Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on September 23, 2004, 09:31:25 PM

Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: AKIron on September 23, 2004, 09:31:25 PM
My son and I were discussing Iraq. He can't understand why we don't just level the city and be done with it. I told him that besides the political aspect it makes sense to encourage the insurgents to congregate at a central battlefield. Makes identifying the enemy much easier and as they commit more and more of their forces to this area we will eventually be able to unleash our full military might against more of them.

Opinions?
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: B17Skull12 on September 23, 2004, 09:36:24 PM
you simply can't kill them all.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Flit on September 23, 2004, 09:37:01 PM
Sounds like a plan to me
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: AKS\/\/ulfe on September 23, 2004, 09:40:16 PM
Civilians. We took a war to their country, just the same as terrorists took their war to ours.

Can't just be pissed about the civilian lives lost in our country and turn a blind eye towards the ones there - wiping them out senselessly.
-SW
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Gixer on September 23, 2004, 09:43:54 PM
Problem is the problem isn't just confined to Falluja, or ever will be. The militas will just take the fight somewhere else.


...-Gixer
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: AKIron on September 23, 2004, 09:53:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gixer
Problem is the problem isn't just confined to Falluja, or ever will be. The militas will just take the fight somewhere else.


...-Gixer


These militia do not have infinite numbers. If they perceive Falluja as the stronghold to resist the coalition and particularly the US will they not gather there to strengthen the force defeating the infidel? How would one go about encouraging this?
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: B17Skull12 on September 23, 2004, 10:05:26 PM
but iron lets face it as long as they have support from outside groups then you might as well call it infinite.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Nash on September 23, 2004, 10:38:44 PM
Prolly 5,000 of these insurgents a coupla months ago.

20,000 of them now.

My god, they seem to multiply. Funny how that works.

You think 20,000 is a lot? I do.

But it's a drop in the bucket.

You being happy about them congregating in a single place (false, btw) reminds me of an old movie called Zulu.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Nefarious on September 23, 2004, 11:05:30 PM
It must be hard to explain the War to a Child (Just guessing on how old your kid is), In my oppinion your statement is good.

Although, when you tell him that allowing them to build in mass so "We can uleash our full military might" against them, He probably thinks you meant "level the city and be done with it" anyway.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: -tronski- on September 23, 2004, 11:07:20 PM
Because leveling Grozny worked wonders didn't it....

 Tronsky
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Gunslinger on September 23, 2004, 11:16:46 PM
alot of you guys are comparing apples to oranges here.  No one is ever or wants to level faluja except for the insurgents holding the city.  They'd love to see all the civies killed there because it helps their cause.

The truth of the matter is they are in fact contained there.  Yes, every other citizen of faluja suffers but with hope and effort that can all end.  

To think all is lost in Iraq is an opinion I just don't comprehend.  Then again I have alot of friends that have been there or are currently there and they see such a different opinion of the place than that of what's being painted in the media.

Even between countrys the coverage is different.  I've heard that places like the UK all you see at the nightly news is devistation and carnage in Iraq every night (I might be wrong that's just what I heard) if that's the case than yes you would have a negative opinion on the subject.  But, the people that are there paint a completly opposit opinion of what's going on.

My opinion.....yes it's a mess....but not one that can't be untangled if it is allowed to succeed.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Nash on September 23, 2004, 11:21:46 PM
How nice...

Brace yourself.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Gunslinger on September 23, 2004, 11:22:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
How nice...

Brace yourself.


for what?
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: AKIron on September 24, 2004, 12:17:40 AM
Much easier to destroy an enemy willing to fight in the open than one hiding among civilians. Maybe not in practicality but easier on the conscience anyhow.

Sorry to disappoint some of you but I refuse to feel responsible for creating terrorists that would deny freedom for the sake of their religion.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Nefarious on September 24, 2004, 12:26:09 AM
On Topic: I thought this thread was about how Iron explained the events in Fallujah? Not Armchair Strategy about how the war should be fought.


Off Topic: hey Flit, My dad lives in Winchester and I used to live in Shepherdstown WV, Maybe next time I'm in She-town we could meet at the Mechlenburg Inn? or Tony's? You familiar with Shepherdstown?
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: AKIron on September 24, 2004, 12:45:45 AM
It's about both Nefarious. My son, who is 21 btw, can't understand why we are so willing to absorb losses to protect those so intent on our destruction. I think he believes that anyone in Falluja is there by choice even though there has been a battle going on for some time now.

As we discussed this I realized that perhaps it is a good thing militarily to have your enemy concentrate his forces rather than sneaking around among civilians.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: RTSigma on September 24, 2004, 12:57:59 AM
There was a quote I believe...I can't remember who said it:


Terrorism and civillians are like fish and water. The terrorists are fish and the civillians are water. Take away the water and the fish can't survive.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Nefarious on September 24, 2004, 01:04:35 AM
Sorry, Didnt know your son was that old.

I'm sure he can make his own assumptions on the fighting in Fallujah.

As for all the Armchair Strategy, I really dont want to be involved.

Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: AKIron on September 24, 2004, 01:35:44 AM
Well, he is just a kid afterall, I want him to make the correct assumptions. ;)

As to the armchair general part, we always did like our wargames and can't help but examine this from a stratergerically viewpoint.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Boroda on September 24, 2004, 07:12:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by -tronski-
Because leveling Grozny worked wonders didn't it....

 Tronsky


There is a big difference between assault in Grozniy and Fallujah.

First: Grozniy was turned into a giant fortress by Chechen gangs. There were no civilians there. When Federal troops surrounded Grozniy they gave several weeks for unarmed people to leave the city.

Second: Russian Army fought the organised force of criminals, who invaded neighbouring provinces of Russia, who performed genocide of non-Chechen population there for over 8 years, who praciticed slavery and kidnapping as national business.

Third: we have built that city. It was built by thousands of Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews, etc, who were later raped, murdered and robbed by "freedom fighters".
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Dowding on September 24, 2004, 08:19:49 AM
There were no civilians in Grozny, it's simply redikulus.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Boroda on September 24, 2004, 08:28:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
There were no civilians in Grozny, it's simply redikulus.


The war went on for several month when Grozniy was surrounded.

Any _unarmed_ person had several weeks to leave Grozniy before the assault started.

If there were "civilians" left there - they were the kind of "civilians" that hide their automats and go to be interviewed by Western journalists about how evil Russians raped them ten times and burned a hut where they held their slaves.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Muckmaw1 on September 24, 2004, 08:29:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Prolly 5,000 of these insurgents a coupla months ago.

20,000 of them now.

My god, they seem to multiply. Funny how that works.

You think 20,000 is a lot? I do.

But it's a drop in the bucket.

You being happy about them congregating in a single place (false, btw) reminds me of an old movie called Zulu.


And multiplying as fast as Iran can send them over.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Dowding on September 24, 2004, 08:33:59 AM
... and Saudi Arabia.

The border is porous with little control. Anybody can get in there.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Muckmaw1 on September 24, 2004, 08:53:22 AM
Kinda like Texas....
Title: Re: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Gixer on September 25, 2004, 01:36:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
My son and I were discussing Iraq. He can't understand why we don't just level the city and be done with it. I told him that besides the political aspect it makes sense to encourage the insurgents to congregate at a central battlefield. Makes identifying the enemy much easier and as they commit more and more of their forces to this area we will eventually be able to unleash our full military might against more of them.

Opinions?




AkIron,

Was thinking more about this. The problem certinly isn't confined to just Falluja and although the troops on the ground are doing an excellent and very tough job. One has to wonder whether they really are too few in numbers (by about 100,000) to shut the militas down.

Unfortunate that the Iraqi Army was disbanded but in heindsight eveything is 20/20 as we well know.

What's needed is to shut down the boarders,  and stop the militas from coming in from other countries. Which of course would require alot more troops. It would be great if other countries would pick up the ball and run but unfortunetly Bush's decsion to go into Iraq in the first place wasn't a very popular one outside of the US so lack of support is hardly unexpected.

I think from the begining the number of troops required to secure the country was well under what's needed. And unfortunetly probably attributed to alot more casulties and wounded then necessary.

Sieging Falluja isn't going to help a great deal other then to annoy the local population as the militas seem to be spread all over Iraq.

One thing about the boarders is that they are generally away from built up areas so the military can use all it's might.

It is good however to see that the US military appears to be adapting all the time. To tactics and strategy. With security in Iraq then they really might start to win the "hearts and minds" of the population and in turn, turn them against the militas.

Anyway, not really an answer just my opinion.



...-Gixer
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: Torque on September 25, 2004, 02:09:11 PM
Ho Chi Minh tatctics.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: GreenCloud on September 25, 2004, 03:10:58 PM
lol..the borders in Iraq...

im thinking its fairly easy to track groups of people crossing the border..

sounds sensors..UAVs...ect..

shootn fish in a barrel

so..if we are killing them 50 -1...they wont last long
Title: Re: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: anonymous on September 25, 2004, 04:02:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
My son and I were discussing Iraq. He can't understand why we don't just level the city and be done with it. I told him that besides the political aspect it makes sense to encourage the insurgents to congregate at a central battlefield. Makes identifying the enemy much easier and as they commit more and more of their forces to this area we will eventually be able to unleash our full military might against more of them.

Opinions?


youre not far off the mark. plenty of senior planning and org type insurgents not very happy with falluj becoming big rallying cry and drawing all their future recruits into a battle where they getting slaughtered and not really able to hit back. they are getting slaughtered. and you can kill them all effectively. and not anyone can walk into iraq. plenty get caught trying to cross border and they are getting slaughtered as well.
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: anonymous on September 25, 2004, 04:03:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
... and Saudi Arabia.

The border is porous with little control. Anybody can get in there.


according to who? :)
Title: Falluja and military strategery
Post by: anonymous on September 25, 2004, 04:04:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
There were no civilians in Grozny, it's simply redikulus.


when was the last time you were in grozny in time of war? and tell me how you learned that terrorist never pose as "victimized civilian" to western media? were they slaughtering innocent "chechen" civvies JUST LIKE THEY DID IN JENIN?