Replies

You know, while there's absolutely no doubt as to Fallujah's hostility to Coalition forces, the thing is that guerrilla/terrorist groups love to commit crimes (say, a killing followed by a mutilation) in or near urban zones.

They know (as the FLN knew in Algeria or the Vietcong knew in Vietnam) that angered soldiers will eventually lash out at the whole population, thus scoring points in the neutral civilians for the terrorists' nasty propaganda tactics.

Look at what Pershing did in the Philippines, as was posted earlier in this thread. He did not call for an immediate bombings of nearby villages. He did not order his troops to kill indiscriminately. He acted selectively, and unleashed his furor at the bad guys, to whom he did not give any quarters (and that's real fine by me).

Saddam Hussein's regime was much more fragile than Tojo's or Hitler's. Thankfully, the Coalition did not have to fight millions and to sacrifice hundreds of thousands. What we have now is asymmetrical war : the Iraqi/Islamists insurgents know they can't defeat the Coalition forces, but they also know they can bleed them day after day until the Western leaders either pull out or lash out. And either way, it'll further their goals. Level Fallujah and you'll soon hear about another town to which "Fallujah" will have become a battle cry, in a twisted "Remember the Alamo" way.

Plus, it's been said that many insurgents do not come from Iraq. What is, to them, the leveling of Fallujah, except good propaganda ? What is, to them, the shooting of a thousand Iraqis because they have danced around a dead American body ?

I think we should try the Pershing way.