CNN says the U.S. Marines are preparing to attack the Iraqi city of Falluja. Why? They already control all the surrounding countryside. They have blocked all roads leading into the city. A modern city cannot survive more than a few weeks without trucking in food. Why not just maintain a state of seige until al-Zarqawi’s forces get hungry enough to run up the white flag? Much less “collateral damage” that way.
I’m not entirely sure that Siege is up to the task of conquering an entire city by herself. Not that I don’t think she can do it with a little help. 
And to actually give an answer with substance (though that substance is more opinion than evidential fact), because a siege isn’t a forceful assertion of our dear president’s newfound mandate.
Or because a siege isn’t necessarily the least damaging way to win a battle. A full battle costs more in immediate risk and loss of life and property. But a siege puts the troops in what is essentially a sitting duck position for however many weeks it takes to starve Fallujah out. A siege, even in historically recent times (WWII, frex), was a viable strategy because enemies couldn’t move terribly quickly. A siege that ties up a large number US troops today could easily find itself the victim of hit-and-run attacks by every insurgency group in Iraq today, and it could find itself a victim of those attacks for weeks because…well, where are you going to go if you’re supposed to be surrounding Fallujah? And if you’re not surrounding Fallujah, you don’t have much of a siege, do you? So you end up asking yourself, “If I don’t have much of a siege here, why am I still sitting here being selectively exploded?”
My opinion, of course.
- dead children and babies will be a result of no food or fresh water.
- the insurgents may take iraqi hostages and threaten to kill them. you may say “but they’re both iraqis!” you’d be surprised what hunger will make you do.
- cannibalism
- siege tactics often result in at least some if not large losses on the side of the siegers (e.g. U.S.). this is because the attackers are usually in a blockade around the defendants, and the defendants are in a fortified position ready to rain death upon the attackers. think of a bunch of archers on a castle shooting arrows at a massive army.
- the massive numbers required to creat a siege/blockade make for a bigger target.
- siege is cruel. hunger and thirst are in themselves a form of torture. and you would be torturing the entire polpulace. many would probably rather die than give up.
You’re joking, right? Human flesh is not hallal! (Is it?)
Depends on what you mean by ‘collateral damage’. If you mean buildings and infrastructure you might be right. If you mean actual deaths then you’d probably be wrong. A siege in a modern city is going to cause massive amounts of death by starvation (not exactly a pleasant way to die…in fact one of the worst IMO) and disease (again, not a barrel of laughs). And it will fall heaviest on those civilians still in the city instead of on the combatants who will most likely sieze anything useful as far as food and drugs goes.
However, I think the main driving force here is the Iraqi government themselves who have tried to negotiate and are now at the end of that tether and want to get it over with. Personally, if we are going to take out Falluja, the best way to do it is by assault, even if it puts our own troops at more of a risk…because it will keep the civilian casualties down to the lowest figure (short of these idiots realizing they can’t win and surrendering).
-XT
I don’t think this would be an issue. With the exceptions of psychopathy and tribal custom, most recorded cases of cannibalism have been where people have been driven to it by hunger despite religious and social taboos.
Maybe these troops are needed elsewhere and quick ? A siege takes time.
The way Iraq is becoming chaotic… I doubt troops can lie around like that… and to make an effective siege must take a good number of them.
Like Jjimm said, when you’re starving to death because the enemy has cut off your food supplies, halal probably isn’t your first concern.
OP, to get yourself into the real world where not dreams of US heroism bur reality rules, why don’t you try the following:
- Get yourself locked up in a room without food and water until you die
- Go to Falluja to become “collateral starved damage” yourself
- Go to Falluja and “support the troops” in killing the people they keep under occupation.
This is all very simple. You just need to do it. It takes a bit of courage but since you can reason so heroically in murdering innocent and ponder about what could be the best way to do it, I suppose you would have no trouble in trying on and an other out on yourself.
By the way: In my view the Iraqis in Faluja would not consider you - even when they were starving under your Great Conquer these Brownies Plan - good enough to be eaten, but that is only my opinion. For you to go try it out.
What the hell were you trying to say? That idle discussion of the best way to kill off some guerillas encamped amongst civilians should not be practiced? That the participants of this thread should all go to Iraq pick a side and a plan and start shooting? Or exactly what?
As to the seige variant I agree the starving babies/vulnerable soldiers problem makes that plan unviable.I don’t want our troops to attack Falluja. I don’t want them to be there at all. But the president doesn’t listen to me. The Marines are going to take the city, one way or another – I’m just speculating about what way would mean the least loss of life. Most posters in this thread think a seige would kill more than an assault.
Well the question is ‘why siege?’
The reason that midevil armies and later the European armies in WWI laid seige was due to a distinct tactical advantage by the defenders. A direct assault against castle walls or an entrenched army would cause horrific losses on the attackers and maight not even result in victory. Modern aircraft, artillery and armor have given an advantage to the attacker.
In any event, you don’t want a prolonged seige. Prolonged anything in warfare is bad.
What I say is that you should get rid of your obvious arrogance and start realizing that everyIraqi citizen has every right in the world to fight those who invaded their nation, killed thousands and thousends of its citizens, brought the greatest havoc and instability with them and keep that sovereign nation occupied to satisfy the lunatic arrogance and gread of the lunatic president the US population just gave an other four years do go on slaughtering innocents in a sovereign nation.
That the participants in this thread and so many other should start realizing that they are talking about people.
Yes, amazing it is, but the Iraqis are people like you are. Shocking, no?
Exactly that.
Salaam. A
Ye I know. I apologize for going after you like I did. Yet every time I see threads like this I get the feeling people do not realize that they talk about people who live under foreign occupation and did not ask to be attacked and killed.
Salaam. A
No one is saying differently WRT the Iraqi’s taking up arms. Its YOU who is bringing that up. Of course, the same can be said for the US troops there…they have every right granted to man since the beginning of time to wage war in Iraq…the right of the ability to do it. Grow up Alde. Man has been waging unfair war for the history of mankind. NO war is fair to those who lose. You need to get a grip.
We KNOW we are talking about real people. The OP was asking what method would be best to take Falluja with the least loss of life. Unlike you, he realizes that in the REAL world Falluja is going to be taken. Might not be right. Might not be fair. But its GOING to happen. You can rant and rave till your little hearts content, but ITS GOING TO HAPPEN. Given that, whats the best way to do it that will cost the least lives all around…both US and Iraqi? A siege ain’t it. The BEST way would be for those idiots in Falluja to give up. Might not be right…might not be fair. But they can’t possibly win. All they can do is get a lot MORE people killed at this point. Maybe thats the only option they have…maybe not. But thats the BEST thing that could happen. Disreguarding that, and since Falluja is going to be taken, the next best thing to do is go in hard and fast, try to spare as many civilians that are still there as possible and retake the city…then pick up the pieces.
You really need to get a grip on this hatred you have and start thinking realistically…and rationally. The war happened. The US is there. Nothing you rant about now is going to change that fact. We can’t go back in time and do it over…its done. If the US pulls out at this point it will be a blood bath in Iraq and the whole country (and perhaps the region) will go into the fire. Is THAT what you REALLY want? It would make the deaths WE caused look like a party in comparison…and since you claim to be from that region (on alternate days anyway) you should know this.
-XT
Nice try Aldebaran, but you can apply that to any situation in any war. War is never humanitarian, but we do the best in the West to at least try and avoid as much as we can of the bloodletting. You see this is what I don’t get, an entirely legitimate attack on a city which has thousands of insurgents holed up is valid to attack.
People don’t seem to remember Somalia or Lebanon, this is how the guerilla force is broken down. Here’s the situation in Fallujah, broken down.
Basically the G’s have had 6 months to prepare. It will be brutal and very bloody. But it HAS to be done. I think the high command is making the same mistake they make every time.
First they underestimate the numbers of the enemy. The last guess I read was 2 or 3 thousand. My guess is 30,000. It is based on straight population data. 10% of the population will fight. I include women and children, because the women and children are integral parts of the G’s formations.
The under 6 kids will act as scouts and runners, the 7 to 12 year olds will be RPG gunners, the teenage boys will carry AK’s. Females over 12 will act as corpsmen and supply mules. The adult males will operate crew served weapons and act as shock troops. This is the same force structure that was used in Lebanon and Somalia and there is no reason for it to change. The Europeans and Media (as usual) will go crazy the first time they get film of a AH-64 making a gun pass on a family unit operating as a squad. 30mm chain guns don’t leave much after hitting a human body at 2,000 fps and exploding.
And thats basically it. Alderbaran quit being lazy, get off your ass and think realistically on what the US military and the Iraqi National Guard has to do here. Yes it won’t be pretty, or even acceptable to some, but its necessary. The worse thing was that it was entirely our fault. People whine on about elections, well, this is what has to be done to make it near legitimate.
Despite their other mistakes and occasional truth-distortions, I think the US did really, honestly think that the population of Iraq would be dancing in the streets after the regime change. They also really, honestly avoid causing unnecessary civilian deaths whenever possible, and so a siege, whether by encirclement or artillery fire or both, would be unacceptable. I’m not sure what it would have taken to discourage Bush, but I think he may have reconsidered regime change if he had known that that Iraq would disagree with his way of spreading freedom. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have ruled out a proxy war, though. I don’t think Bush anticipated that many Iraqis would have preferred a relatively stable tyranny under an Iraqi (and Muslim) leader than any sort of government set up by Americans.
On cannibalism in a besieged city: Someone who sincerely believes that they will be judged after their death for their actions during life would likely rather die and be rewarded than do something for which they know they will be punished after death. If they believed that cannibalism would be justifiable in a besieged city, they would be willing to consider it, but if they believe they would be punished, they would choose to die instead. Desperation is powerful, but religion is often more powerful still. For example, I’d expect that Muslims in a besieged city would risk their own lives to bury someone who had died within 24 hours, unless there are clear religious rules allowing for exceptions in emergencies.
Has there ever been a serious attempt at a protracted siege since the middle ages? It seems to me it belongs to an area where walls provided a massive defense advantage. It is massively expensive to have an army stationed outside a city for a long time, and the images of starved children going the rounds of world media would shoot American creditability to hell. Anyway the town has to be cleared fairly quickly, in time for the elections. And it’s not even necessarily a good tactics strictly military speaking as one of the goals of the coming battle presumable will be to engage the guerrillas in order to kill them.
So sorry that I don’t applaud the US heros who invaded and keep occupied a country where the woman who raised me had here roots = where all her family is and tries to stay alive.
You wished it was “done”.
“You ain’t seen nothing yet”.
Really.
And what do you actually think is going on right now in Iraq?
Really.
All what happened in Iraq after the invasion of the criminal’s army is caused by that criminal’s greed and arrogance.
Why don’t you cut it with your denegrating tone as if Iraqis can’t handle the situation themselves any better then the foreign armies who killed and kill them.
Do you really thinkg these foreigners can stop what is going to enfold = what everybody with insight in that country predicted since the very first war mongering speach of Bush?
Why don’t you marry Mehitabel? I am sick and tired of these ongoing harassments. ** I DO NOT GIVE THE NAME OF MY NATION** Even when some moderator of this board thought she “exposed” the location of one of the IP’s I use, for helping poor stalking harassing Mehitabel.
** Got it?**
Salaam. A