Fallujah In Afghanistan

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Ashley-the-man 2/7/2010 12:35:49 PM

The battle of Fallujah had the makings of a Tet Offensive in Iraq. In Tet, the Viet Cong were virtually eliminated as a fighting force in South Vietnam, but North Vietnam continued the fight by sending troops south to fight and when the U.S. lost heart, invaded and conquored Sough Vietnam.

As documented above, Fallujah was an American tactical victory. It remained for the Administration and military leadership to devise a strategy and new leaders to keep the victory from becoming another Tet. When President Bush sent General Petreaus to Iraq, and relieved Sec. Rumsfeld with Sec. Gates, he found his leaders. Gen Petreaus in his Counterinsurgency Field Manual quoted an officer in Iraq as saying that "counterinsurgency warfare is not just thinking man's warefare-it is the graduate level of war. Special Forces Officer in Iraq, 2005." In 2006 Petreaus assembled an all star team to update and give new urgency to the Army Counterinsurgency policy. Then in 2007 this modern day von Clauswitz was given the rare chance to take his "graduate level" method of fighting along with a "PHD" class of military officers, and advisors and State Department personnel to stabilize Iraq.

The exceptional war fighting ability of the highly trained soldiers in Fallujah also translated well to the plan Petreaus had - to provide security for the populace by living amoung them and protecting them from al Qaeda, the Baathists and the forces loyal to Sadr.

The question that remains is was the battle of Fallujah necessary? Marine General Mattis was not at all in favor of the campaign. He envisioned a method of warefare for his marines that was similar to the ideas that General Petreaus would soon publish in his manual and then implement two years later.

Is a Fallujah type battle necessary in Marjah? The experience in Iraq would argue against it in some aspects. But even General Petreaus recognized a simple truth. Some folks just need killin.

Quote Reply

cwDeici 2/8/2010 1:44:53 PM

Indeed. Wonderful reply!

I disagree though, with that General. The Battle of Fallujah was far more of a good than a bad thing. It was a bad idea for the insurgents to defend it as intensively as they did.

I don't know what the arguments were, but the media will latch on to negative news no matter what, a battle might be more fodder for them than otherwise but battles are often necessary. Rather than find ways around it it'd be better to find ways to deal with the media.

Quote Reply

Ashley-the-man 2/9/2010 12:41:03 PM

I have to get my battle sequences in order. It was the first battle of Fallujah that General Mattis opposed. After the Blackwater employees were killed and strung up, the administration wanted to find the perpetrators and used a heavy hand to punish the population. General Mattis intended for his marines to patrol the city on foot and establish positive relations with the people. He expected to do some detective work and identify the ring leaders who were the killers. His ideas were right out of the Counterinsurgency manual that would follow in a couple of years, and that would draw on the experience of Fallujah to point to a new way of fighting.

By the time of the second battle, Fallujah and Anbar province were so infested with al-Qaeda and Baathists that it was necessary to clean out the die-hards so that they could no longer intimidate the people into supporting them. The first battle was ill planned and compromised by interference from Washington. General Mattis was not consulted regarding his opinion before the first battle and when his forces were called off he was just as irate that once started the battle should have been completed.

The second battle benefited from lessons learned and was undertaken with extensive planning and a clearer objective.

The military leaders in Iraq were very good at battlefield tactics, and proved that their training and skills could successfully translate into counterinsurgency type of warfare when General Petraeus implemented his ideas.

Quote Reply

kerravon 2/11/2010 5:45:30 AM

"After the Blackwater employees were killed and strung up, the administration wanted to find the perpetrators and used a heavy hand to punish the population."

Not sure why you think that. Going into Fallujah to investigate, and responding to armed opposition to that, is hardly a desire to punish the population.

"By the time of the second battle, Fallujah and Anbar province were so infested with al-Qaeda and Baathists that it was necessary to clean out the die-hards so that they could no longer intimidate the people into supporting them."

Bingo. The people of Fallujah got a taste of being intimidated by terrorists - to find out first-hand that "rule by terrorist" isn't as glorious as Al Jazeera said it would be. I suspect that they told all their friends and family that too, and for some reason they decided that opposing terrorists was much better than supporting them, and now it's as quiet as a mouse, most of them intend to vote, and go along with the democratic, cooperative alternative. Funny that. I heard that it was the "forced marriages" that broke the camel's back.

"The first battle was ill planned and compromised"

That's not my understanding. As far as I know, the US had the enemy all bottled up and were about to lay waste to them. The troops knew how close they were to eliminating the pricks, and were outraged at being told to pull back by @#$*#@ civilians (like me).

"by interference from Washington."

Right, look what those @*#$#@ civilians achieved by that. Fallujah quiet as a mouse. Sons of Iraq. An Arab Muslim democracy that didn't vote for Islamic radicals (the sort of people who are into forced marriages in fact). Some said it was impossible. When all that was required was to temporarily piss off some Marines. No long term damage.

"General Mattis was not consulted regarding his opinion before the first battle and when his forces were called off he was just as irate that once started the battle should have been completed."

Sometimes sand-bagging terrorists is a good thing. These nutcases truly believed that they could defeat ("provably" so!) the US military, when Saddam's hundreds of thousands of soldiers couldn't. These are the same nutcases who believe that the US lost in Vietnam, or that the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan. I wouldn't have sand-bagged Vietnam personally, but the treacherous Democrats did at least get these nutcases to reveal their anti-US sentiments thinking that they were in a position to get away with it.

"The second battle benefited from lessons learned and was undertaken with extensive planning and a clearer objective."

Both battles were straightforward technical tasks given to the military to control territory, and it's a minor detail how that is played out, the US military completely overwhelms the opposition no matter who or where or when. The quibbling is about whether you get a 1:20 or 1:30 kill ratio, right? Or is it whether it is won in 1 week or 2 weeks?

Quote Reply

Ashley-the-man 2/15/2010 3:06:44 AM

"The first battle was ill planned and compromised"

I agree with your reply. To clarify, I didn't mean the battle was ill planned by the marines. On the contrary, they did a great job. The "ill planned" was that they were forced into a battle they did not want, but after it got underway, the marines did a typical good job. While the marine generals did not want the battle, after they had made significant progress they were upset that they were called off. Again, they were not consulted and the marines all knew that if they had beel allowed to finish, that the second battle of Fallujah may not have been necessary, or that the insurgents would have had much less success in setting up a base in Fallujah.

While much criticism has been directed against Bush and Rumsfeld, the fact is that the army had no strategic vision of how to conduct a counterinsurgency campaign. Without this mindset and culture, the army was never able to advise Bush on an effective strategy to win in Iraq. Even Powell when asked by the Iraq Study Group what it would take to be successful in Iraq, he replyed that he did not know. Not until retired General Jack Keane and General Petraeus were able to council Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did President Bush finally have a strategy presented to him that gave confidence that the war could succeed.

Quote Reply