Falluja operation underway

[GePap]

That's how it was sold- that Saddam was the figurehead cause most insurgents were "dead-enders" and seeing Saddam caught would signify that there was no going back, plus the money he was funneling would dry up and insurgents would run out of it.

Now of course, its all about Zarqawi and Fallujah, and once its in our hands..ditto.

That simplistic viewpoint was wrojng about Saddam- it will be wrong about Fallujah or Zarqawi. Thought the truth- that crusing the insurgency will be a long term war, which we will only really win once we have more backing in the Sunni areas (or at least an Iraqi gov. seen as legitimate by the Sunni) so we can get more intelligence for the sort of anti-insurgency campaign the Brits won in Malaysia, or the French in Algeria (they won the Battle of Algeirs, lost the political war)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's the new Tora Bora. The insurgents will slink away, and regroup.

Quite why the Americans have felt the need to take so long over this is beyond me. A surprise attack would have been more effective at disrupting the insurgents, IMO.

1. This isnt surrounded by mountains, so capturing people fleeing should be easier.
2. Some will certainly escaped. Its not clear thats decisive. Plenty of Mahdi army fighters escaped Najaf. Havent heard much from them lately. At some point even a guerilla force has to defend its sanctuary, its base. Lawrences guerillas had British support. Mao had Yennan. If we both kill/capture a large percentage of them and take away their sanctuary, that will be a big gain, even if its not THE turning point.
3. We waited to have enough trained Iraqi troops, both to join in the offensive and to maintain order afterwards.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

And I dont think the role of Fallujah in the insurgency should be underestimated. The insurgents themselves have devoted heavy resources to its defense.

Obviously Fallujah is a symbol to both sides- the question is, how many of their resources did the Insurgents spend in securing Fallujah? unless it was a very significant fraction, they will recover.

We may have underestimated the number of insurgents in the past - notably when for months the Pentagon said, no more than 5000, and then a figure of 20000 was quoted, though i note it was never clarified whom that represented. Certainly these massive numbers did NOT prevent the restoration of order in Najaf. And Basra. And Sadr City. While insurgents in Samarra have proved more resilient than those is Sadr City, that may be well be related to their Fallujah connections.

Thats the things, 20,000 is NOT a huge number- that is not how insurgencies work- they will never be able to take the US on in pitched battles- and they are not the Vietcong, getting massive amounts of military aid from some external government. But they can keep whatever Iraqi government takes over unstable. To do that they don;t need 100,000 men, they really don;t need to have complete control over any cities, they just need to have well trained and hidden cells all throughtout the Sunni areas.

[Arrian]

The truth is none of us know. Let's wait & see (and hope for the best).

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
That's how it was sold- that Saddam was the figurehead cause most insurgents were "dead-enders" and seeing Saddam caught would signify that there was no going back, plus the money he was funneling would dry up and insurgents would run out of it.

Now of course, its all about Zarqawi and Fallujah, and once its in our hands..ditto.

That simplistic viewpoint was wrojng about Saddam- it will be wrong about Fallujah or Zarqawi. Thought the truth- that crusing the insurgency will be a long term war, which we will only really win once we have more backing in the Sunni areas (or at least an Iraqi gov. seen as legitimate by the Sunni) so we can get more intelligence for the sort of anti-insurgency campaign the Brits won in Malaysia, or the French in Algeria (they won the Battle of Algeirs, lost the political war)

Mohammed al Douri, who is still at large, apparently has served as a link between the ex-baathists and the Wahabis. He may well have brought a large part of the money with him - there is also evidence of funding from Wahabi sources in KSA, and from Iran.

Improving security can itself help in gaining intell, as can economic reconstruction.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

2. Some will certainly escaped. Its not clear thats decisive. Plenty of Mahdi army fighters escaped Najaf. Havent heard much from them lately. At some point even a guerilla force has to defend its sanctuary, its base. Lawrences guerillas had British support. Mao had Yennan. If we both kill/capture a large percentage of them and take away their sanctuary, that will be a big gain, even if its not THE turning point.

Sadr's political base is very different from the Sunni insurgents, of whom there really has not been any particular single leader- the Madhi army was one man's private militia. the "insurgents" seem to be a more diffuse and varied sort, either driven out of religious fanaticism, nationalism, or understanding that the Sunni will not be as powerful in the new Iraq.

[DanS]

The truth is none of us know. Let's wait & see (and hope for the best).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Obviously Fallujah is a symbol to both sides- the question is, how many of their resources did the Insurgents spend in securing Fallujah? unless it was a very significant fraction, they will recover.



Thats the things, 20,000 is NOT a huge number- that is not how insurgencies work- they will never be able to take the US on in pitched battles- and they are not the Vietcong, getting massive amounts of military aid from some external government. But they can keep whatever Iraqi government takes over unstable. To do that they don;t need 100,000 men, they really don;t need to have complete control over any cities, they just need to have well trained and hidden cells all throughtout the Sunni areas.

To win they need to wear down the the govt - they need to reduce the govts ability to govern, to rebuild, to gain legitimacy, etc faster than the govt can build it. A very large proportion of their recent attacks have been on recruitment sites for Iraqi forces - yet the Iraqi forces continue to recruit. Or on local Iraqi officials - yet people still enter those jobs and rebuild the govt (the flip side, BTW, of succession in AQ, in the insurgency, etc) At this point the insurgency is, at most, barely keeping the Iraqi govt from making progress - actually many would claim that progress has been achieved despite attacks in the economy, in governance, in the growth of Iraqi forces, and now in the preparations for the elections. IF - big IF - the battle for Fallujah sets back the insurgency significantly, that opens a window not only for the January election, but for the govt to move ahead on reconstruction, on security force building, etc. The insurgency cant simply wait forever - their opportunity will pass with time, as the govt becomes established.

Even a permanent base among the Sunni Arabs is not assured - politics among Sunni Arabs in Iraq is apparentely heavily tribal and regional, and a govt with sufficient assurance and resources should be able to play tribes off against each other.

[Last Conformist]

KSA?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Sadr's political base is very different from the Sunni insurgents, of whom there really has not been any particular single leader- the Madhi army was one man's private militia. the "insurgents" seem to be a more diffuse and varied sort, either driven out of religious fanaticism, nationalism, or understanding that the Sunni will not be as powerful in the new Iraq.

A sufficient window to allow Iraqi forces to be trained, and replace Americans, will gradually dry up nationalism. As for fanaticism, that is a problem faced in Islamic countries from Algeria to Indonesia, and one that Iraq will likely face in the future, though as in those countried progress may take place.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Exactly, the media needs to monitor their adjective usage so we can actually get some realtive meaning from the descriptions.

Yep, all talk of heavy fighting all the time makes me a bit sceptical. What is heavy fighting? My humble opinion is that we should get a few Stalingrad vets with lousy pensions a paid tip down there, so we have some people qualified to make that kind of judgement.

[Chemical Ollie]

The timing is really food for conspiracy theories. 2-3 months ago, I half-jokingly said that the attack would start on November 3rd, when there is nothing left to lose on the American home front. Seems I was wrong by only 4 days. Bush

[Gibsie]

What exactly would the conspiracy be? That the administration had been planning this operation for weeks/ months before the election rather than days (Oh horros, they planned it for a change!), and then delayed the assault until just after the election? That would fall under "common knowledge", I believe.

[Chemical Ollie]

The conspiracy is that the body bags don't matter anymore, now that the American election is over

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


A sufficient window to allow Iraqi forces to be trained, and replace Americans, will gradually dry up nationalism.

Only once most American forces leave-which means the issues will have moved possibly from an anti-US insurgency to a lowe level internal civil war ala Colombia, or a full blown civil war ala Bosnia.