Fox
Quote:Cyclop, you've been doing a lot better reasoning out arguments lately and I respect your opinion. I think you are dead wrong. Everybody I know who is over there or who has been over there, and that is a lot of folks, think you are dead wrong including the four guys I know who were in Fallujah. The comments were made about nothing but Fallujah. The back of the insurgency in Fallujah was broken and Fallujah was a success. More people are being killed in Dallas or Detroit or Kansas City these days than are being killed in Fallujah.
Didn't you read the article that, I believe, WH posted?
Fallujah is a tightly-controlled, armed city full of American soldiers. Yes, it has been pacified, at a high cost.
But other than the fact that some of the Insurgents were there, there isn't a lot of strategic significance in the taking of Fallujah. It certainly killed many innocents as well as Insurgents, and it has ruined the lives of thousands and thousands more Iraqis. How many of them will BECOME Insurgents now? If it is only 1 or 2% that still dwarfs the number that we captured or killed there.
Pardon me if I don't take the word of some soldiers who fought in Fallujah as an accurate portrayal of how the war is going. Did you think they were going to come back and talk about how this huge attack was inaffectual in curbing the insurgency in the slightest? No, of course not; I wouldn't either if I had been there fighting. Did you think they would talk about all the civilian casualties? No, I wouldn't either if I had been there fighting.
I don't blame the soldiers for trying to put the best face on things possible, but some sense has to be used when judging the effects of a situation. Front-line soldiers, while courageous and admirable, are hardly strategists who understand the complex political and social systems of Iraq.
Neither are you and I, for that matter. All we can go by are statistics such as bombing deaths, American deaths, insurgent deaths, oil water and food successes/failures, and Iraqi Army training progress. We have failed miserably in all these categories except for American deaths; as the insurgents figured out that they could hit IA targets much much easier, they shifted to the more effective tactics. Hard to blame them, I wouldn't want to go up against US soldiers either....
It doesn't matter in the slightest that we pacified Fallujah; the cost was tremendous and the insurgency of Iraq as a whole was undiminished. I know that the overall theory would be to start doing the same to every town until they have nowhere to hide left, but the REALITY of the situation is that we're about 200k soldiers too few over there to effectively do that. And how many neighborhoods would we have to destroy?
Do we have to destroy Iraq in order to save it?
Cycloptichorn