Falluja operation underway

[GePap]

Call it them insurgent natural seelction.

Of course, the Tet offensive was also in the end a military disaster for the VC-but a strategic triumph. At least in Mosul the police was utterly discredited and the good ol Americans (and Kurds) had to come to save the government. Does not speak well of the ability of the interim government to keep the peace by itself without outsider "American, Kurdish" support.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Fallujah wasn't pointless, BTW, if you look at purely as a military exercise. Unfortunately, it was a PR disaster.

As I've said earlier, Fallujah has practically guaranteed that the Sunni Arabs are going to boycott the election. That means the Sunni Arabs would have absolutely no place in the gov't, and the insurgency would last at least as long as that gov't does. Further, without the Sunni Arabs in Parliament, the Shia would have an overwhelming majority of seats, and would make the Kurds feel that much more marginalized.

The Association of Muslim Scholars, the Sunni clerics org, was calling for a boycott anyway. It was sidely held that no meaningful election could be held with insurgents in control of Fallujah. as far as i can see, this is as likely to have a positive effect on election turnout as negative.

[GePap]

Its good to know thought LoTM that you are a never ending optimist when it comes to this whole mess. As long as you don;t start spouting claims that Iraq is going magnificently like our deluded VP.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In fact 30 of them have been reported killed in Mosul already, and they dont seem to have left yet. Meanwhile Iraqi and US troops are rushing to Mosul, where I presume another cordon will established. This time it should be easier, as the insurgents wont have prepared as they did in Fallujah. As for disrupting Mosul, reports ive seen indicate that the Kurdish and Turkmen parts of the city are NOT disrupted. And police stations have been recaptured in the Sunni Arab sections. Whenever and whereever the insurgent concentrate their losses to gains ratios is far higher than when they pursue small attacks with IEDs, etc.


Mao indicated, IIRC, that you attack in small groups, until the other guy is close collapse. A 500 man assault at this point doesnt make sense.

30? 30 is nothing, and by the time the place is cordoned off they should be gone (if they are being smart).

-Drachasor

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Call it them insurgent natural seelction.

Of course, the Tet offensive was also in the end a military disaster for the VC-but a strategic triumph. At least in Mosul the police was utterly discredited and the good ol Americans (and Kurds) had to come to save the government. Does not speak well of the ability of the interim government to keep the peace by itself without outsider "American, Kurdish" support.

sigh. There are three security forces in Iraq, the Iraqi police, the national guard, and the army. The police HAVE beaten off small groups of insurgents, in Baquba and elsewhere - but they certainly cant resist a main force attack by 500 insurgents - theyre NOT a military force. Iraqi army has 8 battalion, at least half of whom were commited to Fallujah, and none were in Mosul. Iraqi National Guard is largely regionally recruited, and in the north that means heavily (though by no means exclusively) Kurds.

Iyyad Allawi, who was called "the Mayor of Baghdad", (with a big question mark about Thawra/Sadr City) now presides over the following:

Shiite region from Hillah to Najaf and Karbala, to Basra - quiet.

Kurdish north - quiet.

the more loyal neighborhoods of West Baghdad and all of Shiite East Baghdad - quiet.

almost every city in the Sunni triangle - under nominal govt control, but with insurgents active in Ramadi, Samarra, Baquba, Beiji and Mosul, and in certain neighborhoods in west Baghdad , esp Haifa Street.

NOT GOOD, I agree. A long road ahead. But not just the mayor of Baghdad either.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drachasor


30? 30 is nothing, and by the time the place is cordoned off they should be gone (if they are being smart).

-Drachasor

30 out of 500 is more than 5%, and I doubt they will all leave.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
30 out of 500 is more than 5%, and I doubt they will all leave.

For one, 30 out of the total number of insurgents in the country is nothing.

For another, even 1000 would be hard to find in a city if they layed low for a short bit or merely engaged in hit-and-runs. They aren't there to take over, they are there to disrupt.

-Drachasor

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Its good to know thought LoTM that you are a never ending optimist when it comes to this whole mess. As long as you don;t start spouting claims that Iraq is going magnificently like our deluded VP.

Im sorry if you dont like an alternate opinion.

I never expected Fallujah to be the end. I listed, near the opening of the operation, the relevant metrics. While it hasnt gone perfectly (Zarqawi not caught) it has gone well - the sanctuary is gone, over a thousand insurgents killed, several hundred captured, large weapons stockpiles captured. And the Sunni Arab street, both inside and outside Iraq, is quieter than one might reasonably have feared. Oh, and the Iraqi battalions that went into Fallujah seem to have performed well.

Next steps - train more Iraqi army battalions, and proceed with cordon operations elsewhere. And build up intell, and reconstruct the country.

And continue to talk to Sunni Arab tribal leaders about political reconciliation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drachasor


For one, 30 out of the total number of insurgents in the country is nothing.

er. obviously. The question is comparing the cost to the value of what was accomplished. One car bomber can cause great disruption at the cost of one insurgent life. This attack cost 30 (so far) to achieve very temporary control over half a dozen police stations.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


sigh. There are three security forces in Iraq, the Iraqi police, the national guard, and the army. The police HAVE beaten off small groups of insurgents, in Baquba and elsewhere - but they certainly cant resist a main force attack by 500 insurgents - theyre NOT a military force. Iraqi army has 8 battalion, at least half of whom were commited to Fallujah, and none were in Mosul. Iraqi National Guard is largely regionally recruited, and in the north that means heavily (though by no means exclusively) Kurds.

The Iraqi army is the only force the central government can really count on, and its too small, completely streched, which means this gov. is a long way from being no longer dependent on heavy US forces.

Iyyad Allawi, who was called "the Mayor of Baghdad", (with a big question mark about Thawra/Sadr City) now presides over the following:

Shiite region from Hillah to Najaf and Karbala, to Basra - quiet.

Kurdish north - quiet.

the more loyal neighborhoods of West Baghdad and all of Shiite East Baghdad - quiet.

almost every city in the Sunni triangle - under nominal govt control, but with insurgents active in Ramadi, Samarra, Baquba, Beiji and Mosul, and in certain neighborhoods in west Baghdad , esp Haifa Street.

NOT GOOD, I agree. A long road ahead. But not just the mayor of Baghdad either.

Iyyad presides over those region not becuase they actually think he has any authority, but because the people in those regions are looking forward to the election becuase they think they will make gains.

Again, the Shiia expect to come into power with the elections and the Kurds are happy with their heavy autonomy an expect it to continue under any new Iraq.

[Ramo]

The Association of Muslim Scholars, the Sunni clerics org, was calling for a boycott anyway.

And as you know the IIP called for a boycott because of Fallujah.

It was sidely held that no meaningful election could be held with insurgents in control of Fallujah. as far as i can see, this is as likely to have a positive effect on election turnout as negative.

1. Fallujah is only one city.
2. It's quite a bit easier to hold an election when many of the voters want to vote, than when almost none of the voters want to vote. Regardless of the security situation.
3. Even if this has no impact on the election, this has seriously hurt moderation in the Sunni community, and has hightened sectarian rivalries.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Call it them insurgent natural seelction.

Of course, the Tet offensive was also in the end a military disaster for the VC-but a strategic triumph.

Yes, because of how it was portrayed in the US. Rather than pay attention to VC cadres killed, etc the focus was on the general impression of country wide violence. Which is why the battle of impressions IS part of the battle. By creating the same impressions as in 1968, some may hope to convert an insurgent military disaster into a strategic triumph.

[Barinthus]

This was in a reference to one of postings which I cannot find hence cannot quote.

It disgusts me sometimes knowing that we are doing all we can to restore stablity to Iraq yet locals do not help even although it's what they want.

Quoted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov15.html and bolding is mine.

In Samarra, local insurgents and foreign fighters driven from the city Oct. 1 began trickling back a month later. A wave of car bombs and mortar attacks Nov. 6 killed 17 Iraqi police and made the city a combat zone once more.

Residents assembled each day at the bridge leading from the main highway across the Tigris River into town, shut down by U.S. forces.

"It is our fault," said Abu Muhammed, stranded on the wrong side. "We sold the city to those terrorists and let them enter, and now we cannot enter because of them."

"They made it hard to live till the army came and freed the city," said another man, who gave his name as Abu Omar. "We were able to move around freely and stay out late at night. But now they are back."

That's right, those damn fools. Samarra was cleared out and they had an opportunity to keep it that way but no, they let insurgents return. Granted, it's easier said than done but nothing worthwhile comes so easily.

'White Man's Burden' isn't just worth it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The Iraqi army is the only force the central government can really count on, and its too small, completely streched, which means this gov. is a long way from being no longer dependent on heavy US forces.

Its about 8 battalions, IIRC. Which IS too small. But thats versus zero in June of this past year. And several more are in training. Which MAY be one reason why the insurgents feel time pressure.

And some of the ING units are very useful, if not as high quality as the army battalions. The IP have had some local victories as well, but only against small insurgent forces.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yes, because of how it was portrayed in the US. Rather than pay attention to VC cadres killed, etc the focus was on the general impression of country wide violence. Which is why the battle of impressions IS part of the battle. By creating the same impressions as in 1968, some may hope to convert an insurgent military disaster into a strategic triumph.

Thw big problem for the US was that before this offensive the US government had always been claiming the war in Vietnam was being won-that the VC was weak, that it was on the way out- by conducting an operation like Tet it exposed the lies of the government when it came to Vietnam.'

One would think that the fact the US military is conducting major military operations 16 months after El presidente claimed such operations were over would show the public today ditto.

Again, Fallujah is a tactical victory-but a strategic wash.