Should the US assault Falluja?

Should the US assualt Falluja?

  • YES

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • NO

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • NOT SURE

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Duty Honor Country

Duty Honor Country

Active member
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?
 
egoz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Shadowalker said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Egoz, I am not trying to sound obnoxious here, but do you not think that they have tried SF already. I mean think about it, SF operations are not likely to be publicised unless they go totally awry. We need to take this city or the whole war will be lost, guaranteed. Contrary to some overseas news I have heard from the news for the last 24 hours that 300,000 civilians have fled just in the last few days while insurgents have turned the city into a massive fortress armed with booby traps, mines, and a few machine gun nests. This has been one of the most problematic cities in the whole of Iraq, it needs to be invaded. They took Sammarra, Al Sadr gave up and the Mahdi Army disbanded, now they need Fallujah. Risks need to be taken, a sad fact of this war. The marines are willing and ready to go, so we need to go in. Good Luck to them, and may the insurgents meet their horrible ends there in the city they entrenched themselves in.
 
Well I'm sure SF has operated in the area. I was just trying to mention alternatives to reduce collateral damage in the area. But SF has proven to only be effective when going after individual and/or specific targets. So I guess I'm contradicting myself, but attacking a city would be left up to more conventional means. A perfect example of misusing large amounts of SF would be the Bay of Pigs. Some things are just meant for more conventional means.

The thing is we've invaded Fallujah, then pulled out, then invaded again. It's back and forth with them and someone needs to decide on a solid long term plan for the city instead of changing their mind every few months (politics). This assault wouldn't be necessary if the initial decision was to occupy the city and stop the rebels before they could build up. The problem with that decision though, is that the rebels are trained to attack for a certain amount of time, then wait and let the conventional forces settle in again before attacking. It keeps the military off balance. It forces the soldiers to always be on their toes and prepared. Which also makes the job much more stressful and problematic for befriending the locals. Which finally makes a large conventional military just want to retreat because it lowers morale and makes the situation seem impossible.

I believe the elections should take place with or without the city under control. It's only going to be a puppet government anyway. The country is in no way ready to accept any form of a government and forcing one into place with everything in chaos does nothing. It won't suddenly become more peaceful because they voted for a president. The Iraqi military can't even retain soldiers without them going back to fight for the rebels the next morning. So even with a President who is there to enforce laws? If we force any type of a government it should be another dictatorship that would be just as ruthless as Saddam. If that were to happen I bet no one would want to step out of line, just like before.
 
egoz said:
Well I'm sure SF has operated in the area. I was just trying to mention alternatives to reduce collateral damage in the area. But SF has proven to only be effective when going after individual and/or specific targets. So I guess I'm contradicting myself, but attacking a city would be left up to more conventional means. A perfect example of misusing large amounts of SF would be the Bay of Pigs. Some things are just meant for more conventional means.
Click to expand...

I agree that the SF is not suited to taking a city. Bad things tend to happen when SF units are used in a conventional roll. WWII showed that highly trained units do not perform well doing the job of conventional troops. Panama showed the US that it is bad to try to get SEAL Teams to work together. They were trained to be independent while conventional troops depend on other units.
 
I'm quite positive we must give the order. I don't like it, but there it is. Gentlemen, I don't see how we can possibly do anything... but go.
-General Eisenhower in The Longest Day

Let's do it.
 
Of course, no chance should be given to the enemies.

Soldiers are most happy to fight and defeat their enemies.. it's what they have been trained and waiting for.

:rambo: :rambo:
 
Well, hopefully it goes more delicate that in Seoul, Korea.

Wasn't that city practically leveled?

With 3 plus months of intelligence, wouldn't they have a fair grasp of how dense the enemy is in there?

Guess they can't tell in the news all that the US is aware of.

If nothing else, this can help the US to become even better in the future.

I certainly respect the commitment of the men and women that follown their orders in a sitution like this.

M. D. Vaden of Oregon
http://www.mdvaden.com
 
I believe they need to make an example of Fallujiah. They need to assault it, and despite losses drive out the insurgency and hold the city. If they back down they show they can be defeated. If they "Win" they will send a clear message.
 
Well, it looks like the assault on Fallujah has begun.

I wish I could say that I am praying for peace or concerned for the civilians, but the truth is my main thoughts and prayers are with the USMC in this fight.

There comes a time when evil cannot be placated, reasoned with or debated. It must be burned out. The enemy are people who torture and behead their captives, blow up schoolchildren and put the videos of their crimes onto the internet.

Kill them all. Hoorah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top