either had to work with them, and slowly get their country back in a much better shaped albeit altered or destroy everything in order to get them out.