By the standard of a few dozen Marines in a compound that "have the duty of protecting their turf while engaging and defeating 70 attackers. 20-30 enemies going prone to provide covering fire while 50 attackers make their move is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the enemy probably knows every weakness of the place they're assailing. These Marines weren't holed up in a substantial fortress, just a walled compound. But again, we don't know the details yet. Still confused by the "wave after wave" reports."
We are arrayed like this to avoid presenting high value targets like barracks or dorms would present. Remember Beirut and Khobar. To do this right, our guys need pin point and fast tactical support or they are dead in short order. You can't fire when you can't lift your head.
We are arrayed like this to avoid presenting high value targets like barracks or dorms would present. Remember Beirut and Khobar. To do this right, our guys need pin point and fast tactical support or they are dead in short order. You can't fire when you can't lift your head. Yes, I agree. And that was my point, that caused a lot of disagreement on this thread. I was airing a worry that the tactical air support might have not been as "robust" or quick as it should have been. And I later speculated that the Fallujah operation might have distracted the Marines from other concerns. We don't know.
This dispersal of forces presents opportunities to the enemy, and if they're game, they can take advantage of vulnerable pockets of our troops. My point about the 70 attackers is that 70 guys armed with AKs and RPGs can cause a lot of hurt, especially if they get a little bit lucky, and have the element of surprise on their side.
That article about Bremer trying to incite these sort of battles is very interesting.