Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

pork99

Mordeth wrote:

Phase one went well enough, phase two was implemented but the iraqi's didn't take it lying down as was expected and phase 3 is... well..

Of course the bitterist resistance is from that section of the Iraqi population who were in power under Saddam and don't like the idea of losing their privileged position and are prepared to fight hard to get it back. A lot of people here think they are freedom fighters but they are fighting to re-establish a fascistic Ba'ath/Sunni dictatorship. [sarcasm]Of course Iraq under Saddam was a bastion of peace democracy and human rights.[/sarcasm] You cannot expect the Americans to walk away and allow that to happen. (Admitedly the Americans should never have got themselves into this clusterf#ck in the first place - a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation). There's a lot of noise in the media about foreign "Al Queada" fighters in Falluja but there's likely very few of them (doesn't stop them having an impact out of proportion to their numbers though).

They are fighting an enemy which has the hugh advantage of being able to merge in and out of the civilian population at will - how do you fight an enemy like that without "collateral damage"? It's impossible and when it inevitably happens it's very damaging to the image of the US. I recently read a book by ex-US Army Colonel David Hackworth, "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts" which was interesting. He faced a similar situation in Vietnam nearly 40 years ago and re-trained his battalion to rely less on indiscriminate artillery fire support and airstrikes (his reasoning I think was every innocent civilian killed = 4 new guerillas) and more on getting out into the same environment as the guerillas and beating them at their own game, "to out-guerilla the guerillas". Even allowing for a certain amount of self-promotion on the part of Colonel Hackworth it seems to have been a very successful strategy. But has the US Army/Marines llearned those lessons? Col. Hackworth believes not but are suffering from a sort of institutional amnesia.

Another factor in this sort of "collatoral damage" might be the way targets are identified. I read somewhere - I'm not claiming to be an expert on this - that US intelligence informers among the insurgents are told to identify targets for airstrikes among other things. For this they are issued with small radio beacons - about the size of a cigarette packet apparently - which they place on the target building and which sends out a "please bomb me" signal to US aircraft. Given the nature of informants, double agents, a murky world etc maybe it can happen that some informer might have a personal argument with /grudge against someone and stick a target beacon on their house/place of work and allow the US Air Force to settle their argument? (I've read of one case where an Iraqi woman ended up in Abu Ghraib because she didn't pay a US informer who was blackmailing her)

Frank Grimes

pork99 wrote:

Of course the bitterist resistance is from that section of the Iraqi population who were in power under Saddam and don't like the idea of losing their privileged position and are prepared to fight hard to get it back. A lot of people here think they are freedom fighters but they are fighting to re-establish a fascistic Ba'ath/Sunni dictatorship

Why are you so sure of that? Is it totally unreasonable to assume the general population might have a problem with being occupied and killed by foreign armies, and fight back as a result?

Jimboo_Jones

Sounds as good an idea as any. They will have those foreign fanatical killers who have been slaughtering their fellow countrymen to thank for that.

How can they be foreign AND be killing their fellow countrymen?

pork99

Frank Grimes wrote:

Why are you so sure of that? Is it totally unreasonable to assume the general population might have a problem with being occupied and killed by foreign armies, and fight back as a result?

1 - Well look at Iraq's history. Right from the coup which overthrew King Faisal II in 1958 Iraq has been rulled by people who have taken power at gunpoint.

2 - Most people killed by the Ba'athist insurgents are other Iraqis - this would go on after any US withdrawal - it's the method by which Ba'athists gained and stayed in power.

3 - American killing of Iraqi civilians has occured in response to insurgency. Large numbers of US foces are stationed in South Korea, Germany and Japan with no civilian casualties. No insurgency = no civilian deaths.

4 - Maybe the majority of Iraqis would prefer an end to insurgency, elections and the withdrawal of US forces (though not necessarily in that order). They would be better off if the US did succeed in establishing a truly represetative democratic Iraqi government. Whether this can be achieved I really doubt - democracy really needs to come from the bottom up - invading a country andimposing it from the top down is a very dodgy strategy.

User45701

Flukey wrote:

Falluja was completely sealed off yesterday in preparation for an attack by the American forces. There are some insurgents in Falluja that they wanted to get. What was their first target? The hospital. They didn't just bomb it, they levelled it. Ambulances were not even able to get out to help the casualties. They also did the same to a medical warehouse. So their tactics are, before attacking, to ensure casualties, including all the civilian ones, can't even be treated. 3 days after his election, this is an example of GWB's moral values. No wonder they don't favour the International Criminal Court, as this is definitely a war crime and against the Geneva Convention.

Its quite simple in war civillians die it has and probbley always will be that way.

bonkey

pork99 wrote:

I read somewhere - I'm not claiming to be an expert on this - that US intelligence informers among the insurgents are told to identify targets for airstrikes among other things. For this they are issued with small radio beacons - about the size of a cigarette packet apparently - which they place on the target building and which sends out a "please bomb me" signal to US aircraft.

After the spectacular success of "we know there's WMDs because we have first-hand eye-witness accoun......oh crap they lied", I'd be horrified* if this was still SOP for the bombing.

jc

* but not terribly surprised

bonkey

pork99 wrote:

Large numbers of US foces are stationed in South Korea, Germany and Japan with no civilian casualties. No insurgency = no civilian deaths.

Ehhh....no......

There were civilian deaths aplenty in Germany, Japan and Korea when the US went into each.

Germany and Japan are not directly comparable to Iraq, because firstly they were the aggressors in the war in question, and by the time the war ended, the average civilian just wanted the war to end.

Korea is also not directly comparable...unless you want to count North Korea as an insurgency which the US is still at war with. In that case, one owuld have to conclude that "not interfering with the insurgency == no civilian deaths", as opposed to your "no insurgency" hypothesis...

jc

jc

pork99

bonkey wrote:

After the spectacular success of "we know there's WMDs because we have first-hand eye-witness accoun......oh crap they lied", I'd be horrified* if this was still SOP for the bombing.

jc

* but not terribly surprised

A war run by cowboys evidently (in both senses of the word)

Frank Grimes

pork99 wrote:

1 - Well look at Iraq's history. Right from the coup which overthrew King Faisal II in 1958 Iraq has been rulled by people who have taken power at gunpoint.

2 - Most people killed by the Ba'athist insurgents are other Iraqis - this would go on after any US withdrawal - it's the method by which Ba'athists gained and stayed in power.

3 - American killing of Iraqi civilians has occured in response to insurgency. Large numbers of US foces are stationed in South Korea, Germany and Japan with no civilian casualties. No insurgency = no civilian deaths.

4 - Maybe the majority of Iraqis would prefer an end to insurgency, elections and the withdrawal of US forces (though not necessarily in that order).

So you're speculating then?
The US aren't occupying those 3 countries either so it's not really a comparison at all.

pork99

bonkey wrote:

Ehhh....no......

Germany and Japan are not directly comparable to Iraq, because firstly they were the aggressors in the war in question, and by the time the war ended, the average civilian just wanted the war to end.


jc

Yes, probably wasn't a good comparison - comparing the Iraq war to WWII or the Korean war is not so much like comparing apples to oranges but more like comparing wombats to tumble-dryers

ionapaul

Frank Grimes wrote:

Why are you so sure of that? Is it totally unreasonable to assume the general population might have a problem with being occupied and killed by foreign armies, and fight back as a result?

The general population certainly doesn't seem as peeved at the situation as the Sunni minority that were favoured under the Ba'athist regime. I have no doubt that most Iraqis hope to see the back of the Americans and British as soon as possible and are unhappy with the occupation thus far (though some might even think the upcoming elections are a good thing! having some sort of choice is better than voting for or against Saddam...though he did get 99% I think, beats George W. Bush hands down!) But unless patriotism and old-fashioned bravery are more heavily distributed among the Sunnis than the Iraqi population in general, than there must be other reasons for Fallujah's level of resistance over and above simple anger at being occupied.

Frank Grimes

ionapaul wrote:

The general population certainly doesn't seem as peeved at the situation as the Sunni minority that were favoured under the Ba'athist regime.

A lot of Shia were pretty peeved until very recently remember.
Also, just because they're Sunni Muslims it doesn't necessarily mean they're well off or Baathists.

than there must be other reasons for Fallujah's level of resistance over and above simple anger at being occupied

Maybe (and this is just my opinion) the media's representation of Fallujah is colouring people's view of the town.
Granted, resistance is high there but the attacks elsewhere over the weekend are showing that it's not just limited to there.
If Zarqawi is the terrorist mastermind he's made out to be, I'm sure he's long gone from there - same with groups who have no specific reason for wanting to fight for the town (i.e. people other than it's population or highly nationalistic Iraqis).
If it was just a town full of "militants and foreign fighters" who just want to take a few shots at Americans, wouldn't it not make more sense to pull out and fight somewhere else?

ionapaul

I think that Allawi gave the green light (prompted by the Americans I'm sure) to clear Fallajah of 'terrorists' in the past few hours. The Americans (and Iraqi) forces will want to get it over with very quickly to avoid masses of international criticism once the bodies start piling up. Though militarily, I don't think they could let the situation remain as is any longer, ongoing attacks and all.

the_syco

bonkey wrote:

If you could just point me at where teh conventions clarify that its only a war-crime to blow up civilian structures when there are civilians in it, I'll concede that should there have been an absence of civilians, then there would be no question of a war-crime. My understanding, though, is that there is no such qualifier. It is the targetting of civilian structures which is condemned....not whether or not there are civilians killed in the process. And so the only pertinent question was whether or not the US knowingly targetted a hospital....not whether or not said hospital was populated.

If they were targeting any hostipal, they could have attacked the one they have since liberated, but didn't. Also, when a house is bombed, there is always a definite death toll. When the hostipal was leveled, there was no mention of how many died. Why? Becuase proberly no civilians worked there, as it was used to treat the insurgents.

Frank Grimes wrote:

Why are you so sure of that? Is it totally unreasonable to assume the general population might have a problem with being occupied and killed by foreign armies, and fight back as a result?

Because for the last 10 years, or so, Saddam was in charge, and killed a large number of people. Every month, they uncover another mass grave. They welcome the US, as the US has freed them from an oppressor. Some may dislike the US, becuase of the looting, but theis would be replaced by hatered of the insrugents, when the insurgents attacked the Iraqi police repeatly.

Frank Grimes

the_syco wrote:

If they were targeting anyWhy? Becuase proberly no civilians worked there, as it was used to treat the insurgents.

Even if it was being used to treat insurgents, the staff have the right not to be bombed. Or are they insurgents too?
Also, given the size of the population and the constant US bombardment of the town do you not think they need all the medical facilities availible?

Because for the last 10 years, or so, Saddam was in charge, and killed a large number of people. Every month, they uncover another mass grave. They welcome the US, as the US has freed them from an oppressor. Some may dislike the US, becuase of the looting, but theis would be replaced by hatered of the insrugents, when the insurgents attacked the Iraqi police repeatly.

That whole "Saddam did worse" excuses have really worn thin now.
They don't appear to welcoming the Americans too much at the moment do they?

Flukey

the_syco wrote:

If they were targeting any hostipal, they could have attacked the one they have since liberated, but didn't. Also, when a house is bombed, there is always a definite death toll. When the hostipal was leveled, there was no mention of how many died. Why? Becuase proberly no civilians worked there, as it was used to treat the insurgents.

The Americans are now in control of the main hospital and a bridge nearby. The staff of the hospital have all been arrested in the search for insurgents!!! So I suppose you think that while in Ireland in order to work in a hospital you have to have medical qualifications, that to do the same in Iraq you have to be a terrorist. :rolleyes: Even the insurgents would need qualified medical staff to look after them. The road leading to it has been closed off too. So we now have one hospital levelled and another completely closed off and with all its staff arrested. I would not call that liberating it. This gets worse! No one can get in or out of the city now.

syco wrote:

Because for the last 10 years, or so, Saddam was in charge, and killed a large number of people. Every month, they uncover another mass grave. They welcome the US, as the US has freed them from an oppressor. Some may dislike the US, becuase of the looting, but theis would be replaced by hatered of the insrugents, when the insurgents attacked the Iraqi police repeatly.

For the last 18 months, or so, The allies have been in charge, and killed a large number of people, most of which are those they were supposed to be liberating. I don't think anyone welcomes that and we have seen that by the rise in insurgency. If the Iraqis hated Saddam for killing innocent people why are they suddenly going to love the allies for doing the exact same thing? Given that you actually believe that every one of the civilan population welcomes the US, I expect that late next month you will be looking out your window expecting to see a big man in a red coat flying through the air on a sled pulled by reindeer, and he may even have an escort of flying pigs.

Blub2k4

chill wrote:

What si amazing is that there are so many contributors here who condemn America troops as war criminals for hunting down and killing these mass murderers yet they make almost no reference and no condemnation of the murdering terrorists.
The double standards are a deep embarrassment - I agree.

The problem with your analysis is that you consider them terrorists, like some of the others here.
These people are defending their homes.
Dont forget that the ones who are there illegally are the Americans.

bonkey

the_syco wrote:

Also, when a house is bombed, there is always a definite death toll.

Why is there so much doubt and confusion over the total numbers of dead/injured then, if so much of the information is known "definitely"?

Can you show any facts and figures (a house-by-house breakdown of the casualties in one area would suffice) to back up this assertion?

When the hostipal was leveled, there was no mention of how many died. Why?

Because of the bad publicity of saying "Hi, we bombed a hospital and killed X people".

Becuase proberly no civilians worked there, as it was used to treat the insurgents.

Again...as I said to Chill. Show me where the conventions say it is only a war-crime when no civilians are killed, as opposed to when civilian infrastructure is targetted and I'll concede the point. As it is, the best argument you're making is that while it might qualiufy as a war-crime, you don't think it should be one if civilians weren't killed.

They welcome the US, as the US has freed them from an oppressor. Some may dislike the US, becuase of the looting,

Oh dear.

First of all, the term "welcome" - at best - should be in the past tense.

Secondly, the looting is where it started to go wrong for the US, not where it ended.

But if you really believe that.....lets just agree to differ. You keep thinking that Iraq is happy, and I'll keep watching those happy people suffering, protesting, rebelling, and dieing under their "friends" in the US army.

jc

chill

Flukey wrote:

I'm not absolving of responsibility, just showing how terrorism is created. I don't condone it, but terrorists are created by circumstance. If there are innocent people being killed some of the survivors, though they would have been peaceful beforehand, will take up arms.

The insurgents are not innocents. They are not freedom fighters. There are two kinds of murderers there... one group that were Saddam loyalists and one that are foreign extremiost islamic terrorists. Neither group wants freedom for the people of Iraq, they both want to put a brutal dictatorship back in place to rule and subjugate the Iraqi people the way the people of the rest of the Islamic world are.

Your broader points about terrorism I agree with. But that's another argument.

The Afghanastani elections were trumpetted recently, but had their problems. The US will make sure they have the government they want, not the one the Iraqis want, before they leave.

Everyone wants the government they want. big deal. There is no evidence however that the US has any plans or the power to get the result they want.

You can't impose democracy on a country. Bringing democracy is one thing, but imposing it is another.

On what basis do you claim that it is being imposed. ? Are you saying that the Iraqi people don't want democracy ? that the people fo Afghanistan didn't want democracy ?

Inevitably it will have to include some of the insurgents, as has been the case in most fledgling democracies. Eamon DeValera amongst others are our examples of that.

Wrong. The 'insurgents' are foreign terrorists that have no interest in democracy and won't even be able to vote considering they are not even Iraqi.

Frank Grimes

chill wrote:

There are two kinds of murderers there... one group that were Saddam loyalists and one that are foreign extremiost islamic terrorists.

You know this for a fact or is it another opinion?

they both want to put a brutal dictatorship back in place to rule and subjugate the Iraqi people the way the people of the rest of the Islamic world are

Not all Muslims countries are ruled by dictators, some do have elections you know.

chill

Blub2k4 wrote:

The problem with your analysis is that you consider them terrorists, like some of the others here.
These people are defending their homes.
Dont forget that the ones who are there illegally are the Americans.

And I guess you would consider Saddam to have been there legally. What a joke. And the idea these terrorists are defending their homes is also a joke.
The truth is that these are mass murdering terrorists who are terrorising the civilian population by deliberately slaughtering them in their thousands as well as as many Allied forces as possible in an effort to spread terror and prevent the ordinary people of Iraq from gaining their freedom and democratic rights.
The US Admins incomptence is palpable, but Fallujah is already in the process of being cleaned out and the fiction of the hospital destruction has already been exposed. This hospital it now transpires has been liberated from the grips of these mass murderers and hopefully these insurgants will be wiped off the face of the earth with the same inhumanity they themselves have slaughtered the Iraqi people over the last year.

mr_angry

The leading insurgents are foreign perhaps, but its clear that there are plenty of Iraqi insurgents too.

Everyone wants the government they want. big deal.

Thats a nice executive decision to make.

Fair enough, I agree that the insurgents only want to get themselves some power in a non-democratic Iraq, but to ignore the fact that the killing of civilians promotes the recruitment of terrorists is counter-productive. Even if no civilians are killed, the insurgents are capable of making it look like there were, and hence recruitment will continue. If the US continues with the same tactic, they can simply never win because their own tactics will encourage the uptake of arms against them. Unless of course they massacre everyone, which is not where we want to go.

bonkey

chill wrote:

The truth is that these are mass murdering terrorists who ...

Chill, no matter how many times you come out with statements like this, until you offer any sort of evidence to back this up, all you are doing is offering an opinion and presenting it as fact.

Need I remind you that the rules ask you not to do this. I'd suggest that you start to heed them. Either back up your assertions, or stop trying to present them continuously as truth or fact.

jc

arbeitsscheuer

Make the Invaders bleed, insurgents...

America has lost more troops in Iraq since March 20th 2003 (first day of invasion) than it lost in the first 18 months of hostilities in Vietnam.

It is patently clear to even amateur military historians like myself, that the US and Britain are fighting a war they cannot win

And I, an Englishman, support the freedom fighters of Iraq against an invading and occupying military machine.

Redleslie2

Reuters report: Iraqi Officer Deserts with U.S. Falluja Battle Plan.

An Iraqi military commander has deserted U.S. forces hours after he received a full briefing on U.S. military plans to storm the rebel-held city of Falluja, CNN reported on Saturday....."It is significant that he disappeared the morning after he had a full and detailed brief on the full battle plan for the assault"

Maybe the plan involves having the Iraqi dudes walk slowly through the city drawing rebel fire and clearing booby traps by getting blown up before the marines go in.

Gurgle

chill wrote:

And I guess you would consider Saddam to have been there legally.

IIRC, this whole war was about:
1. Remove the WMD - done ?
2. Liberate the Iraqis - done ? (Not really something that can be measured)
3. Remove Saddam Hussein.
Thats kind of the interesting one.
Why was he to be removed from power in the first place ?
- Invaded Kuwait, got chased out, went home. Well, what country hasn't chanced its arm invading the neighbours ?
- 'Murdered hundreds of his own people' - When they formed a rebellion against him. We have now established that its OK to kill rebels in large numbers.
- Links to Al'Queda, AFAIK the only link ever found was the 'Q'.

So what did he do that the USA hasn't done since ?

Moriarty

SebtheBum wrote:

And I, an Englishman, support the freedom fighters of Iraq against an invading and occupying military machine.

How noble of you.

hahahahahahahahahaa...

dathi1

support the freedom fighters of Iraq against an invading and occupying military machine.

I agree 100%.

Flukey

All that is true Gurgle and a lot more besides. Who put Saddam in power? George Bush Senior. Saddam was criticised for having invaded his neighbours. He invaded two, which is less than some of his neighbours have. Of those two, one was done with the full support of the US, including military support, sent via the envoy of the US government, whose deputy was George Bush, one Donal Rumsfeld. As to the other one they invaded, had their biggest export been something like rice, the US would not have batted an eyelid. Not one of the official reasons given for launching the war stands up to scrutiny. Saddam is gone, which is a good thing, but that could have been done without an invasion and with as little as one man, one gun and one bullet, and that bullet might not have even needed to be fired. Anyway the war did start and the more it has gone on the more the anti-war people have proved to have been right.

Chill wrote:

On what basis do you claim that it is being imposed. ? Are you saying that the Iraqi people don't want democracy ? that the people fo Afghanistan didn't want democracy ?

Well in case you didn't know they went in and overthrew the existing government and are now trying to put one in place. I never said the people did not want democracy, but it is a matter for them to decide how to go about it. The US and the other allies, can help and advise in that process, but it is a matter for the Iraqis alone as to how their democracy is formed and who will be part of the elected people. If they decided to elect a large amount of members of the Ba'ath party, do you think America would be happy with it? They've overthrown other democratic governments and you can be sure if they did not like what Iraq comes up with, they'd do the same there. Of course that will be difficult to arise as they will make sure they get the candidates and government they want.

Chill wrote:

The 'insurgents' are foreign terrorists that have no interest in democracy and won't even be able to vote considering they are not even Iraqi.

Oh, so you've checked all their passports have you? Without doubt some are from outside, but many of the Iraqis will have joined them for the reasons that I and others have outlined.

Chill wrote:

And I guess you would consider Saddam to have been there legally. What a joke. And the idea these terrorists are defending their homes is also a joke.

No, Saddam was put in and supported by the US government, who supported or ignored many of the crimes they now condemn him for. Yes, many of their terrorists are indeed defending their homes, or what is left of them. As we keep telling you, some of the terrorists will be Iraqis who have lost their homes as a result of the US invasion, and no not by insurgent actions.

Chill wrote:

The truth is that these are mass murdering terrorists who are terrorising the civilian population by deliberately slaughtering them in their thousands as well as as many Allied forces as possible in an effort to spread terror and prevent the ordinary people of Iraq from gaining their freedom and democratic rights.

While some of that is true, you'll also find that the Allied forces are, as you put it terrorising the civilian population by deliberately slaughtering them in their thousands. As a result they are also preventing many of the ordinary people of Iraq from gaining their freedom and democratic rights. They have liberated many ordinary Iraqis, but only of their mortal existence and as a result many of the surviving ordinary Iraqis are fighting back.

Chill wrote:

...the fiction of the hospital destruction has already been exposed. This hospital it now transpires has been liberated from the grips of these mass murderers and hopefully these insurgants will be wiped off the face face of the earth with the same inhumanity they themselves have slaughtered the Iraqi people over the last year.

Naturally if you level a hospital it will be released from the grips of whoever held it, terrorists or ordinary people. Of course it is obvious by what you are saying that every single patient, nurse, doctor, surgeon, orderly, cook, porter, cleaners etc. in the hospital were murderers.:rolleyes: Lots of the terrorists are being killed, but from what all your posts seem to say, you are under the impression, that anyone that is killed by the US troops is an insurgent. Now if anything is fiction, that certainly is.

The terrorists most certainly have slaughtered the Iraqi people over the last year, but so have the allied forces. We condemn both, but you seem to excuse what is supposed to be a responsible sovereign force from doing it. We expect terrorists to kill civilians, but not the army, yet you seem outraged only at the former. We condemn the killing of civilians, no matter who does it, so at least we are consistent. For you the slaughtering of civilians is only wrong if the terrorists are doing it. Like you, we want the terrorists to stop what they are doing and be brought to justice, but that is not happening under the current tactics being pursued and is only adding to the problem.

bonkey

Gurgle wrote:

- 'Murdered hundreds of his own people' - When they formed a rebellion against him. We have now established that its OK to kill rebels in large numbers.

No, no, no.

Its only ok to kill rebels who are fighting against US interests. They're scum who life is wasted on anyway.

The US encouraged the Kurds to rise up, so clearly it was wrong to kill them.

Sheesh man....don't you understand how this works???



jc