Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Combined Arms Assault Falujah

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Combined Arms Assault Falujah

    US infantry, armor and aviation committed at this moment. Not sure if this is another preventive local strike or an all-out offensive but it looks big.


    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    Joy, more Americans can lose their lives or get disabled for the rest of their lives.
    "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm sick of this war like everybody else

      "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
      --Frederick II, King of Prussia

      Comment


      • #4
        Americans = no staying power (not an insult, an observation)

        the US just isn't culturally suited to OOTW/SASO.
        Now listening too;
        - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

        Comment


        • #5
          The insurgents will be destroyed not because it's the right thing to do and not because the Americans have staying power but because all other options had been exhausted.

          "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
          --Frederick II, King of Prussia

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MonsterZero
            The insurgents will be destroyed not because it's the right thing to do and not because the Americans have staying power but because all other options had been exhausted.
            The insurgents won't ever be completely destroyed. The US is now stuck in a classic case of low-intensity conflict against more or less organized militias. These militias don't wield the military power of the US forces, but they are more resilient, more pervasive, and enjoy widespread support among the population now.

            Numerous historical examples show that this kind of conflict can drag on for years without a successful resolution. It is a quagmire that CANNOT be resolved in the long run through military power - well, Saddam succeeded in creating a peaceful Iraq through brute force, but the cost in human lives as been horrendous. I don't think this is the path the US will follow.
            Last edited by Tzar; 28 Apr 04, 19:25.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov
              Americans = no staying power (not an insult, an observation)

              the US just isn't culturally suited to OOTW/SASO.
              WTHATAI?

              (what the hell are those anagrams ivan?)

              Either way good point, i'm sure all the realists in this forum will obviously agree.
              Sure these types of conflicts are winnable, nothing is impossible, but the US political warmachine hasn't had great success in the past and neither does its involvement in the present situation give any impression that they have worked it out yet. I know they have tried thats obvious, they are using some different 'techniques' this time around but the overall picture doesnt look good.
              Last edited by Temujin; 28 Apr 04, 20:07.
              Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

              Comment


              • #8
                Iraq is winnable except the United States is trying to pacify and liberate Iraq all at once which is an impossible task. Those are mutualy exclusive activities, like theft vs. charity. The United States is in a serious crisis trying to come to terms with its own sense of purpose in the world. In the Arab world everything works in very simple terms: "rip the Americans off and steal from them or kill them."

                "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MonsterZero
                  Iraq is winnable except the United States is trying to pacify and liberate Iraq all at once which is an impossible task. Those are mutualy exclusive activities, like theft vs. charity. The United States is in a serious crisis trying to come to terms with its own sense of purpose in the world. In the Arab world everything works in very simple terms: "rip the Americans off and steal from them or kill them."
                  I wouldn't have used the term leberate, Kuwait was lebrated last gulf war, france was liberated in WW2, the invasion was partly to force regime change in Iraq. The problem is if you don't do your homework you suffer, Iraq is made up of different nations of people who have always been competing for power in Iraq. Plus, the terrorist anti US factor in the middle east atm. Enter Iraq remove the government its obvious these factors would be up against the US.

                  On one hand the different ethnic groups are fighting to try and sieze power and make themselves legitimate leaders in a new Iraq and on the other the warcry of the jihadists has been able to be fulfilled with a quick trip to Iraq, no need to head overseas to fight the US now.

                  Iraq was like a scabby sore to the US they picked at it too hard now its turned into a festering one.
                  Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Temujin
                    WTHATAI?

                    (what the hell are those anagrams ivan?)
                    OOTW = Operations Other Than War
                    SASO = Stability and Support Operations


                    Originally posted by Temujin
                    Either way good point, i'm sure all the realists in this forum will obviously agree.
                    Sure these types of conflicts are winnable, nothing is impossible, but the US political warmachine hasn't had great success in the past and neither does its involvement in the present situation give any impression that they have worked it out yet. I know they have tried thats obvious, they are using some different 'techniques' this time around but the overall picture doesnt look good.
                    While I agree America has a problem with total committment, I believe the problem in Iraq is more complicated than in other operations. Even if the American people were dedicated to stablizing Iraq at any price, I doubt the Iraqi people are willing to tolerate a decade of occupation without considerable progress. The fear of initiating change is partly why so many peacekeeping operations have turned into indefinite missions.

                    Iraq is a complicated society with complicated political and social opinions. There are over twelve different ethnic groups and three major religious (I believe). We must find ways to satisfy all them at least to a point where there is not widespread violence. The risk are enormous, especially when some don't want compromise. Al-Sadr for example really turned up the heat when the Coalition did not back down from trying to include Sunnis in the new government. The council warned the Shiites might very well resist this with force. And that is what happened.

                    America's guilt in all this lays in our desire to do things on the cheap, and the pursuit of exterior motives. Bush is compounding this flaw by assigning tremendous political consequences to success or failure. The main reason the international community is sitting on the sidelines right now is because the Bush Administration fears allowing major powers like France and Germany to contribute would undermind our position in Iraq and the Middle East. The false classification of the crisis being inter-imperalistic was determined based on what might very well be miscommunication, or miniscule, but nonetheless threatening maneuvering by Chirac and Schroeder before the war, and Chirac afterward. (I wish I could discuss this in more detail. However, for some odd reason, I am under the impression this is not a topic the US government wants in the open. I think it hurts America because we seem to be taking pot shots at France and Germany for no apparent reason other than the obvious disagreement.)

                    In the end, I don't think anyone could do a better job in Iraq. I see calls for bringing in the UN as more of a cop-out rather than a heart-felt initiative to do whatever is necessary to succeed. We need to accep the price tag for getting the job done. That should include an expensive, but hopefully very productive economic plan to coincide with our political efforts. I also believe we should do more publically such as release records, talk to international leaders face-to-face, etc to ease global concens.

                    However all this means nothing if the Iraqi people are not willing to compromise in the name of peace and stability. They have alot of problems they need to work out between each other. The outcome of those efforts will ultimately determine the future of Iraq.
                    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Deltapooh
                      In the end, I don't think anyone could do a better job in Iraq.


                      *climbs on soapbox*

                      Im sure given extra resources and manpower of current quality we already enjoy the Australian Army could do better!

                      *Steps down from soapbox*

                      Must to soon after ANZAC day to come to any other conclusion
                      Last edited by Temujin; 28 Apr 04, 22:52.
                      Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Saddam never had success in controlling this important city. Fallujah had always been the key place for Shiite activities. Saddam often bought off Sunni leaders and used different means to keep Fallujah subdued.

                        Now, with Saddam gone, all of this control went with him. Fallujah once again experiences a taste of "freedom." Unfortunately, Fallujah is probably one of the poorest cities in Iraq. If I recall correctly, there is a slum neighborhood in Fallujah, where a lot of insurgents are from, this is one of the hardest hit when Saddam's regime fell apart.

                        How to solve this? I don't know. Sending more money into Fallujah will not solve anything as it will take away money from the other cities that have been cooperating fully with Coalition forces.

                        The United States cannot leave these insurgents alone, as it will signal that insurgency has been successful and possibly grow to spin out of USA's control.

                        One way or another, I'm pretty sure insurgents in Fallujah and other cities will be eventually defeated. I'm concerned what to do after it's been done.

                        Dan

                        EDITED
                        Last edited by Cheetah772; 29 Apr 04, 05:43.
                        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                        "Aim small, miss small."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Temujin
                          *climbs on soapbox*

                          Im sure given extra resources and manpower of current quality we already enjoy the Australian Army could do better!

                          *Steps down from soapbox*
                          I have to disagree. Those extra resources is not limited to money or expensive weaponary. Global power depends on political, economic, social, military, and even cultural strength. It is obtained through the expansion of national interest using the instruments of foriegn policy (primarily diplomacy and military might.) These factors increase the risk of each operation. In response, politicians will seek to mitigate risks and losses.

                          As I stated, the US is trying to minimize our risk and produce a return that would satisfy the cost. You see similar behavior in operations in the Balkans and Africa. So while I have no doubt your military and present government could probably do better in Iraq, I believe that would not be the case if Australia had as much power as the US.
                          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Deltapooh
                            I have to disagree. Those extra resources is not limited to money or expensive weaponary. Global power depends on political, economic, social, military, and even cultural strength. It is obtained through the expansion of national interest using the instruments of foriegn policy (primarily diplomacy and military might.) These factors increase the risk of each operation. In response, politicians will seek to mitigate risks and losses.

                            As I stated, the US is trying to minimize our risk and produce a return that would satisfy the cost. You see similar behavior in operations in the Balkans and Africa. So while I have no doubt your military and present government could probably do better in Iraq, I believe that would not be the case if Australia had as much power as the US.
                            Yeah you are most definately right, i was thinking the same thing as i wrote the comment, it was just my bragging fix for the day.
                            Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cheetah772
                              Saddam never had success in controlling this important city. Fallujah had always been the key place for Shiite activities. Saddam often bought off Shiite leaders and used different means to keep Fallujah subdued.

                              Now, with Saddam gone, all of this control went with him. Fallujah once again experiences a taste of "freedom." Unfortunately, Fallujah is probably one of the poorest cities in Iraq. If I recall correctly, there is a slum neighborhood in Fallujah, where a lot of insurgents are from, this is one of the hardest hit when Saddam's regime fell apart.

                              How to solve this? I don't know. Sending more money into Fallujah will not solve anything as it will take away money from the other cities that have been cooperating fully with Coalition forces.

                              The United States cannot leave these insurgents alone, as it will signal that insurgency has been successful and possibly grow to spin out of USA's control.

                              One way or another, I'm pretty sure insurgents in Fallujah and other cities will be eventually defeated. I'm concerned what to do after it's been done.

                              Dan

                              Please, please, please <on bended knee even> do some research and stop demonstrating your complete ignorance on these matters, proving beyond all doubt to the rest of the world that you don't really have a clue.

                              Falluja is a centre of Sunni resistance, and is located on the southern side of the Sunni Triangle, a region of Baathist support to the west of Baghdad.

                              The Shia "rebellion" is occurring in the area south of Baghdad, under with the Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr based in Najaf.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X