Sound Off! Fallujah, move in or isolate?

[Rynocerous]

"For the past three nights, long convoys of U.S. soldiers from Baghdad and Baqouba have rolled onto a dust-blown base on the outskirts of Fallujah, a city that has become the symbol of Iraqi resistance. U.S. commanders here have been co-ordinating plans either to fight their way into the city or isolate it from the rest of Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland. "

That quote was derived from this link.

I personally think it is not worth the bloodshed to go in and capture this city. I believe that they should just control the city. I wouldn't want to be on that mission, capturing dug in positions are never fun. Sound off, give your opinions, I am very curious how many of you feel about this.

Cheers,

Ryan

 

[Rich Parsons]

"For the past three nights, long convoys of U.S. soldiers from Baghdad and Baqouba have rolled onto a dust-blown base on the outskirts of Fallujah, a city that has become the symbol of Iraqi resistance. U.S. commanders here have been co-ordinating plans either to fight their way into the city or isolate it from the rest of Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland. "

That quote was derived from this link.

I personally think it is not worth the bloodshed to go in and capture this city. I believe that they should just control the city. I wouldn't want to be on that mission, capturing dug in positions are never fun. Sound off, give your opinions, I am very curious how many of you feel about this.

Cheers,

Ryan

Fallujah is a war torn city, with lots of resistence and people convinced to die to defend a street corner. Those I know, who have talked of this location have not wanted to go in on foot.

Would a missle attack and draw negative fire, for "Innocents" would be killed in such an attack, yet it is those innocents that will carry a bomb and or stand in the street while in the building above them a sniper is targeting and or firing away.

It is a loose loose situation in my mind. Either way the USA will loose face with the rest fo the world either by killing those "Innocents" or by not being able to take a simple city with the greatest army. They will also loose face with the US population, for the deaths of those soldiers or of the innocents.

I have no solution, and cannot give any "Good" Ideas, as I do not have enough information to make such.

:asian:

 

[Rynocerous]

Fallujah is a war torn city, with lots of resistence and people convinced to die to defend a street corner. Those I know, who have talked of this location have not wanted to go in on foot.

Would a missle attack and draw negative fire, for "Innocents" would be killed in such an attack, yet it is those innocents that will carry a bomb and or stand in the street while in the building above them a sniper is targeting and or firing away.

It is a loose loose situation in my mind. Either way the USA will loose face with the rest fo the world either by killing those "Innocents" or by not being able to take a simple city with the greatest army. They will also loose face with the US population, for the deaths of those soldiers or of the innocents.

I have no solution, and cannot give any "Good" Ideas, as I do not have enough information to make such.


:asian:

I agree with all these points to a T, although I didn't mean for this thread to come up with a solution, or a good idea, but to just hear peoples opinions on the present situation. Thanks for your post, now I can clarify what I meant.

Cheers,

Ryan

 

[Vadim]

I think that there would be alot of blood spilled on both sides. I feel that right now our troops need all the support they can get and all I can say is that I say a prayer for them each night.

The war on terror is not simple. Do I have the answers, No. To establish only a US presence in Iraq to combat the on-going problems is not the answer. I think that a multi-nation approach towards establishing peace within the country is part of the answer. But idealism and realism are two different things.


I trust that our military commanders are making the proper decisions in their approach to Fallujah and pray that God gives them the wisdom to do so.

-Vadim

 

[Venomstrike]

Capturing Fallujah would indeed be a huge blow to the resistence. Don't give the insurgents a chance to group up in one area. Scatter them and make them weaker. To drive them out of Fallujah would leave the resistence in Iraqi scattered and weak.

It seems that US airstrikes have already begun in the city, and in using the right technology, it probably took out a good portion of enemies. The Marines are prepared for such urban warfare and I think the mission will be a very big success. I doubt the Marines will take too many losses. With proper planning and strategy the Marines will have little trouble bringing down the enemy. It won't be easy, but I think they will be ready.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Has it ever occurred that for, "the insurgents," this is "Red Dawn," and/or, "Rambo III," with us playing the role of the Russians?

2. "Mission accomplished?" My foot.

 

[Rich Parsons]

1. Has it ever occurred that for, "the insurgents," this is "Red Dawn," and/or, "Rambo III," with us playing the role of the Communists?

2. "Mission accomplished?" Say what?

1) Occupying a hostile country is the hardest part of combat.

2) Accomplished? I agree, that new leadership is in power, yet, will it or can it stay?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Capturing Fallujah would indeed be a huge blow to the resistence. Don't give the insurgents a chance to group up in one area. Scatter them and make them weaker. To drive them out of Fallujah would leave the resistence in Iraqi scattered and weak.

I disagree, if they are in one location then you can actually take them out. Problme is that they are not the only ones with their mind set. As a blow, yet loosing it would be a blow, yet not the end.

It seems that US airstrikes have already begun in the city, and in using the right technology, it probably took out a good portion of enemies. The Marines are prepared for such urban warfare and I think the mission will be a very big success. I doubt the Marines will take too many losses. With proper planning and strategy the Marines will have little trouble bringing down the enemy. It won't be easy, but I think they will be ready.

Air strikes are great. In about 24 to 36 hours there will be reports about innocent women and children being killed by such strikes. Maybe sooner on European or Canadian news channels. As to being prepared, I agree that our men receive great training and have good weapons as well. Yet, no plan has survived contact with the enemy. ** Sorry for the butcher job on a Patten Quote ** Urban warfare is the hardest in a country like this. One guy on the street out of twenty might be a bad guy. Do you go full auto and kill them all? OUr Marines will walk down the streets trying to control a situation with vehicles moving nearby, and there will be kids who jump out to play in the street, while a block over a fire fight is going on. Proper planning and strategy are not enough, you need numbers, like the huns did when they surrounded a town, they had enough men to cover all streets and buildings at once. I agree that towns were smaller in the Hun time frame. Yet, to do this properly, you either bomb and bomb and bomb, or you put a lot more men and women over there, and control the city, by taking each block one at a time house by house, by invading the locals and making sure they do not have weapons or possible weapons. Just my limited knowledge and thougts on this subject.

:asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I have at least 2 friends who are there with the marines....whatever the decisions made, I simply wish for their safe return.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I have at least 2 friends who are there with the marines....whatever the decisions made, I simply wish for their safe return.

I agree
:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, why not? After all, this worked really well in Hue, during Tet.

The mere fact that this is national insanity shouldn't so much as slow us down.

 

[Adept]

Capturing Fallujah would indeed be a huge blow to the resistence. Don't give the insurgents a chance to group up in one area. Scatter them and make them weaker. To drive them out of Fallujah would leave the resistence in Iraqi scattered and weak.

That would be a bad thing to do. The reason guerilla warfare has always been so succesful is because you cannot pin down and destroy the enemy resistance. If you scatter the insurgents in Iraq they do not become less dangerous, but they do become harder to find and thus harder to kill or neutralize.

With regards to the thread topic. I dont really know how I would play it. On the one hand, taking Fallujah is a symbolic blow to the resistance, and may take out many of the head honchos for the insurgents. It will also give a favourable impression at home. While there will be US casualties, which will be extremely painful for the family and friends, it will also be seen as the US taking assertive action against an enemy, rather than simply being targeted by roadside IEDs.

If you isolate it, nothing is really solved. I imagine the insurgents will be able to survive in the city indefinately, and will simply be able to slip in and out in the guise of civilians if they want to. I cant see how it is going to lead to a peaceful conclusion. So I suppose the question isnt really 'if' to invade or not, but 'when'.

 

[DoxN4cer]

I have lost friends and comrades in the Ghan and in Iraq; 2 in Fallujah.

If you can't beat 'em... level the place.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, absolutely, level the place. So what if we kill thousands of civilians, and continue to guarantee that we're hated in the Islamic world for the next two generations? So what if it doesn't even solve our problems in Iraq?

 

[Rynocerous]

I have lost friends and comrades in the Ghan and in Iraq; 2 in Fallujah.
If you can't beat 'em... level the place.

Yes, absolutely, level the place. So what if we kill thousands of civilians, and continue to guarantee that we're hated in the Islamic world for the next two generations? So what if it doesn't even solve our problems in Iraq?

DoxN4cer and Roberson, I too have lost friends in war. In my short tour in Bagdad before I was released from the Army on a medical discharge I lost 3 of my very close commrads. Although you have to think of it as these cities are full of innocent civilians with a small minority of "bad guys". To say we should level the place isn't a very diplomatic way to approach the situation. It would cause trouble throughout the world of our Allies. Many of which would probably stop supporting us. To kill thousands of people just to get a few hundred is just not worth it, even in a prior sodiers eyes. When I got back from Bagdad all I wanted to see was the city wiped out and all our boys to come home. Then you realize that it is not just our boy's dying, but civilians as well. Civilians who have families just like you and I. Too many people look at this war and see color of skin, or nationality, not enough people realize that they are human beings, just like us. Would you want to be killed just because you lived in a city that was a threat to our enemy, I don't think so!There are bad people out there that will get their just punishment one way or another. It doesn't justify us taking innocent "human" lives to do so. The American troops are well trained and will do a good job of what ever they are told to do.

Cheers,

Ryan

 

[Adept]

Yes, absolutely, level the place. So what if we kill thousands of civilians, and continue to guarantee that we're hated in the Islamic world for the next two generations? So what if it doesn't even solve our problems in Iraq?

It was a tongue in cheek comment. I'm reading a lot of criticism from you in this thread, and none of it constructive. How would you play the scenario, as it stands?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Warning

Please keep the conversation constructive and respectful.

 

[rmcrobertson]

If memory serves, the general running that area did isolate the city. He was removed.

There are no alternatives at this point. The Marines are going in; the city will be flattened; thousands of civilians will die; we will lose a lot of young men and women; nothing will be solved; we will provoke more and more hatred.

It will go on, and on, and on, for at least the next four years.

There is no way to "be constructive," about such madness--unless one considers it constructive to encourage the consideration of reality. For example, this stuff was exactly what we tried in Vietnam under a Democratic collection of loons....did that work? The fundamental problem is that there is no good way to "play the scenario," because, "the scenario," is fundamentally insane.

 

[GAB]

Robert,

Fundamentally insane!!!

Agreement at last...

Regards, Gary

 

[Rynocerous]

Kaith I never meant to offend anyone, and if I did I appologize. What I would do personally is exactly what I was told in that situation, from a sodiers point of view. As a civilian though I think that if we stormed the city it would spill way to much blood for very little damage. These people are smart,as well as fearless. If we went in and they thought that they were done, they are smart enough to throw their wepon down say "I'm civilian", and pick up the weapon tomorrow. This is a battle that will go on as long as they hate us(which I have a feeling will be a while). I believe that we should just keep the city under as much control as possible. That is my opinion, and I appologize about the comments earlier, I just got worked up and in the heat of the moment. Though there are people out there that feel like that, and need to be educated.


Cheers,

Ryan