Iraqi allies warn US over Falluja

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by skywalker: Pictures of innocent dead children. KUM-BY-YAA indeed! Mark [EDIT] I did not like my original text.

As I wrote it is terrible when any human dies in war. Nobody is glorifying the deaths of innocent people, be they children, women, or men. It happens that is what war does, I've been screaming from the roof top here on the board from 12 Sept, 2001 that war is not to be entered into lightly, but when it in entered into it must be done fully.

Don't anybody try to sell me that INTENTIONALY targeting civilains to kill them, is the same as UNITENTIONALY killing civilains during combat.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by John D Harris: But, I believe there is more then a little difference between a man branishing a Sword, a weapon that requires up close and personal contact for it to be anything more then to be considered a dectoration to a solider armed with an automatic weapon capitable of killing at distance. Occupping a building is differant then killing people, to a degree that far exceded what would or could be considered a Little. If there is any doubt on that point, I'll make a deal with anybody on the board, I'll not occupy any buildings if they quit breathing

He was the leader of the group - and, like most commanders, wasn't carrying serious personal weaponry since he didn't expect to fight himself. The men that accompanied him were armed to the teeth with the regular array of assault rifles, rpgs, grendades etc. They expected to occupy the buildings and administration centres, the British to attempt to remove them by force and a heavy battle to follow.

When the British didn't do as expected, the adrelenine left and then so did they. And however you might ridicule the British approach, it DID work - without any loss of face or authority on their part - they're still in control.

Of course, we are now beyond that approach and into the 'how do we get out of this mess' stage. Best option at this stage is to try to introduce the cease-fire and pull waaay back (at least 5 Km). That way they will get the time to calm down, the casualty rate drops and the country calms down. Meanwhile, if anyone in the city wants to continue fighting, they'll have to leave the cover of the city to do so - making them both easy targets and minimising the risk of civilian casualties.

There are NO drawbacks to that approach.


[ 04-10-2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Ronn_Bman]

As far as the British response to their insurgent problem, had there been attacks and were they being fired on? I ask because I honestly don't know. Did they ignore the insurgents while they were being attacked or did the insurgents just hold the building? Whether they were armed doesn't seem to matter as much as whether or not they were using their arms.

The response to the taking of a building should of course be handled differently than the response to a calculated ambush and murder.

The pull back option seems good on the surface, but I don't believe it is without drawbacks(very few things are). Might not that approach encourage other insurgents elsewhere to believe that if they kill and fight that the coalition will leave their cities? I think that is exactly what they'd believe.

What happened to the cease fire and negotiations with the clerics?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Skunk: He was the leader of the group - and, like most commanders, wasn't carrying serious personal weaponry since he didn't expect to fight himself. The men that accompanied him were armed to the teeth with the regular array of assault rifles, rpgs, grendades etc. They expected to occupy the buildings and administration centres, the British to attempt to remove them by force and a heavy battle to follow. When the British didn't do as expected, the adrelenine left and then so did they. And however you might ridicule the British approach, it DID work - without any loss of face or authority on their part - they're still in control. Of course, we are now beyond that approach and into the 'how do we get out of this mess' stage. Best option at this stage is to try to introduce the cease-fire and pull waaay back (at least 5 Km). That way they will get the time to calm down, the casualty rate drops and the country calms down. Meanwhile, if anyone in the city wants to continue fighting, they'll have to leave the cover of the city to do so - making them both easy targets and minimising the risk of civilian casualties. There are NO drawbacks to that approach.

I didn't ridicule the British postion, what part of the words I'm glad it worked out did you not understand? I ridiculed the UN's postion! The British and the UN's positions are not one in the same. AND IT STILL STANDS occuping a building is not the same as killing. Pulling back isn't a bad idea make them come to you, not a bad strategy.

Perhaps letting the adrelenine die down is what you should do, I know you've been accused of be some things, but it sure as "Hale" wasn't by me. I accepted your explaination of being a devil's advocate.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: As far as the British response to their insurgent problem, had there been attacks and were they being fired on? I ask because I honestly don't know. Did they ignore the insurgents while they were being attacked or did the insurgents just hold the building? Whether they were armed doesn't seem to matter as much as whether or not they were using their arms. The response to the taking of a building should of course be handled differently than the response to a calculated ambush and murder. The pull back option seems good on the surface, but I don't believe it is without drawbacks(very few things are). Might not that approach encourage other insurgents elsewhere to believe that if they kill and fight that the coalition will leave their cities? I think that is exactly what they'd believe. What happened to the cease fire and negotiations with the clerics?

They did fire shots and drove out the guards and police in the Basra.

As far as the incident in Falluja goes, the only facts known are that the ambush was carried out by four men who melted away immediately after the killing took place - according to the eye witness accounts, they DID NOT stay for the mutilations but were long gone by the time that started. Falluja has a population of 300,000 - and probably just as many guns. Finding them may be an impossible task - they may even be already dead; killed in the fighting.

As far as other cities goes, each situation is unique. One size does not fit all and neither does each strategy. But Falluja is a powder keg around which even Shi'ites are uniting with the 'hated' Sunni's. NOT because Falluja is against the US, but rather at the civilian deaths caused by attempt to retake the town. To get the rest of the country back on side, there HAS to be a calming down period. And it is not to say that the US should sit on their hands during the lull. It goes without saying that this would be the counter-propaganda machine time, with the US offering ambulances to ferry out injured women and children, allowing food aid in, dropping leaflets re-affirming good intentions etc. etc. All the while sealing up access to the town and making sure that nothing goes in or out without them knowing about it.

One thing that you have to be aware of is that there ARE television crews stuck in Falluja. I've seen the pictures coming out of Falluja - and they are pretty shocking. There are streets littered with bodies and overfilling hospitals, burnt out cars with the occupants still inside (one was filled with a family that eye-witnesses said were killed by a US helicopter fired a missile at it), another where the occupant was apparently burnt alive, women and children running and screaming away from explosions....And these pictures are going out not only all over Iraq via sattelite - but also all over the middle-east. Hence the reason why mosques all over Iraq are calling people to donate food and blood to the 'victims' of Falluja. That's powerful and shocking imagery - and the coalition needs to reverse it pretty dam quick or they'll lose every gain they've made to date.

As far as the cease fire goes - I don't know anything beyond the fact that both sides have agreed to a 12 hour truce beginning at 6.00 am Sunday, to open negociations. The US has stated that it wants the insurgents to use that time to gather up those responsible for both the deaths and mutilations last week - my feeling is that the best that they can expect is have some bodies handed over with the claim that they were the ones, or some poor foreigners/undesirables who they've decided can take the fall. (Cynic that I am)


I know that the IGC are currently talking to Sadr - on the table is a promise not to pursue the 'murder charge' and to improve the lot of poorer Shi'ites in return to peaceful cohabitation and an end to the insurrection. However, Sadr has stated that he will not agree to anything before Falluja is resolved - he obviously wants to garner support out that and use it to guarantee his safety afterwards. So again, we're not likely to see anything there until that Falluja starts smelling of roses.

[ 04-10-2004, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Ronn_Bman]

They now have taken an American hostage that they threaten to kill unless the US withdraws from the city. It seems like that is something that would take as a victory after all, so there was a drawback.

Japan couldn't afford cave to the threat of burning their citizens alive, in fact you said no government could, so can the US pull back now?

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: They now have taken an American hostage that they threaten to kill unless the US withdraws from the city. It seems like that is something that would take as a victory after all, so there was a drawback. Japan couldn't afford cave to the threat of burning their citizens alive, in fact you said no government could, so can the US pull back now?

It's called provocation. They WANT the battle to continue. They are not so foolish to believe that they can win the physical battle against the world's greatest military machine - but they can win the propaganda war.

Oh yes, for sure images of hostage taking will horrify western, audiences - especially as the pictures of the events inside Falluja are not being aired there. But they are not trying to get western support - they want the support of Iraqis and the wider middle-east. And those people have seen the images.

And in the same way that we bill every inmate of GM bay as a terrorist and therefore not worthy of the justice system or rights, they will bill the hostages as 'mercenaries' who should therefore not be worthy of rights. (Mercenaries are a particularly bad word in the ME, having been responsible for much of the worst attrocities throughout their history).

It's the same tactic that Saddam hoped for during the Iraq war. The cities bombed, hundreds/thousands of dead civilians and US soldiers drawn into urban warfare where they are more vunerable.


A tactical withdrawl is not a defeat. In so doing, the US would take control of a situation that they no longer have control of. It's a matter of perspectives. They would still be in control of all traffic entering and leaving the city. They would still control almost every important aspect of what goes on in the city, when the power goes on or off, when the water is switched on or off, how much or how little food goes in - and more importantly what images leave the city.

As Winston Churchill put it:
"Battles are won by slaughter and manoeuvre. The greater the general, the more he contributes in manoeuvre, the less he demands in slaughter."

and,

"There are many kinds of manoeuvres in war, some only of which take place upon the battlefield. There are manoeuvres far to the flank or rear. There are manoeuvres in time, in diplomacy, in mechanics, in psychology; all of which are removed from the battlefield, but react often decisively upon it, and the object of all is to find easier ways, other than sheer slaughter, of achieving the main purpose."

[ 04-11-2004, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[johnny]

Originally posted by Skunk And in the same way that we bill every inmate of GM bay as a terrorist and therefore not worthy of the justice system or rights, they will bill the hostages as 'mercenaries' who should therefore not be worthy of rights. (Mercenaries are a particularly bad word in the ME, having been responsible for much of the worst attrocities throughout their history).

Surely even those morons must know what the job of a humanitarian worker is all about ? Or that of a journalist ? Mercenaries ? Equipped with medical tools and photocamera's ? Sounds like a real threat to me. Much more dangerous than the AK carrying mercenaries they captured in Afghanistan.

[Ronn_Bman]

It seems from the news story in the other thread that a pull back is part of the cease fire agreement, and while it should work in the immediate sense, I hope it doesn't inspire others to action hoping for the same result.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: It's called provocation. They WANT the battle to continue. They are not so foolish to believe that they can win the physical battle against the world's greatest military machine - but they can win the propaganda war.

I'm not so sure that is true.

I think they believe they can win the propaganda war and force us to withdraw thereby winning the battle, and not just the battle in this city, but the greater battle for Iraq. After all, the insurgents aren't just fighting for the coalition to leave Fallujah, they are fighting for the coalition to leave all of Iraq.

Just as you've said, not all battles are won through might, some are won through maneuver. That IS true, and it works both ways.

Iraq is already the place foreign jihadists go to get their shot (literally) at the US, and every victory for insurgents will just inspire more. We agree, they don't care if they kill innocents who are only trying to help their own people, in fact those are the ones they prefer to take hostage and call mercenaries, and when their own people are killed because of their insurgency, they can blame the coalition.

In fact, the only drawback to their position is that they may be killed by the coalition, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we make that drawback one that is 'all too real' to ignore. It seems to me the insurgents and their politics are given too much consideration.

EDIT - Added a few more thoughts since the weekends here are slow, and since no one has yet responded.

[ 04-11-2004, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]