He's called Satan. He lives in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him."
-Lt Col Gareth Brandl, United States Marines
For those of you that don't want to be force-fed news, tough. This is easily the biggest thing to happen in Iraq since the invasion began last year. And it will undoubtaly prove a critical moment for the future of Iraq.
American and Iraqi forces have begun their assault on the insurgent-held city of Fallujah, in Iraq, where an estimated 2000 militants are said to be taking cover.
With the election a week old and convincing reports of voter fraud and disenfranchisement beginning to surface (beginning?), the best thing for the Bush administration is a renewed conflict.
What strategic advantadge does holding off the assault until now offer?
None. But the political advantadge is huge - the mass casualties the USA will suffer should insurgents fight will not have a baring on the election. And the fight will distract every major news service in the United States from the rising evidence of a stolen election.
The assault is neccessary, Drayson. Insurgents control the city, Iraqi elections are in two months, and there is no chan of free elections with a key city held by rebels.
There will be casualties, I promise you that. Another thing I promise you is that there is no way to negotiate with Islamic militants. They will not leave the city unless they are driven out.
"Elections" imply a certain ammount of choice. Since it's quite apparent that any Iraqi government is going to be reliant on the US Military to keep them from not being overthrown, it really makes no difference whether or not there are elections, or who wins.
They'll have to do what America says anyway.
And you clearly did not read the article, nor have knowledge of basic gurrella tactics. It's quite common for insurgent forces like these to simply "melt away" when faced with an overwhelming conventional force.
If they stay and fight, the insurgents will not win - obviously. They might inflict casualties, but that won't drive the USA out of Iraq. I predict a number will stay, but the majority will live to fight another day, in any number of other cities in Iraq.
At the very least, the siege of Fallujah kept most of the insurgents pinned down. The invasion may very well scatter them. Plus, the civilian deaths might just inspire more people to take up arms against the invaders.
It is indeed suscpiscious as to why they awaited until very shortly after the election to launch the attack. But I imagine there was little ill-effect, since the time could be given over to bringing in more troops and increasing training. Wether it was political or not is not too important, as the soldiers should suffer little - if any - for the delay.
Also, there are still tens of thousands of civilians in Fallujah, we can safely imagine that many would not want, would be incapable of, or would not be allowed out of the city. There are far more civilians then there are enemies, and since all a militant need do is drop his gun and round a corner and he's an upstanding citizen again, civilian casualties will probably occur.
The real problem is not these things, however, although it is connected. I see the problem as the fact that people are BECOMING militants in the first place, and when you think about it a large amount are probably not doing it because they're religious fanatics or ex-Baathists, many would probably become fighters because of civilian casualties including their relatives or friends, or because they feel this is an occupation.
Now, obviously if stability is to return to Iraq, in any way and under any banner, Fallujah would have to be stabalized quickly. Maybe there is a diplomatic way to coax them out and ensure peace, but it appears they have failed or have not tried, and as such military attacks would be the only option. The question remains as to whether the attack will be very precise and carefully done, ensuring minimal losses all around and establishing peace in the city, or if it will be bungled and will serve in only boosting the cause of militant groups.
