Escalation in Fallujah, and more on Iraq

[Fifthfiend]

For those interested in the progress of Fallujah's pacification*:

April 25:
U.S. Opts To Delay Fallujah Offensive

U.S. Marines have postponed plans to mount an attack against insurgents holed up here and instead will attempt to regain control of this violence-wracked city without a full-scale offensive, military commanders said Sunday.

...

"A military solution is not going to be the solution here unless everything else fails," said Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division

April 26:
Intense Fighting Erupts in Two Cities

FALLUJAH, Iraq, April 27 -- Intense firefights erupted Monday between U.S. forces and insurgents here and in Najaf, two cities surrounded by thousands of troops.

In Fallujah, which became a symbol of Iraqi resistance during a U.S. military offensive this month, a Marine patrol was attacked by insurgents hiding in a mosque. In the pitched gun battle that followed, one Marine and an estimated eight insurgents were killed and the mosque was damaged by tank fire, U.S. officials said.

Intense fighting also erupted just after dark south of Baghdad in Najaf, the holiest city of Islam's Shiite branch, where rebellious cleric Moqtada Sadr has taken refuge from U.S. forces. Witnesses said the fighting began about 8 p.m. and appeared to be isolated around a small occupation military base, far from the sacred shrine of Imam Ali at the center of the city.

The fighting moved to the adjoining city of Kufa, near the mosque that serves as headquarters for Sadr and his militia, the Mahdi Army, which controls much of both cities.

64 Iraqis Killed in Clashes

Local leaders and U.S. officials announced Sunday that the Marines would conduct joint patrols with the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to root out insurgents in Fallujah, rather than storming the city. Kimmitt said that commanders did not believe the civil defense force was adequately trained to begin the patrols, but Marine officers in Fallujah said patrols would start Thursday.

April 28:
Warplanes Pound Sections of Fallujah

U.S. warplanes on Wednesday dropped 500-pound laser-guided bombs and fired powerful howitzers at what military officials said were Sunni Muslim insurgents who had fired on Marines ringing this city.

...

With tensions on the rise, Marine commanders postponed plans to conduct joint patrols of the city on Thursday with Iraqi policemen and civil defense troops. The patrols, regarded as a key element of the cease-fire agreement, now are scheduled to begin on Friday, a senior Marine officer said.

Looks like we jumped pretty quickly to "a military solution."

I suppose it's possible they'll start up those patrols on Friday, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Especially given the latest news:

April 29:
Fallujah Security Deal Announced, Fighting Persists

U.S. warplanes carried out new air strikes and gunfire erupted in parts of this volatile city Thursday night, hours after Marines announced a tentative deal to end a nearly month-long siege that has cost hundreds of lives. Separately, a series of hit-and-run attacks and a car-bomb blast killed 10 U.S. soldiers during the morning, most of them in and around the capital.

------------------

Q&A: Anthony Zinni Former Commander in chief of U.S. Central command
(april 25)

So what they did militarily and politically in Iraq, none of what you recommended happened?

Well, I'll give you my hopeful formula to get out of this. But every day and every decision makes it worse. The first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. They seem to continue to dig. This 'stay the course' idea is wonderful except the course is leading us over Niagara Falls.

The rest of the interview's pretty good. Zinni knows his shit better than just about anyone, and he doesn't mince words.

The general does ultimately say we need to stay the course, mirroring the Kerry view that we need to seek outside intervention. On the other hand, my favorite barkeep (who pointed out the Zinni interview) thinks that door has pretty much been slammed shut.

What can you say? There is no Santa Claus. There is no "political solution" -- or rather, every avenue to a political solution has been systematically closed off by the neocons. If the United States wants to "win" in Iraq, it's going to have to do it alone, and through the brute application of military force.

I don't know that I agree, but it's a damn scary prospect.

-------------------

This comment in a previous Iraq thread struck me as particularly ignorant:

As far as the "thousands of casualties"

Casualty = Wounded or Dead
Wounded = Any injury sufficiently serious to keep a troop out of action.

So those thousands of casualties? I'm willing to bet that more than 2000 are going back in for more.

I wanted to respond becaues it's something I've heard a few places, and it seems like an implicit assumption when people note the 'low' death count thus far in the war. It is true that due to improved armor, etc., attacks which would have resulted in death are now survived. The problem is, the previously fatal blows now frequently leave their victims facing this kind of trauma:

More troops suffering severe head wounds

More and more in Iraq, combat surgeons say, the wounds involve severe damage to the head and eyes -- injuries that leave soldiers brain damaged or blind, or both, and the doctors who see them first struggling against despair.

...

About half the wounded troops have suffered injuries light enough that they were able to return to duty after treatment, according to the Pentagon.

The others arrive on stretchers at the hospitals operated by the 31st CSH. "These injuries," said Lt. Col. Stephen M. Smith, executive officer of the Baghdad facility, "are horrific."

Caution: the full article has some pretty fucking gory details. Not, perhaps, for the faint of heart.

The official numbers:

1394 returned to active duty w/in 72 hours
2468 not returned to duty w/in 72 hours

-----------------------

*This was originally intended as a response to the previous Fallujah thread, but with as many new developments as we've seen, it seems to warrant a new topic. Plus, as you can see, I wanted to mention a couple other things.

[RangerAidan]

You're exactly right; There is not diplomatic solution to dealing with the insurgents (Read: terrorists). The only way out of this that I can see is killing every last one of them.

[Lucas]

these insurgents are attacking military targets, while terrorists, by definition, if i'm correct, attack civilian targets... apart from the kidnappings and the security guard hangings (which, if you want to be picky, are armed forces enlisted by companies for protection, which amounts to them being part of a private army, but that's beyond the point...), the attacks have been pretty much directed at military targets. watch when throwing around the word terrorist, its sorta a blanket statement that means nothing if applied improperly.

[RangerAidan]

And the hudreds of Iraqis thta have been killed by these attacks as well? I'm just saying that there have been direct attacks on Iraqi citizens, too. They are terrorists.

[Lucas]

a Marine patrol was attacked by insurgents hiding in a mosque. In the pitched gun battle that followed, one Marine and an estimated eight insurgents were killed and the mosque was damaged by tank fire, U.S. officials said.

gotta hate when civilians are called marines.

[Fifthfiend]

There have been some car bombings and such, along with things like the attack on the UN building back in September or thereabouts. Which is close enough to terrorism for horseshoes.

On the other hand, if we're defining 'terrorism' as the destruction of civilian targets, 500 lb. bombs dropped in a city are bound to kill some civilians.

In any case, I certainly think the majority of those fighting in Fallujah and Najaf are guerillas and insurgents, and are not terrorists by any definition of the term.

[QUOTE]You're exactly right; There is not diplomatic solution to dealing with the insurgents (Read: terrorists). The only way out of this that I can see is killing every last one of them.QUOTE]

Whoawhoawhoa-whoa, what? The writer I linked to thinks our only option is to leave the country. I disagree, I at least hope politics can accomplish something.

"Killing every last one of them"? Are you kidding? The only way we'll accomplish that is by atom-bombing the entire country. For every insurgent you kill, two more spring up in his place, unless you give the Iraqis some reason not to join the insurgency -- which is exactly where politics comes in.

So unless you seriously think our goal should be to 'Liberate' all 25 million Iraqis from the 'terrorism' of human existence, you might want to re-think that strategy.

[Lucas]

full definition is pretty much...
terrorist:
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
terror:
Intense, overpowering fear

common application of the word terrorist is used as follows:
one who unlawfully attacks non-military targets for the purpose of instilling terror into a populance as a means to achieve political motives.

or that's how its used in the western media

[DarthZeth]

eh, "Terrorist" is applied to things such as assassinations and such. I tend to think that, if that is "Terrorism", a leader is still a legitamate target in a war.

Also, attacking civilians is also not alwasy terrorism. case in point: fire bombing desden, or the Blitz. it wasn't a military target... but wasn't really "terrorism". you can sure say there's a moral equivlant, but its not terrorism, as it wasn't done clandestinly. it was a military maneuver.


that being said, there are a LOT of actual terrorism in Iraq. not to mention general thuggery by the "insurgants". the Al-Sadr militia was pretty much terrorising locals and stealing whatever they wanted. And a lot of attacks have slied away from Military Targets.. because they are hard to hit. the army fires back. The attacks on police stations (which could be a "legitamate" target in some eyes... except that the goal of teh attacks IS to cause chaos and civil war... i dunno if thats "Terrorism" but its bad... bad for the people of Iraq) wind up killing more civilians then police or military.


any way you slice it, the "insurgents" are bad news.

[Viper Daimao]

this site offers a lot of great coverage of battles and tactics.

also word has it that there's a mystery group targeting Sadr's men in Najaf.

[Trev-MUN Hates AOL]

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

also word has it that there's a mystery group targeting Sadr's men in Najaf.

Ha ha ha HA! YES!

If this turns out to be really true, this is indeed awesome news. I just hope the Thulfiqar Army isn't as anti-American as al-Sadr is...