Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
I think your approach may mean more troops, but for sure it means lot o'dead marines. Easy for you arm chair generals to advocate.
|
Don't know that this is necessarily true. The marine snipers resting on rooftops and listening to Metallica can be given instructions to shoot any armed (non-coalition) person in sight. Fortified buildings can be shelled and bombed. We did it before, and I think there are more dead marines on an average day in Al-Anbar province after the Fallujah brigade's formation than back when they were doing what I describe above. If you are merely saying they don't necessarily have to go house-to-house in all cases because occupants of some houses will give plenty of cause to blow the house up from a distance without needing inspection/searching, than I agree with you. I'm not sure that Taxwonk is saying otherwise.
My bottom line is that there needs to be a cordon and a complete weapons-free (fire freely at armed persons) policy set up for Fallujah. The sooner the better. For the sake of setting an example, I'm in favor of being more on the indiscriminate side with that particular fucking place than being on the cautious call-Rummy for permission case-by-case side.
Despite what some here were saying 4 months ago in favor of not maintaining heavy forces in places like Fallujah, its clear that not maintaining heavy forces has produced the worst possible result: an emboldened enemy. People understand losses, and there will be a lot of Fallujahans who understand the error of their ways when the terrorists they embrace sustain a lot of losses. Until then, fuck them all.
Hello
