Triumph in Fallujah

The Blade of Toledo ^ | November 20, 2004 | Jack Kelly

[cfhBAMA]

Victory in Fallujah scant media respect. The rule of thumb for the last century or so has been that for a guerrilla force to remain viable, it must inflict seven casualties on the forces of the government it is fighting for each casualty it sustains, says former Canadian army officer John Thompson, managing director of the Mackenzie Institute, a think tank that studies global conflicts.

By that measure, the resistance in Iraq has had a bad week. American and Iraqi government troops have killed at least 1,200 fighters in Fallujah, and captured 1,100 more. Those numbers will grow as mop-up operations continue.

"That kill ratio would be phenomenal in any [kind of] battle, but in an urban environment, it's revolutionary," said retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, perhaps America's most respected writer on military strategy. "The rule has been that [in urban combat] the attacking force would suffer between a quarter and a third of its strength in casualties."

The victory in Fallujah was also remarkable for its speed, Peters said. Speed was necessary, he said, "because you are fighting not just the terrorists, but a hostile global media."

Fallujah ranks up there with Iwo Jima, Inchon and Hue as one of the greatest triumphs of American arms, though you'd have a hard time discerning that from what you read in the newspapers.

The swift capture of Fallujah is taxing the imagination of Arab journalists and -- sadly -- our own. How does one portray a remarkable American victory as if it were of little consequence, or even a defeat? For CNN's Walter Rodgers, camped out in front the main U.S. military hospital in Germany, you do this by emphasizing American casualties.

For The New York Times and The Washington Post, you do this by emphasizing conflict elsewhere in Iraq.

[Zeppelin]

Anybody know how many troops we've lost in the offensive on Fallujah?

[dinok]

The victory in Fallujah was also remarkable for its speed, Peters said. Speed was necessary, he said, "because you are fighting not just the terrorists, but a hostile global media."

Peters is right...look at NBC and their tape. They have yet to show the tape of Franench troops shooting civilians in the Ivory Coast last week. Bodies everywhere...French soldiers poping rounds at the crowd.

[Zeppelin]

found it...about 50 troops lost.

[Pastnowfuturealpha]

Not even Fox? Makes you wonder - But it is telling - Sure shows the bias from the world media - and our media -


The old media - since it is that - how about making it hard for those reporters to return to this nation - they have been sort of aiding the enemy - like put them in as people not wanted back in this nation - (Be nice if it could be done - in my opinion)

[SteveMcKing]

Fallujah ranks up there with Iwo Jima, Inchon and Hue as one of the greatest triumphs of American arms...

True enough, but the sacrifice is no comparison; allied soldiers died by the thousands throughout WW2.

[Deetes]

"But both the Arab media and ours emphasize that the attack on Fallujah has made a lot of Arabs mad.By this logic, once we've killed all the terrorists, they'll be invincible."

How true.

[JSteff]

"The swift capture of Fallujah is taxing the imagination of Arab journalists and -- sadly -- our own."

What shocks them more is that they know that if they had put more defenders there we would have liked it better... because we would have killed or captured more of them. They know if they mass anywhere, they are even more easily killed by us.

That must be mind numbing to them. Little groups or large groups... all size parties gladly and efficiently served.

[JSteff]

Only because we lacked the technology to efficiently kill the Japanese. We have the tools and the tactics now.

[VOA]

Speed was necessary, he said, "because you are fighting not just the terrorists,
but a hostile global media."

the writer is too polite to name names...but here's one: Kevin Sites.

[Haro_546]

"The rule of thumb for the last century or so has been that for a guerrilla force to remain viable, it must inflict seven casualties on the forces of the government it is fighting for each casualty it sustains".

I think this is wrong, the effectiveness of a guerrilla campaign is tied to the support from the local population.

[Paleo Conservative]

found it...about 50 troops lost.

That's a lot less than we've lost to terroristic acts planned and supported out ofo Falluja.

[Zeppelin]

I agree. Yet, while the ratio is relatively 'good', it is still 50 too many. My prayers go up to our brave young men. They were not lost in vain.

[konaice]

"The rule has been that [in urban combat] the attacking force would suffer between a quarter and a third of its strength in casualties."

This assessment seems rather unrealistic if you ask me because it seems to not take into account the size of the force, or technology, or even historical comparisons.

The isrealies don't lose anywhere near a quarter of their force when they periodically take over one of the Pali camps, and they never use as much air power as we do.

[FierceDraka]

About 40 KIA, a few hundred wounded, and no MIA pr POW.

The bad guys didn't get off so easy with around 1200 KIA, and 1000 POW.

Maintaining a 30-1 kill ratio in an urban environment is virtually unprecidented in the history of human warfare.

With only 6 percent of the world's military manpower, we could theoretically defeat every foreign army on Earth - without alliances - assuming the ability to maintain a kill ratio like that. And that is without even dipping into our nuckear stockpile.

I'm not advocating going to war against the whole damned world, just working out the math as an intellectual exercise.

[Zeppelin]

Yeah, and considering France would surrender as fast as their arms could go up, there's some lives saved right there. =P