Burnt Orange Report

December 02, 2004

Why Fallujah Matters

By Andrew Dobbs

I saw this article by Max Boot from the LA Times and I'd reccomend it to everyone- supporters of the war (such as this blogger, who has come to realize the justness of our cause) can use it to bolster their confidence in our mission and reflexive opponents should read it to understand that we ARE winning.

Nothing except a battle lost can be half as melancholy as a battle won.

-The Duke of Wellington (...)

It is right and proper to mourn the death of 71 Americans and the wounding of hundreds more. As Wellington realized, martial glory rings hollow when weighed against the cost in blood. But it is wrong to rush to the opposite extreme by assuming, as so much of the current commentary implicitly does, that war solves nothing and that all casualties are meaningless. In fact, many of the turning points of history have been battles, such as Wellington's victory at Waterloo, which ended for all time the threat of French expansionism in Europe. (...)

Coalition troops killed 1,200 to 1,600 guerrillas and captured more than 1,000. They uncovered 26 bomb factories, 350 arms caches (containing thousands of weapons), several chemical weapons laboratories and eight houses where hostages were held and probably tortured and killed. And they accomplished all this with less than half the number of casualties suffered in Hue, Vietnam, in 1968, the last major urban assault mounted by the Marine Corps. (...)

This is not meant to suggest that everything went perfectly. Many terrorists were able to escape Fallouja before the assault and create mayhem in Mosul, where the local police folded with dismaying speed. But U.S. and Iraqi forces quickly shifted their focus to the north and snuffed out the uprising in Mosul. Now they are pressing their offensive in the "triangle of death" south of Baghdad.

The best news of recent days is the growing competence of Iraqi security forces. Two thousand Iraqis fought alongside 10,000 Americans in Fallouja and, by all reports, they performed reasonably well. In the operations south of Baghdad, Iraqis are said to outnumber British and American troops.

Skeptics are right to point out that no insurgency can be defeated by force alone, but it's also true that effective military action is usually a prerequisite for a political settlement. Only if the insurgents are convinced they cannot shoot their way to power will they give up their guns. (...)

Even in a best-case scenario, however, the bombings and beheadings won't end the day after the vote. It can take a decade or more to defeat an insurgency (Colombia has been fighting Marxist guerrillas since 1966), and even a small number of determined fighters can wreak mayhem. In the 1970s, fewer than 100 members of the Baader-Meinhof gang terrorized West Germany, a country that is considerably more populous and more stable than Iraq, which is estimated to have at least 10,000 insurgents.

Thus, for all their success in Fallouja, we should not expect U.S. troops to completely pacify Iraq anytime soon. What they can do — what they are doing — is to keep the insurgents from derailing a political process that, one hopes, will soon result in the creation of a legitimate government that can field indigenous security forces and defend itself.

To paraphrase the words of John Stuart Mill, war is an ugly thing, but not quite as ugly as believing that there is nothing worth fighting and dying for. I wasn't aware of how many insurgents we had killed and captured- somewhere between 2200 and 2600- perhaps a quarter of their force- while we lost 71 soldiers- about 1/20 of 1% of our entire force. And though I wish that we didn't have to lose even one soldier, that sounds like a victory to me.

We also dramatically reduced their ability to strike out against Americans and innocent Iraqis by capturing a significant ammount of their materiel. And no insurgency can succeed without a stable base of operations. Castro succeeded because he had the mountains and Mexican bases, the mujahedeen succeeded because they had Pakistan, etc. Now that their main base of operations has been shut down and their plan B and plan C (Mosul and the "triangle of death") are not serious options, they are scattered. There will still be a large contingent of bad guys, but if they aren't coordinated, they have limited munitions and are constantly on the run, their effect will be small (relative to what exists now).

In another part of the column that I decided not to quote, Boot points out that when we struck against Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia, they learned quickly that the ballot box is a more viable option than violence. Sunni insurgents seem to be learning that lesson now, leaving only a small, uncoordinated insurgency that a nascent Iraqi military can handle on its own. In essence, the insurgency is on the run and our military is ready for the fight. The elections offer an opportunity for more peaceful redress of grievances, and we must keep them on schedule. If we continue shutting down insurgent bases, developing the Iraqi military and hold free and fair elections, we will have accomplished a great deal.

Fallujah was the turning point in this effort and we should be proud of our soldiers' performance there. Things are looking up, and if we succeed, it will mean a better world for billions of people- not the least of which will be our own countrymen.

Posted by Andrew Dobbs at December 2, 2004 04:59 PM | TrackBack

Comments

I call bullshit.

If Fallujah is a turning point to a good outcome, perhaps you can give a rough outline of what we should expect to see in the future.

How many Iraq War supporters foresaw things getting this bad?

People who are emotionally invested in supporting bad policy are able to spin anything as progress. But just because you can spin it doesn't mean it's true.

I also question the premise that the world is better off with the United States having invaded Iraq. Who is better off? How are they better off?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg at December 2, 2004 05:16 PM

Wow!
"Coalition troops killed 1,200 to 1,600 guerrillas and captured more than 1,000. They uncovered 26 bomb factories, 350 arms caches (containing thousands of weapons), several chemical weapons laboratories..."
And the kill ratio is 20:1, not the 10:1 of virtually every Viet Nam battle.
I feel FANTASTIC!
Wait... I just remembered, the kill counts always proved wrong.
Wait... How could the attacks increase if we just killed a thousand and captured another thousand? How many freaking insurgents are there?
Wait... Why do 90% of Iranians want us gone if this war is improving their world?
...
Well, it certainly feels better to thump my chest than it does to actually recognize and accept that real life is NOT simple.

Posted by: Doug Hobkirk at December 2, 2004 07:19 PM

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to make sure I hit on everything...

Doug- we are in Iraq, not Iran. I know that for someone who probably gets all of his news from Pravda and Daily Kos, you might get them confused. They are neighbors and their names are 75% identical, but they are in fact different countries.

But moving beyond your slip of the keyboard, the fact of the matter is that there is no singular base of operations for the insurgency. There is no "headquarters", they have no way of administrating anything beyond a series of localized efforts with less money, less munitions and less fighters than before. Without coordination and consolidation, they are dramatically less effective. Taking Fallujah did this.

Furthermore, you have no evidence to back up your "90%" number. Show me a source and we'll get to that. But I'm sure 90% of the Japanese relaly resented our being there after WWII, but their grandkids are pretty happy we did it. If we can turn a society locked in the Middle Ages, bred on a vicious anti-Western dogma, run by an unelected cadre of hereditary dictators that had just emerged from a brutal war with the United States that left their capital firebombed into oblivion and two of their largest cities nuked we can certainly do something worthwhile in Iraq.

And the attacks have actually DECREASED pretty significantly since the sacking of Fallujah. They still exist, but if you'll actually read the article (I know how hard it is to break out of the anti-war cocoon, I did it myself), he says there are roughly 10,000 insurgents. Oops, make that 7400 insurgents- we killed or captured a quarter of them over a period of about 3 weeks.

Carl- If you would read beyond the first sentence of an article you disagree with you would find that both Boot and I spell out a rough outline, but I'll do it again for you. We kick the insurgents out of their strongholds (check), thus scattering them to the winds, dramatically reducing the number of fighters available and munitions and other necessary implements of terror within their reach (check, check, check). We continue chasing and fighting them and also hold elections that are free and fair- making it clear to the more sensible fighters in their midst (those like al-Sadr's Mehdi militia) that there are far more comfortable ways to protest the government (check in January). We train a solid Iraqi army (in the process of checking) and police force (ditto on the check process) that can fight these guys off with little to no help from our side. Now Iraq is relatively peaceful, is more or less self-reliant, has a freely elected government that is limited by a liberal (I mean that in the old way) constitution that also sits on the second largest oil reserves in the world. They use this to rebuild their economy and over the course of a decade or two you have a free, peaceful, prosperous Muslim democracy smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. How is any part of that bad? If you don't think that the people of Iraq and the people of the United States aren't better off in that situation as opposed to having a genocidal madman handing checks to terrorists and building weapons to blow up free people all over the world when he isn't wantonly invading his neighbors, you are insane.

And every war starts out with both sides predicting quick victory. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you should give up on it. Yes, we are in a tough situation, tougher than we predicted. But this isn't a sign that we should give up but rather that we should fight harder. Losers (like most Leftists) think that when the going gets tough you should just fold up your tents and quit. Winners (like the United States) try harder. That's why we'll win, and when we win, the world wins.

Posted by: Andrew D at December 2, 2004 08:00 PM

"Amen" all the way around, Andrew ... Amen.

Posted by: Greg Wythe at December 2, 2004 09:01 PM

"Winners (like the United States) try harder. That's why we'll win, and when we win, the world wins."

Yea! Hooray!

Posted by: America! at December 2, 2004 09:16 PM

Over Thanksgiving I visited with a family friend who spent his teenage years living in the Netherlands under Nazi German rule. He told stories of how he was in the Dutch resistance, and how one family , also in the resistance, was found out by the Nazis, and how they were dragged out of their home into the street and shot in front of the other townspeople, and how their bodies were made to be left in the street for several days so that all could see what happened to people who resisted the Nazi occupation. These were people who were defending their homeland against an invading army who wanted to change their government and their way of life. Listening to this man's stories, I was shocked to see the parallels between what he went through and what our nation's troops are doing today in Iraq. What we call guerillas Iraqis might call resistance fighters. How would you feel if a foreign power invaded us?

Posted by: grnwayrob at December 2, 2004 09:29 PM

hold elections that are free and fair

What's a "free and fair" election? Do the Iraqis get to elect a government that is critical of how Israel treats the Palestinians? Who is pushing "free and fair" elections? Bush? Allawi?

We train a solid Iraqi army

Define "solid Iraqi army".

that can fight these guys off with little to no help from our side.

If this is going to happen in the next six months, why hasn't it happened in the last 18?

They use this to rebuild their economy and over the course of a decade or two you have a free, peaceful, prosperous Muslim democracy smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. How is any part of that bad?

The wishful thinking part which is the whole thing.

If you don't think that the people of Iraq and the people of the United States aren't better off in that situation as opposed to having a genocidal madman handing checks to terrorists and building weapons to blow up free people all over the world when he isn't wantonly invading his neighbors, you are insane.

How is the United States better off occupying Iraq than having Saddam Hussein in charge? Don't give me some fantasy scenario in the future. Today. How is the United States in a better situation than if Bush had taken Hussein's offer to conduct complete weapons inspections?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg at December 2, 2004 09:34 PM

Wow, that little bit of moral equivalence on grnwayrob's part was just a little bit sickening. They aren't fighting for freedom. Half of them want Saddam to return because he gave them good paychecks for pulling out people's fingernails and bilking them out of money while they starved to death and the other half wants to beat women with cables for having the audacity to show their face. That's why they are different from the resistance in WWII.

But if your mind is so twisted that you see similarity between people fighting fascists to save the lives of Jews and other innocent people and people fighting the United States so they can kill Jews and innocent people, you probably can't comprehend that.

Both Bush and Allawi are pushing for free and fair elections, and the answer to your question about a government critical of Israel would be yes. If they freely elect a government that we disagree with, as long as it doesn't violate its people's fundamental human rights, I'd say is okay with me. And the only reason they have that right is because we went in there and fought for it.

A solid Iraqi Army would be one that can defend its own people from insurgents or invasion with little to no help from the US.

And they have been keeping the insurgents on the defensive- that's why we still control most of the country. In fact, we control significantly more territory than we did 3 months ago, and 3 months ago we held more than 12 months ago and 12 months ago we held more than we ever had before (zero before the war). But the reason the Iraqi Army hasn't been completely successful is BECAUSE IT DIDN'T FUCKING EXIST 18 MONTHS AGO. It is in the process of being created from the ground up, so you and your immature Leftist pals can just hold your fucking horses- these things take time.

I would call it the logical end of recent developments, not "wishful thinking." You cannot deny that the insurgency is on the run, that their capabilities are significantly reduced and that we are within a month and a half of the first free elections in the entire history of Iraq and that Iraqi forces are being trained at a fast pace (and they are fighting well). If these trends continue, the insurgency will be defeated, Iraq will be a democracy and they will be completely self-reliant in our lifetimes.

And how is that good for the US? Because the US isn't just a collection of people living within certain borders- it is an idea, an experiment that says that people should live free of oppression. And when a country that happens to be in an area vital to the United States is harboring the antithesis to that idea, it is an affront to our country. Saddam Hussein posed a real and present danger to our country- by supporting terror, developing weapons of mass destruction and threatening his neighbors with aggression. He doesn't do any of those things any more and he never will again.

Looks like a good day for the US.

Posted by: Andrew D at December 2, 2004 09:59 PM

Why cling to what is being desperately spun as a short term tactical accomplishment (more like a massacre), when the strategic picture is a spiraling disaster with no end in sight?

Oh yeah, there haven't been any other tactical victories for you to feel good about in a long time, I understand. Killing civilians is worth that feeling, isn't it.

Posted by: melior at December 3, 2004 01:49 AM

How long are these other people at the BOR going to let you participate in this site? You ARE sounding more like a conservative every day, I like that. This descusion you've been carrying on with is very sound. "Thriingg" You've been Hannitized. Welcome over to my side Andrew. There are sooo many good things to come in the next four years. War can be tuff. There was the Battle of the Coral Sea before Midway. Bush's America is no equivilent to Hitler's Germany. Insurgents are not the modern underground or the "Underground Railroad".

Posted by: peter at December 3, 2004 05:52 AM

I suppose they'll keep letting me blog until I say something patently offensive, though I haven't talked to Byron about it. I'm still a Democrat because I just can't stomach the corruption and lack of principle within the GOP. I suppose a lot of that has to do with the amount of power they posess- it is easy to be pure when you are completely out of the nation's leadership. Still, Bush has dramatically expanded the role of the federal government in education, health care, domestic security and so on and I just can't believe that a party (rightly) devoted to states' rights can do such a thing without having admitted to caring more about winning elections than serving its cause. I can't be a part of the party of Tom DeLay and I feel an obligation to take them down a notch so they can clean up their act. Furthermore, I feel that I have to stand with my moderate and conservative Democratic brothers and sisters to keep our party from self-destructing into a Michael Moore-esque Leftist nighmare. I have to fight off the party of corruption and keep my party from being corrupted by extremists- so I'll stick to my guns for now.

As for melior- you and your anti-war comrades all tend to sound rather incoherent and hysterical. Massacre? Yes- we killed people. The vast majority of them were evil, fascistic terrorists who would do anything just to have a chance to kill you and every member of your family. There were innocents killed, and we hate that- most of them because the aforementioned assholes use them as human shields. The difference between us and them (and I know you have trouble realizing that there is a difference) is that when we went into Fallujah, we had two measures of success: did we get the job done and how few innocents were killed. When they do an operation, they ask: did we get the job done and how many innocents did we get to kill (which is their objective in the first place).

And it WAS a success. It doesn't need to be spun. Capturing a quarter of the enemy, seizing potentially millions of dollars worth of armaments and shutting down their main base of operations all adds up to a success. Is the war over? No. But this brings us closer to getting what you want- bringing our troops home. We have made an obligation to the people of Iraq and we can't leave until our mission is accomplished. Taking Fallujah was an important step.

And don't try and impugn my character or that of our soldiers. None of us want to see civilians killed, it is an unfortunate result of war. War is an awful thing- but being such a coward and so ungrateful for the freedoms we share that you are unwilling to risk anything (your life, your comfort, your innocence) to protect them is far far worse.

Finally, I want to ask (and I may do a separate post on this)- what would you do differently? If you were president right now, what would you do? Would you pull out all of our troops and abandon the people we made a promise to? And don't give me any of that "I wouldn't have gone there in the first place" bullshit- what's done is done. Just tell me- what would you do differently? Try and reason with people who cut the heads off of innocent women on video tape? The fact of the matter is we are doing the best we can in the situation we have and we ought not be so quick to point out the flecks in others' eyes when a plank sticks out of our own.

Posted by: Andrew D at December 3, 2004 06:37 AM

I do remember that the Victor's of WWII had many loses after the war. General Patton being the highest ranking loss to the postwar insurgency. Germany, Japan, and Italy had postwar insurgents trying to make the Victors pay for their loss of power.

Posted by: peter at December 3, 2004 06:38 AM

There is a myth of significant postware resistance in Germany and Japan.

It's not true, though to be fair, Condi Rice might simply be incompetent, and not a liar.

She is, after all the Soviet expert who did not know what a unit honorific was.

George Patton died in a minor traffic accident.

What are you smoking?

Posted by: Matthew Saroff at December 3, 2004 09:04 AM

No myth Matthew, a minor traffic acident killed General Patton, very curious? His death has always had some mystery in it. I suppose FM Rommel died in a minor car acident too. Thats what the papers said at the time.

Posted by: peter at December 3, 2004 09:34 AM

Andrew,
Relying on body counts is a very dubious way of quantifying success in a war, because a) it assumes the amount of enemies is finite and fixed and b) body counts in general have always proven to be inexact at best.

Let's assume that before the Falluja takeover the number given of 10,000 insurgents is correct. There were 10,000 insurgents, We have now captured/killed 2200 of them, or 22%. I predict that if you follow the daily newscasts/pentagon reports and keep count, that percentage will rise over the next several weeks to 35%, 45%, 65% and beyond, but the insurgent attacks on US troops and Iraqis will continue and be just as intense as before.

Today's wave of attacks dont seem to be a sign of an insurgency that is scattered or has its "back broken".

Posted by: john at December 3, 2004 09:37 AM

Dont know if its your web site or my computer, but there is a link in my previous post (at the word "wave" ) to selling mp3 players. Nothing to do with me and I dont know how it got in there.

Posted by: John at December 3, 2004 09:41 AM

Of course, you have dozens of witnesses to his death from pneumonia in the hospital following the accident, the reports of witnesses at the accident, etc.

What's your source for this?

Maybe they can point me to where Elvis is currently living.

Posted by: Matthew Saroff at December 3, 2004 10:02 AM

News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas

December 02, 2004

Why Fallujah Matters

By Andrew Dobbs