Gunbattle in Fallujah, Iraq: US, Jordanian forces open fire on Iraqi Police

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
I'd identify my target and not shoot at friendlies.

Oh, I'm sure you would.

And your personal attack gives much credit to your position.

A statement of fact is not a personal attack.

That's exactly what police officers have to do.

These aren't police officers on a beat.

This is NOT a warzone as you so eloquently put. The war is over.

Really? That's why the guys with military issue weapons are out attempting to ambush our forces on a daily basis? When did you start listening to Bush? The Sunni triangle is still a low-intensity irregular war, regardless of what spin is put on it.

The US military is not qualified to play policeman.

Cool, rotate 'em out and let the UN FUBAR it like they have so many times in the past.

Everything you have said thus far has supported my point.

You mean you actually had one in the midst of the one-liner trolls?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
This is NOT a warzone as you so eloquently put. The war is over.

Sure it is a warzone. Just because the idiot Bush ran off at the mouth and declared it over to make himself look good doesn't make it so. He f*cked up saying that, especially since it looks like the real war is just beginning.

This calls for an investigation, certainly, but I think they need to see if U.S. training included telling the Iraqi police the right thing to do in just such a situation so what happened could be avoided. If such training wasn't given, someone who should have known better should be canned.

I don't think the U.S. soldiers can be held accountable, unless it can be shown they indeed acted with egregious negligence and callous disregard. Right now, the available facts don't support such a conclusion, so it's unwise to run off at the mouth (like Bush would do).

[Chemical Ollie]

MtG, everything you have said in issues like this, support the view of the those who question the American doctrine in Iraq - "shoot first and ask the questions later" or rather "shoot like crazy and ask no questions". Please explain to me how US army is going to win the peace by this doctrine.

[Sava]

This is an occupation people. It's not a battlefield where there's only good guys and bad guys. I did make a mistake though. It is a warzone. A guerilla warzone. And you don't win a guerilla war buy shooting friendlies. The US doesn't know how to win a guerilla war. Unless we get different people at high levels, or strategies change, we will lose this guerilla war.

And my lack of military experience is an advantage MtG. I'm not letting MY stubborn preconceptions and own experiences dictate my opinions on policy. In every war in the last few hundred years, the stubborn "old guard" gets its ass handed to them in combat. WWI... the old strategy of cavalry charges and infantry charges failed... WWII... trench warfare strategies (France's wall) failed as combined arms and small squad infantry tactics evolved. Vietnam... conventional front mentality failed. Massive bombing failed as the US lost a guerilla war. Gulf War I... we won because Saddam was a dumbass and tried to fight a conventional war with the US. Gulf War II... sure, we marched into Baghdad, but we will lose unless we can win this guerilla war. Saddam was smart this time. He told his military to join the general population to resist, and probably knew that Islamist elements would flood in and attack the US forces.

This cowboy mentality of yours is failing MtG. I hope our military leaders change their strategies so that more American troops, friendly forces and innocent people don't die.

[Sandman]

I'd be rather surprised and professionally curious at the inability of the US troops in that scenario to organize resistance, and return effective fire, but **** happens in combat, especially at night.

I hope America at least pretends to show some remorse, instead this "**** happens" ****. Might get a better response by apologising to the familes than by indignantly insisting that you'd done nothing wrong.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava


This is an occupation people. It's not a battlefield where there's only good guys and bad guys. I did make a mistake though. It is a warzone. A guerilla warzone. And you don't win a guerilla war buy shooting friendlies. The US doesn't know how to win a guerilla war. Unless we get different people at high levels, or strategies change, we will lose this guerilla war.

It depends on your definition of lose, but very few battlefields of the last three decades anywhere have been clean battlefields with clear demarcation between non-combatants and hostiles. The weenie side has long figured out that you get the most mileage against superior forces when you don't engage them in a standup fight.

And my lack of military experience is an advantage MtG. I'm not letting MY stubborn preconceptions and own experiences dictate my opinions on policy.

Yes, having no understanding of reality is ever so much easier for evolving fantasy scenarios.

In every war in the last few hundred years, the stubborn "old guard" gets its ass handed to them in combat. WWI... the old strategy of cavalry charges and infantry charges failed... WWII... trench warfare strategies (France's wall) failed as combined arms and small squad infantry tactics evolved. Vietnam... conventional front mentality failed. Massive bombing failed as the US lost a guerilla war. Gulf War I... we won because Saddam was a dumbass and tried to fight a conventional war with the US. Gulf War II... sure, we marched into Baghdad, but we will lose unless we can win this guerilla war.

And of course, all the military professionals on all sides fall into this simplistic "old guard" story, and a bunch of young, zero-experience Luke Savawalkers came in and saved the day.

Saddam was smart this time.

So smart all his male descendants are in the ground and he's hiding like a rat in a sewer, depending on luck to avoid his fate.

He told his military to join the general population to resist, and probably knew that Islamist elements would flood in and attack the US forces.

Not true, unless you really narrow it down to the Saddam Fedayeen, SRG and ISS, who mostly have to duck and run anyway. The overwhelming majority of the regular military and lot of the regular IRG forces disarmed, went home, and were happy to do it.

This cowboy mentality of yours is failing MtG.

You don't have the slightest idea how I'd run things , but the "cowboy mentality" has minimized US casualties given the magnitude and frequency of attacks.

I hope our military leaders change their strategies so that more American troops, friendly forces and innocent people don't die.

The military leadership is doing just fine, given constraints on forces and the levels of resistance. The political leadership, OTOH, could use a bit of work on their end.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sandman


I hope America at least pretends to show some remorse, instead this "**** happens" ****. Might get a better response by apologising to the familes than by indignantly insisting that you'd done nothing wrong.

You can apologize and pay compensation to make everyone feel better. The reality remains that **** does happen. If you use a pickup truck with a rear mounted machinegun (a popular toy with the Saddam Fedayeen) and a couple of marked cars (how well marked under night vision conditions? ) with everyone blazing away, to chase another vehicle with everyone blazing away, into a US military checkpoint, at night, in a hostile area, in a war zone, then you have to be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

If the Iraqi cops had broken off pursuit, then in all likelihood the only parties getting hosed would have been the *******s the cops were chasing.

[Chemical Ollie]

When the Danes in Iraq had a confusion f*ck-up and killed one of their own plus two unarmed teenage boys, they sent crime scene investigators to reveal what really happened. Later they went to the fishermen's village, apologized to the village elder and payed a $10.000 damage to be shared among the families of the victims, the owner of the truck and the wrongfully arrested. A small sum by western means, but probably a fortune to Iraqi fishermen. We have yet to hear reports about the Americans doing that whenever some jumpy private f*cks up. Is this because it doesn't happen or because the embedded reporters went home?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No Sava, you've forgotten that MtG is the next Stormin Norman Schwartzkopf.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Compared to some people here....

And Schwarzkopf was never a big fan of takeover and occupation, the first time or prior to this round.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
We have yet to hear reports about the Americans doing that whenever some jumpy private f*cks up. Is this because it doesn't happen or because the embedded reporters went home?

I'm sure that somehow, the totality of every event which happens in Iraq is not reported completely and factually throughout the western world.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I'm sure that somehow, the totality of every event which happens in Iraq is not reported completely and factually throughout the western world.

Your government is probably happy about that.

[Sava]

But MtG, you seem to be trying to argue against me, but you're not debating the point(s) I made. Summarily dismissing what I say as trolling might be easy, but it's not debate.

I made an assumption about your supposed support of the current strategy based upon your attacks on everyone opposed to the current admin's strategy. Perhaps you could avoid further misconceptions on my part if you explained your points rather than say, "blyaaahhhh troll!" If I'm wrong in my assumptions, I apologize. Please enlighten me.

My point about the conservative nature of failed military strategies is valid and has enormous historical precedence to back it up. In the end, I feel the administration is improperly using the military for the occupation role. There are two aspects of this war now. Restoring civil order (i.e. police work), and fighting a guerilla war against an aggressive population that blends in with the general population.

My strategy would be two-pronged.

1. Use the UN, NATO, or other multi-national forces as a police force, let them worry about restoring order and civil problems... even if it means relinquishing direct operational control.

2. Use the US forces for offensive action against Ba'athist/Saddam forces and incoming Islamist elements.

I think the US is failing because they are trying to do both when they are really only qualified for the second. The US is only having marginal success in the second aspect of the occupation. I think the Iraqi remnants and Islamist elements have a much better intelligence system in place. I think that the US is getting fed a lot of false intelligence from human sources, and that they are underestimating opposition intelligence capabilities. This is a systematic problem with our government. This is why 9-11 happened. Our intelligence has always been second fiddle... to the Germans in WW2, to the Soviets during the Cold War, and now in the entire region. It has to get better.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Had the Americans kept up any steady fire for 45 minutes, there likely wouldn't have been any survivors. And just because some ******* they had reason to believe was firing on them said he was police, or George W. Bush, or Santa Clause, or The Flying Nun, are you gonna stick your head up to see? That's the oldest trick in the book. Identification (especially at night) has to happen before forces are engaged.

Dear MichaeltheGreat,

It is highly probable that the occupants of the first (chased) vehicle were firing on the American soldiers.
But what makes you believe the occupants of the other vehicles -probably two of which were marked- were also firing on the Americans?

Does it make sense to fire at a vehicle without looking in the direction of that vehicle (and possibly noticing what sort of vehicle it is and its occupants)?

In my view the essential problem is the dismal communication between the 'oppressed people of Iraq' and their 'liberators'. How many American soldiers are by now able to speak some Arabic? Do they know how to approach the Iraqis?
I remember the Americans were supposed to 'win the hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people (though this phrase is hardly used nowadays, I wonder why).

A few years ago you were one of the best posters. What has happened?

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
But MtG, you seem to be trying to argue against me, but you're not debating the point(s) I made. Summarily dismissing what I say as trolling might be easy, but it's not debate.

If you could perhaps highlight what you think is a "point" I might be more inclined to respond. However, if I have to hunt for it, or if it's stated in vague pie-in-the-sky terms of "ooh, what morons, lol" then I give it the response level it deserves.

I made an assumption about your supposed support of the current strategy based upon your attacks on everyone opposed to the current admin's strategy.

I differentiate between ignorant uninformed "opposition" and intelligent disagreement. Examples of the latter abound, (Shinseki, Schwarzkopf), examples of the former are what predominate here.

My point about the conservative nature of failed military strategies is valid and has enormous historical precedence to back it up.

Not really. You take the stereotypical line about how everyone's always fighting the last war, and forget about the professionals (Guderian, the US group that developed Air-Land 2000 doctrine which was the basis for the US posture in GW1, etc.) who are developing the strategies that win the next war. There are dumb backwards looking types in every profession, and there are smart forwards looking types in every profession. Piocking one and ignoring the other doesn't cut it.

In the end, I feel the administration is improperly using the military for the occupation role. There are two aspects of this war now. Restoring civil order (i.e. police work), and fighting a guerilla war against an aggressive population that blends in with the general population.

There's no clear line distinguishing civil affairs and unconventional warfare. "Police work" doesn't normally entail duking it out against automatic weapons and RPG fire. It also doesn't extend to raids against supply caches, enemy leaders, etc. In theory it would be nice to have a clean demarcation, but the folks we're fighting against don't want that - the more confusion and the more the lines are blurred, the more chance they have to operate.

My strategy would be two-pronged.

1. Use the UN, NATO, or other multi-national forces as a police force, let them worry about restoring order and civil problems... even if it means relinquishing direct operational control.

2. Use the US forces for offensive action against Ba'athist/Saddam forces and incoming Islamist elements.

Like it or not, coordination between independent forces not subordinate to each other is a nightmare. Whenever there's a blurring in the jurisdictions between the two functions you've described, you have the coordination problem at every level of command, and a huge increase in the probability of FUBARs.

I think the US is failing because they are trying to do both when they are really only qualified for the second. The US is only having marginal success in the second aspect of the occupation.

Little or no opposition in most of the country, Uday and Qusay dead, most of the deck of cards *******s dead or in custody, in a few months isn't failure in my book. IMO, the failures are more on the civil end, but none of us has a real accurate, comprehensive, nationwide assessment of how bad things were before and how bad they are now.

I think the Iraqi remnants and Islamist elements have a much better intelligence system in place. I think that the US is getting fed a lot of false intelligence from human sources, and that they are underestimating opposition intelligence capabilities.

They should have - they're natives or near-natives, with local sympathizers, and an obvious linguistic advantage. And undoubtedly we're getting fed a lot of goat**** along with the good intel. That inevitably goes with the territory. Except for the occasion principled guy who can add 15 mill and 15 mill , most people who have valuable intel to give are somewhat dirty, and you can't tell until later if what they've given you is useless or not. I don't rate the Iraqi resistance as real successful against the US beyond a harassing role, because they haven't been able to contest control of any particular area, or to mount attacks on any organizational scale.

Dealing with soft target attacks is a problem, but that's also one that has to be handled more by the Iraqis, because there are simply too many potential targets for any size of occupying force to secure.