Neolib, re: From a tactical standpoint, we should have backed off from Fallujah right near the end (after killing most of them) let it be known that we were pulling out, and they would have flocked back in over the next few weeks, at which point the exercise could be repeated with a similar kill ratio.
Our soldiers lost over 100 lives in "cleaning out" Fallujah. I think we have to be careful not to fall into a "trees" kind of thinking. While it's true that we can think of all kinds of strategies to maximize our kill/loss ratio, we should never neglect to ask what it is that we are accomplishing with such body count tactics.
In the case of Iraq it seems all too clear that we are educating the insurgents at a heavy cost to them, but at a heavy cost to us as well. If that heavy cost that the insurgents pay doesn't create fear-induced capitulation then the battle will continue with smarter tactics on their part.
When you lose the lives of your soldiers in an effort that does not further your overall objectives, can you then claim any kind of a victory? The answer is that you can convincingly claim a victory only to those who see battles as the ends. Those who see winning the "war" as the end will never acknowledge; "we sure killed more of them and kicked their asses" as a victory. The proof; ask yourself if now that we've "cleaned out" Fallujah the locals are our friends and can take over and keep it clear? No? Why not? It's because the balance of "willing to die power" is not on "our" side there.
We lost those 100+ lives pursuing a policy of urban warfare to "clean out" insurgents from a population in Fallujah that will continue to supply recruits and support insurgents. To repeat the process at a cost of scores more of our soldiers, (if the insurgents are even stupid or suicidal enough to stay put and get bombed, rocketed and shelled again,) would be just as wasteful in terms of trying to win the overall war as the first "clean out" was. I wouldn't want to have one more American die for such a silly strategy.
When, and if, the various populations of Iraqis are willing to reject the insurgents ideas and goals, they won't need our help. As long as they refuse to reject those ideas and goals, however, our aggressive actions will not kill the resistance.
It's not that difficult. Destroying Fallujah, attacking in Sammara, and similar aggressive actions that blow up part of the local population and inflame many others, may kill a few insurgents but will ultimately help, not hurt, their cause.
With the seemingly endless number of jihadists willing to join the insurgents in that area, what are we gaining? Someday a lot of fathers and mothers of the dead, as well as their buddies, are going to want to hear a sound answer to that question. I don't think there is one. Ed |
