leejo

I'm not worried about what the insurgents learn or don't learn, I'm more concerned about defeating their strategic goal of driving a wedge between the coalition and the general population by provoking an over-reaction that kills a lot of innocents and destroys a lot of homes. Battles that don't contribute toward a strategic goal are just murder and should be avoided.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but Operations In Low-Intensity Conflict is a good read.

Wintermute

Can you summerise it in 50 words for those of us who don't have a couple of hours to kill?

__________________
Wintermute

Play EVE online. It's like being an accounting addict in space.

www.MakePovertyHistory.com

leejo

Fraid not. But I encourage everyone to make time. This is important stuff!

Zebra

Even if they decide to repeat Fallujah across Iraq because they "won" the first time?

DudeMan

agreed sorry leejo but buyin g off people who were killing you is a quick fix, something to get it out of the pappers, and it doesnt stand up to scrutiny. what happens when we leave and the threat of thousands of tanks is gone, you think thses insurgents are just going to say oh well lets toe the line now that we hae a poorly trained iraqis army...

it looks a bit like how sadam was given the riens previously, even though inteligents knew he was a murderer it was easy and looked good at the time.

leejo

I don't think there's any question of "letting" them win or buying them off. Is that your interpretation or is that what's happening? My interpretation is that the commanders on the scene are demonstrating more patience and savvy than you're giving them credit. The only time pressure is in our minds, isn't it? And, facts be damned, is it more important to restore order or be perceived as having "won"?

Regardless of what people think now, can't we round up this crowd in a few months (if we haven't already gotten some) and disabuse them of their thoughts of victory?

The enemy, with these acts, attempts to bait us. Why on earth should we allow them to dictate the time and place of our battles? We are in control of Iraq, not them. We can cordon off a city and fix their position, not them. We can marshal the political and material support to prepare the battlefield and we can take as much time as we like to do it, while they can only execute hit and run operations. Why give all of our advantages away just because we need to show someone who's boss?

Furthermore, sending troops into such a situation guarantees that some will spill their blood. We owe them patience and every effort to find another way while working to acomplish the strategic goals.

Zebra

It's their interpretation, which is all that really matters.

If a perception that they won leads them to want to keep fighting - maybe even spread the fighting to areas that have been relatively peaceful for the last year, I'd say it's pretty important. You make the other guy want to quit by beating him soundly, not rewarding him for his efforts.

I would dispute that order has been restored, as well. The only order in that city is whatever an individual can enforce with his own gun, and the Iraqi governing council is saying that the insurgents have turned the place into one big bomb factory.

We did all that, had as close to a battle on our terms as we're likely to get, and then we withdrew. This after issuing threats and ultimatums about surrendering weapons and handing over murderers which turned out to be empty. You're kidding yourself if you don't think the perceptions that our actions have fostered (weakness on our part) will cause more deaths.

leejo

I don't see it that way, but I guess we'll all have to wait and see how things go.

DudeMan

im still with zebra on this, you have displayed some idealistic intentions and if they were wha was happening i wouldnt have a probelem, but all we have done so far is give in to stop violence, its a victory for terrorism. this is what they want and here we are handing it to them.

they fight to make us leave and we have devolved power to people moths ago were shooting at us and days ago were mounting militia style gorilla attacks.

all we have done is what the dutch did with canabis.... it was a probelem so they legalised it and now it isnt a probelm.

bad analogy ok but the sentiment lies terroism has had a success in falluja.

fr1j0l3

lol....

That's a bad analogy... cannibis isn't running around ambuching military convoys, or attacking civvie contractors...

I would like to see it legalised tho. (waaaay off topic)

DudeMan

YEAH I KNOW ITS A
pretty bad analogy but the gyst remains true, in my opinion any way.

and dude i may have used the analogy but hell yeah i want to see that legislation.... Dudemans shopping list post legislation for the week.

24 pack carling black label
1 bottle of jamersons
500 splifs
and lots and lots os skittles for the munchies.


tha sounds like a blast.lol


but tooo far off topic.

Sniper

i showed this to my class. they were in awe.

__________________
New Server1 IP. Read the stickies!!

This is how you check your STEAMID and register it.

DudeMan

what the bit about the drugs.... lol

yes its a haroin story.

leejo

Here's an update on Falluja.

Before taking over in Fallujah, the Marines identified 28 individuals who were leading the insurgency in and around Fallujah. To date the Marines have killed or captured 27 of them, he said. The coalition is clearly winning.

....

After seeing American citizens dragged through the streets a few months ago, many likely expected to see the Marines drop the sledgehammer in Fallujah. But the truth is that all branches of the U.S. military are able to employ more surgical strikes when the situation calls for it. "The military is a pretty educated force," Col. Coleman told me. "What you may be witnessing is that our toolkit is fairly broad these days." Col. Coleman admits using the Fallujah Brigade wasn't necessarily the Marines' first preference and he's not yet convinced that it will ultimately prove to be a model worth replicating around the country. But, he said, coalition forces learn from their operations and if the coalition is to build a stable country, "everything we do here should endeavor to put an Iraqi lead up front."