Some observations on the battle of Fallujah

[Korth]

Good News, Bad News (http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108154458293981279)

Lost in the frenetic headlines of the last week was an unnoticed military revolution. Never in history have 1,200 men stormed a city of 230,000 in urban combat without extensively using heavy weapons before the US Marines did in Fallujah. This is nothing short of amazing because the 90% of the combat power of an infantry unit is embodied in their heavy weapons. And they were stopped only by a truce, not by enemy resistance. When the Marine casualties from the Ramadi ambush, not part of the Fallujah battle are subtracted, the Marine losses have been spectacularly low by historical standards. They are actually lower than the IDF losses in the smaller Jenin engagement (which used armored bulldozers to clear lanes) and several orders of magnitude beneath the Russian casualties in Grozny, despite the lavish use of armor, artillery and air by the Russians. US forces were never tested in extensive urban combat during Iraqi Freedom. MOUT is no longer theory. It is practice.

To sum up, the Jihadis have demonstrated two new capabilities. The ability to create cooperative engagements between Sunnis and Shi'ites; and the ability to combine special forces tactics with religious militias to wage political warfare. Against this, the Americans are demonstrating two new countervailing capacities of their own. They have shown that US forces can take any urban area at casualty rates less than 1 to 50. Second, they have begun to wage joint political warfare in cooperation with the Iraqi governing council. The demonstrated capability to reduce any former "no-occupation" zone opens the way to expand the "good cop, bad cop" approach used in Fallujah. Council delegates can now treat with rebels on an authoritative basis. Sistani's fatwa, till now unobserved, acquires an ominous new meaning for Sadr. A third and potentially war-winning development may be in the wings. The US has seized the intelligence apparatus of a great Arab state but has barely begun to realize its massive investment in additional human intelligence capability. US intelligence capabilities in Iraq today are much, much larger than pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recent events have suggested US intelligence has been able to discern the basic outlines of Syrian and Iranian operations on their own home ground. That is an achievement equal to the Jihadis competing head to head with the FBI in the continental USA. The US may still be on the steep part of the learning curve, but it is the rate of change that counts, and in this respect, the Jihadis are falling behind..

[ShotOver]

What was the "Ramadi ambush" that were they lost the 12?

[seruriermarshal]

Lost 12 Marines in Ramadi , troops need more UAV support .

:(

[ShotOver]

They lost like 12 in Fallujah, i thought Ramadi ambush was some significant firefight/battle, that i knew nothing about.

[Ghostwolf]

So how many of those militants claimed to have been killed?
What happened to the rest of them?

[ShotOver]

Over 600 KIA.

Estimated.

[Maverick77]

The however many more, probably a lot of them, are obviously still out there.

[Kingpin]

Over 600 KIA.

Estimated.

:) What makes you think that 3 yo child was insurgent?

[ShotOver]

Hahaha, nah mate. I'm simply typing what the other reports have said, also i said estimated. Could be more, could be less.
Reports from the fighting said the Iraqi's came at them in droves, very WW1 style.

[ibstolidude]

Over 600 KIA.

Estimated.

:) What makes you think that 3 yo child was insurgent?

why is it that you go crazy when posts like this are made in referenfe to the Chechen conflict and yet make them your self?

Typically you state "you know nothing about chechnya" to the poster and yet what special insight do you have into Iraq?

[seruriermarshal]

Over 600 KIA.

Estimated.

:) What makes you think that 3 yo child was insurgent?

why is it that you go crazy when posts like this are made in referenfe to the Chechen conflict and yet make them your self?

Typically you state "you know nothing about chechnya" to the poster and yet what special insight do you have into Iraq?

I don't know , Maybe he think , Iraq like chechnya ?

[Korth]

They lost like 12 in Fallujah, i thought Ramadi ambush was some significant firefight/battle, that i knew nothing about.

Just 12?

Yes, it is a tragedy for the men killed, their families, and their comrades. But compare the 12 men killed in Fallujah to the casualties incurred at Iwo Jima or Tarawa.

I would say that the Marines are doing very well in Fallujah.

[Spearin]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.

[MaDuce]

Same could be said about Chechneya but we just shouldn't start with that.

[TriggerPuller]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.**** happens!!

TP

[Korth]

Over 600 KIA.

Estimated.

:) What makes you think that 3 yo child was insurgent?

That was collateral damage and very minimal when compared to the collateral damage in earlier wars.

Anyway, your statement was stupid and hateful. You know that the child was not a target and yet you imply that it was. I figure that you must be an enemy of the USA and wish to see them fail in Iraq.

[Trident-za]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.**** happens!!

TP

Yes it does happen :) And "collateral damage" is to some extent unavoidable. The real question is: did this particular week of "**** happens" make things better or worse for coalition troops, and people like you who are going there soon? Will your job now be more dangerous, or less because of this?

[Korth]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.

Where do you get that information? Your statement seems to be an assumption rather than factual.

I assume that it is 600 insurgents and that there will be a seperate tally for the collateral damage.

[Trident-za]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.

Where do you get that information? Your statement seems to be a speculation rather than factual.

On the contrary - its people like you who insist that ALL the dead iraqis were combatants who are specualting.... I have no idea what the relative percentages are, but to assume that 100% of the iraqi dead were "bad guys" is completely idiotic :roll: :cantbeli:

Oh, and where did you get your information from? Just for the record....

[Korth]

Again, you assume that combatants are tallied with collateral damage. Are you sure that both combatants and non-combatant collateral damage are being tallied together for this body count?

[Skaman]

National post reports 60 coalition deaths and countless civilian casualties among hundreds of 'insurgents'

[Trident-za]

Yes, I'm pretty sure :) CNN, Foxnews, BBC and Aljezeera are all posting similar numbers. I doubt that Aljezeera would make the distinction.... can you show me a link to any news article claiming the numbers are 100% combatants?

[chauncy republicans]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.**** happens!!

TP
Until it's one of your children! (If your even old enough to reproduce!) :fork:

[Trident-za]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.**** happens!!

TP
Until it's one of your children! (If your even old enough to reproduce!) :fork:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure TP is old enough.... :lol: he is one of the few on this board who has BTDT, and is to be respected greatly for his expertise and experience.

[chauncy republicans]

That is very surprising...and very pathetic.

[Korth]

That is very surprising...and very pathetic.

You are the pathetic one.

Compare the collateral damage of Fallujah to the invasion of Normandy on June 6th 1944, it is very light in comparasin.

Perhaps you would call off D-day because there would have been collateral damage on the French population? I doubt it.

Really though, this is all just crocodile tears for the collateral damage. You are against the US because you are anti-American and wish to see them fail in the war on terror. You wish for the Bath party thugs and Islamic fanatics to win.

It is better that you go stick a revolver in your mouth and pull the trigger. The world will be a better place without you.

[Spearin]

That is very surprising...and very pathetic.

You are the pathetic one.

Compare the collateral damage of Fallujah to the invasion of Normandy on June 6th 1944, it is very light in comparasin.

Perhaps you would call off D-day because there would have been collateral damage on the French population? I doubt it.

Really though, this is all just crocodile tears for the collateral damage. You are against the US because you are anti-American and wish to see them fail in the war on terror. You wish for the Bath party thugs and Islamic fanatics to win.

You cannot possibly compare that to Iraq. Warfare and Technology have changed/matured since then and collateral damage can be avoided easier in this day and age.

[Trident-za]

I think the differences between D-Day and Falluja are so huge I'm amazed you try to compare them. By your rationale, America shouldn't really get worked up about 9/11 - in comparison to the bombing of germany in WW2 the casaulties are so trivial as to be insignificant.

And don't you dare accuse me of being anti-US or any other crap.

[Korth]

Compare the 911 attacks to the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is a valid comparasin. Both were sneak attacks on a sleeping United States.

The difference is that Pearl Harbor was a military target while it was American civilians that were targeted by terrorists on 911.

BTW, you are some kind of Osama Lover.

[chauncy republicans]

Really though, this is all just crocodile tears for the collateral damage. You are against the US because you are anti-American and wish to see them fail in the war on terror.
I AM AMERICAN YOU MORON!! BTW you sound like you have more allegience toward America than you do Gemany! I am so sick of foreigners clinging to America's balls like they dont have a country of their own!

[Fioraon]

I think the differences between D-Day and Falluja are so huge I'm amazed you try to compare them. By your rationale, America shouldn't really get worked up about 9/11 - in comparison to the bombing of germany in WW2 the casaulties are so trivial as to be insignificant.

And don't you dare accuse me of being anti-US or any other crap.

Honestly I don’t think we should get very worked up about it either, but we are in a period of progressivism so it is quite understandable. (Ei) Two cops walked down my street yesterday and the whole street came outside to ask them what was going on. A kid tried to kill himself during school hours and we had a SWAT team search the entire place for three hours while we sat in locked rooms. Americans have an extremely small gut right now much like we did post World War One. It’s just the way of the times, and the times will change.

BTW: you are an anti-american socialist commie pig..... :slap:

[Trident-za]

Osama lover? "anti-american socialist commie pig" ??

Yawn... pay attention to reality, please. Just because I'm not entirely sure the US response in Falluja is the correct one doesn't mean any of these dumb insinuations are true. And just to make it clear - I think any comparisions between 9/11 or Iraq and WW2 are just silly. The key phrase in my post was by your rationale ....

For the record, I am generally pro-US (I say generally cause they make mistakes the same as everyone else), and 100% against terrorism of any sort. I am also quite big on the idea of "moral high ground".

[Spearin]

Don't worry about these ignorants trident, I'm on the same page as you.

[Vance]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.
So I'm guessing around 150 insurgents are KIA.

[Spearin]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.
So I'm guessing around 150 insurgents are KIA.

It's really hard to estimate since we have no idea of the situation going on there. But, what I am saying is that anyone who thinks that all 600 of these people were armed and a direct threat to the Americans aren't thinking realistically.

[Korth]

Really though, this is all just crocodile tears for the collateral damage. You are against the US because you are anti-American and wish to see them fail in the war on terror.
I AM AMERICAN YOU MORON!! BTW you sound like you have more allegience toward America than you do Gemany! I am so sick of foreigners clinging to America's balls like they dont have a country of their own!

Actually, I am an American in Germany.

BTW, Lots of anti-Americans with American citizenship like you. You are like Jane Fonda who traveled to Hanoi and encouraged the Vietnamese communists to torture the American POW's being held captive there.

[Korth]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.
So I'm guessing around 150 insurgents are KIA.

It's really hard to estimate since we have no idea of the situation going on there. But, what I am saying is that anyone who thinks that all 600 of these people were armed and a direct threat to the Americans aren't thinking realistically.

Again, you are assuming that the collateral damage was tallied in with the combatants killed.

Until the numbers of combatants and the numbers of collateral damage are categorically listed, it is all speculation.

[Trident-za]

And again, I ask for you to provide me with a link showing that are NOT being listed together? As I understand it, the casaulty estimates are coming from hospital staff, and include everyone - including insurgents/terrorists, non-combatant men (there must be at least 1 surely?), women (some I'm sure are insurgents?) and small children.

[FallenAngel]

Interesting read about the Marines. Once again it seems the Marines are paving the way and doing a hell of a job considered the difficult task set before them.

As for the numbers....I doubt all 600 are combatants myself. HOWEVER, TP is right....this is war and a moderate degree of innocents will be killed. The analogies to WWII and D-Day are accurate because in the end it's just infantrymen with rifles against insurgents taking cover in schools, hospitals, mosques, etc. among the civilian population making the ultimate decision to shoot or not to shoot. The better technology is absent....which is the whole point of the article if you people actually read it instead of inciting each other.

And again...sole responsibility rests on the Marines. The Iraqis who are in the line of fire must be somewhat involved. Anyone in their rational mind would move AWAY from the fighting if they knew it was moving their way. The fact that these Iraqi innocents did not COULD be seen by some as passive consent to the uprising. It's the responsibility of the parents to remove that 3 y/o from danger if there is any possibility that danger might be close.

In the end, the loss of innocents is tragic and regrettable, but this is war. Steps could be taken on the Iraqi side to limit those deaths (not hiding in mosques, schools, etc.) themselves. I believe the Marines have shown remarkable restraint given the situation they are in (that being the urban combat setting against irregular forces).

[Spearin]

The Iraqi casualty numbers being released are not all combatants. Don't think that the US is killing 600 insurgents. Innocents are among that number.
So I'm guessing around 150 insurgents are KIA.

It's really hard to estimate since we have no idea of the situation going on there. But, what I am saying is that anyone who thinks that all 600 of these people were armed and a direct threat to the Americans aren't thinking realistically.

Again, you are assuming that the collateral damage was tallied in with the combatants killed.

Until the numbers of combatants and the numbers of collateral damage are categorically listed, it is all speculation.

Do you have a TV? Have you been watching the news? Have you not seen the pictures of injured Iraqi children? That's my proof that all 600 casualties aren't insurgents... where is your proof to tell me otherwise?

[FallenAngel]

Also....I would not put too much stock into the reports given by doctors. The whole incident in Jenin put me off from trusting these reports. Something like 56 people were killed, 52 of which were terrorists. If you listened to the doctors in Jenin, they'd have you believe hundreds of innocent people died at the merciless hands of the IDF. :roll:

[Trident-za]

I don't disagree that the marines are showing "remarkable restraint" given the task they've been allocated to do. This whole thread is about whether the tactics being employed were correct or not... which is a different thing to what you're saying.

[Trident-za]

Also....I would not put too much stock into the reports given by doctors. The whole incident in Jenin put me off from trusting these reports. Something like 56 people were killed, 52 of which were terrorists. If you listened to the doctors in Jenin, they'd have you believe hundreds of innocent people died at the merciless hands of the IDF. :roll:

Agreed... however, the US military themselves appear to not be disputing the figures, or the fact that women and children are amongst them.

[catdat]

I had posted this on another thread but since you guys are arguing about combatants and non-combatants, I'll repost here.

Here's a pro-iraqi site that reports :
A 10 year-old-boy fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a US tank west of Baghdad, hitting it and setting it on fire.

Look it up : http://www.juancole.com/ about 1/4 of the way down the page.
I believe this is the M1 shown on fire in the 4/10/04 photo section.
Need more proof?
Pak Tribune (Pakistani News Wire):
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=61367

So...umm which kids are combatants and which kids aren't?

The crocodile tears are shed by the insurgents that want to promote this act of a ten year old and complain about "innocent" deaths at the same time.

[Korth]

Do you have a TV? Have you been watching the news? Have you not seen the pictures of injured Iraqi children? That's my proof that all 600 casualties aren't insurgents... where is your proof to tell me otherwise?

It could be that there were 600 insurgents killed and then a few dozen non-combatants killed on the side. Until the numbers are categorically listed, there is merely speculation.

Besides, this concern for collateral damage is facetious. You people did not voice these concerns when it was Saddam Hussien that was filling the mass graves with men, women, and children.

The Marines have done alot to minimize collateral damage at great risk to themselves. That you go on about collateral damage is just anti-American propaganda. A case in point would be the collateral damage to the French population at Normandy on June 6th 1944. None of you were complaining about collateral damage then.