November 21, 2004
THEY JUST KNOW THERE'S A STALINGRAD IN THERE SOMEWHERE (via Jim Yates):
Victory in Fallujah: Iraq's Iwo Jima gets scant media respect (Jack Kelly, November 21, 2004, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
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.These casualties were inflicted at a cost (so far) of 56 Coalition dead (51 Americans), and just over 300 wounded, of whom about a quarter have returned to duty.
"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.
When we went in it was estimated that there were about 3,000 "insurgents" there and it's now estimated we killed or captured as many as 2,600. Reports from the city uniformly tell us that the citizenry is ecstatic to be rid of them. To view all this in a negative light you really almost have to be rooting against America and iraqi democracy. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 21, 2004 3:14 PM
Ralph Peters is a smart guy.
How come he only made it to Lt. Col?
I'd have thought he'd be definite General material.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at November 21, 2004 3:22 PMThere's no "almost" about it. You have to be rooting against America and Iraqi democracy. And the fact that most every mainstream media figure would say that being a journalist means that you can't possibly root FOR America but must maintain strict neutrality between us and the Zarqawis of the world, is a scary thing, because we really do need a vibrant functioning media to keep the gov't honest, and the vast majority of Americans have no desire to listen to such morally bankrupt dolts.
Posted by: brian at November 21, 2004 3:32 PM"Ralph Peters is a smart guy. How come he only made it to Lt. Col?"
Not a bureaucrat or a politician. Didn't play nice with the other children. Also and related, I believe, he ran afoul of Rummy's reorganization of the military. Peters was I believe openly critical I think of Rummy's streamlining of the army.
Still has it in for Rumsfeld too, eg Peters as a columnist banged away at the "didn't send enough troops" to Iraq meme.
This is all from memory so you might want to google the details.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at November 21, 2004 3:49 PMI'm open to the argument that, as an American, a journalist's first and highest duty is to report objectively. The problem is that an obective observer would be reporting the historic nature of our victories in Iraq and in Falluja -- and in particular the effect those victories are likely to have on those who wish us ill.
That there is almost no such reporting tells us something about the lack of objectivity of the press, and for which side they are biased.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 21, 2004 4:16 PMThe numbers you quote are spears vs. Maxim guns. It seems like there would be a story here. But I don't have a journalism degree.
Urban warfare was supposed to be our Achilles heel. Well, scratch one more place off the list where America's enemies can hide.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 21, 2004 7:37 PMI don't know what Peters' specialty was, but Lt. Col. isn't a bad rank for staff officers to obtain.
Outside of the combat arms, in the Army, typically an officer will reach Lt. Col. in twelve to fifteen years, and stay there.
If you're good, they'll bump you up to Col. when you retire, for the extra pension benefits, but there are very few staff positions that call for Col.s and above.
David: There was an interesting post at lgf excerpting some of Kevin Sites' blog writing about how he was duty bound to report what he saw. The Marines had a mission to do, and if Mr. Sites has a mission that has nothing to do with that of the Marines, why was he there?
Posted by: brian at November 22, 2004 2:28 AM