The headlines read, "Marines prepare for Falluja assault; likely biggest since Vietnam."

The UN Secretary General has said that the US shouldn't attack Falluja because it may cause problems with the January election.

Should the US assualt Falluja?

I honestly don't know. I don't think we can go into Falluja without making the situation worst. But I don't think we can let the threat there escalate by not going in. Heh, sounds like the theme of the whole war doesn't it?

I am all for it.

Negotiations have not worked with the insurgents so far. Once we trap them, the Iraqi government strikes a deal that frees the insurgents. A month later we end up fighting those same people all over again.

We should encircle Falluja, give people 2 days to get out and then attack. That was a tactic used in WW2. It's much better than letting the enemy go free to fight another day.

That's one way to do it, but when people are allowed to come back they might not have any homes to come back to. Which isn't going to make friends with anyone, and is only going to inspire another uprising in the city.

some news reports are saying that the insurgents have now mainly left and only innocent people are left, thats the main problem, how do you identify an insurgent?

Originally Posted by egoz

That's one way to do it, but when people are allowed to come back they might not have any homes to come back to. Which isn't going to make friends with anyone, and is only going to inspire another uprising in the city.

If I were running the show, I would do these things. After all the death and destruction is over with, bring in aid ASAP. Then asses the damages and get construction crews in there fast. It'll show the people that we actually care. That was one objective of the Marshall Plan after WWII.

Originally Posted by Shadowalker

some news reports are saying that the insurgents have now mainly left and only innocent people are left, thats the main problem, how do you identify an insurgent?

The Geneva Convention says if you cannot tell if someone is an enemy, you must assume that they are a civilian. I guess the only way is to tell is if someone is shooting at you. The US could change the rules of engagement in Falluja to say all persons carrying weapons will be considered enemy. That would simplify the infantry's job a bit.

Thats true but all an insurgent needs to do is hide his weapon and now he is a civilian. There is no easy way to take falluja, the US military needs to take out the terrorist leaders then attack them so there is no coherent leadership left, but falluja is only going to be taken with a lot of sweat and probably even more blood.

EDIT: using SFs like egoz says would be the much better option.

I don't believe a conventional assault on Fallujah would be effective. Sending in SF teams to take out specific targets and working their way down would be more surgical, it would also limit the amount of civilian casualties.

I am not sure if limited SF operations would work. If the number of insurgents is what they say, 3,000, a small SF unit may find itself in a world of trouble very quickly. It's much easier to over run a platoon of SF than a battalion of infantry.

The best example of a limited SF operation gone bad would be Somalia.

So far, any major operation involving conventional troops has gone fairly well. Most of the casualties in Iraq are coming from IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices), not direct assaults against insurgents.

I would love to continue this discussion, but it's a great day to go bike ridding. Later gentlemen.

SGT Doody

Unfortunately for the civilians still in the city the Marines must hit very hard. Lots of bombing and shelling before they enter with tanks.

SF teams do the recon before as usually to point out target areas.