----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Marie Abowd"
To: "Blade editors"
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:39 AM
Subject: Fw: FALLUJAH: THE END OF WARFARE
> THE WISDOM FUND News & Views
> MORE AT http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/1106-Fallujah.html
>
>
> December 20, 2004
> Outlook India
>
> FALLUJAH: THE END OF WARFARE
>
> Against the most heavily armed opponent in the history of War, Fallujah
has
> still not let itself be "taken" to date. The mightiest military machine in
> history has met its match. A turning point in military affairs? The end of
> warfare, as practiced by the Americans - the application of overwhelming
> force to obtain a victory?
>
> By Abhay Mehta
>
>
> Fallujah per se, on the face of it, is not a strategic or a militarily
> significant target. It however represents the "great challenge" to the
> US/UK's military occupation of Sovereign Iraq since April 2003.
>
> In the first siege of Fallujah in April 2004, the Iraqi Resistance
> inflicted a severe defeat on the Americans. In April 2004, while over
1,200
> Iraqis were killed, blown up, burnt or shot alive by the Americans < two
> thirds of them civilians, mostly women and children < while 2,000-pound
> bombs were falling on the the city, AC-130 Spectre gunships were
> demolishing entire city blocks in less than a minute and of course silence
> of the plop as Iraqis targeted by Marine snipers hit the ground,
> nonetheless the operative portion remains - The Marines were beaten back
in
> no uncertain terms. This was followed by a "truce".
>
> The truce did not hold for very long.
>
> This humiliation of the American military was spun as a "strategic
retreat"
> but the desire to get rid of the "weeping sore that Fallujah was" has been
> on top of the US agenda since then. Fallujah represented a "stellar act of
> defiance" one that allowed the resistance to "actually secure and control
a
> city, and to beat off the US military"
>
> The second formal large scale assault on Fallujah (Nov./Dec 2004) pitted
> images of the world's most powerful military force against fighters in
> tennis shoes, wielding homemade rocket launchers. There were three
declared
> tactical objectives. The first was to either kill or capture the Jordanian
> born "terrorist" "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" (if indeed he exists) and to
> "battle and destroy some 4000 to 5000 suspected fighters". The Americans
> also vowed to "liberate" the residents of Fallujah from "criminal
elements"
> and to "secure Fallujah" for the January elections. Lastly, it appears an
> additional declared tactical/political objective of the American
Military's
> task was to engage in a "fight of good versus evil". Additionally it
> appears (presumably per their intelligence reports) that the mission also
> was to "destroy" "Satan" since it appears that "he lives in Fallujah"
>
> On the face of it, it appears as if none of these tactical/military
> objectives have been met, including, it appears, the desire to presumably
> meet Mr Satan, resident of Fallujah.
>
> As for the other very laudable and rationally quantifiable objectives
> including that of stuffing democracy into a city by simply obliterating
it,
> all of these seem to be a bit astray.
>
> 48 hours into the offensive, the official narratives were filled with
> reports that Zarqawi (if indeed such a entity exists) may have "slipped
> outside" of their perimeter defenses.
>
> This of course left Mr "Satan" still in residence together with the rest
of
> the unfortunate inhabitants of the "militant stronghold". The city of
> 300,000 residents had perhaps an estimated 40,000 civilians left per the
US
> military. Since this estimated number included 5000 resident "militants",
> one can presume that the rest (per the US military) would be civilians.
>
> The actual civilian count remaining in the city on the 8th of November is
> around around 60,000 to as much as 100,000 since males between the ages 16
> and 60 were disbarred by the US military from leaving the city.
>
> One can also infer the most vulnerable -- the poor, the old, the women,
> children and the sick -- continued to reside in their city in significant
> numbers < of the order of 40,000+.
>
> With the "target softening" bombing raids that killed a few hundred
> civilians in the first week of November, the first formal target of the US
> military armored assault was doctors and the nurses. These were the first
> to be eliminated as these were "legitimate military target" and since
> "insurgents" were "forcing the doctors there to release propaganda and
> false information".
>
> The assault has left as many as 10,000 civilian dead -- perhaps much much
> more. The Red Cross/Red Crescent estimate was upwards of 6000 as of
> November 25th). Till date no formal Red Cross/Red Crescent operation has
> been allowed in the city.
>
> What the images of Phantom Fury did not convey is that this assault is the
> largest concentration of heavy armour in one place, since the fall of
> Berlin. This was the first time since World War II that "an American
> armored task force" has been turned "loose in a city with no
restrictions".
>
> More to the point, the force of as much as 20,000 soldiers (12,000 to
> 17,000 American/coalition soldiers, about 2000 odd Iraqi "National guards"
> and perhaps 1000 odd peshmergas) were supported by an estimated 1100 to as
> much as 2000 armored vehicles and tanks. Air support was largely carrier
> based out of the gulf and B-52's from bases outside of Iraq.
>
> The armor alone represents the heaviest ever concentration of armor since
> the fall of Berlin (1945) in one place against a single military
objective.
>
> Phantom Fury was officially underway on the 8th of November and declared
to
> be a sweeping victory on or about the 15th of November.
>
> Thereafter the military communiqués and the press reports have been
limited
> to occasional deaths in the "Anbar province". That all of Fallujah is
under
> "coalition" control since then i.e. on or about November 15th 2004. Since
> then detailed stories on Fallujah in the official narrative have stopped
> completely or refer to action/discoveries between the 8th and the 19th of
> November 04.
>
> There is no evidence of what has transpired save intermittent but very
very
> regular losses attributed to "pockets of resistance" in the "Anbar
> Province". And, yes, reportage on the brand new movie on Fallujah starring
> Harrison Ford.
>
> Now for a moment, consider the substantive anomalies in the official
> discourse. Consider one such example  Satellite Imagery of Fallujah
(block
> by block including "after action") available to the media till the 15th of
> November and carried in graphic detail day by day from the 8th of Nov.
> through the 15th stopped abruptly. There are no explanations.
>
> There are no satellite pictures of Fallujah available in the public domain
> after November 15th.
>
> Or consider that the Red Cross/Red crescent has not been allowed to enter
> the city in any substantive manner. Today is the 20th of Dec and it has
> still not been allowed.
>
> Or consider another break in the regular stream of consciousness. No
> reporter has set foot in the city or after the 22nd of November.
>
> A "Great Victory" like this and no footage?
>
> These anomalies are noteworthy. Therefore it is very unclear whether this
> is indeed the case or as a matter of fact, the converse is indeed the
case.
>
> Fallujah has not been taken. Not only has Fallujah not been taken, but the
> coalition forces have staged several retreats and are now confined largely
> to the outside of the city.
>
> The Iraqi resistance is currently in control of most of the city and have
> forced back at least three of the largest armored assaults in recent
> history.
>
> In fact, one can make a claim that this was the largest series of armored
> assault ever. The objective is 16 sq km and if one were to normalise over
> time and term for incremental intensity in firepower that this represents,
> then these are historically unprecedented. Now if these were not only
> repulsed, but perhaps defeated, it leads to something that ought to be
> examined more carefully.
>
> Despite being flattened (perhaps about 12,000 to as much as 20,000 homes
> out of an estimated 50,000 razed) by the application of, as US Army Gen.
> John Abizaid put it, "more military power per square inch than anybody
else
> on earth".
>
> Curiously, the US general then very very strangely goes on to add: "If you
> ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the
> clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United
States
> militarily."
>
> Oh. Let me contemplate the nuclear capability of the US. Never mind. It is
> a bore.
>
> So?
>
> The General also said, when talking about generating "more military power
> per square inch than anybody else on earth" that "every one knows it". Oh.
> The words of the General -- the mightiest general of them all -- Commander
> Centom, do not appear to have been heard. At least, the Iraqi resistance
> has not heard them.
>
> The mightiest military machine ever in world history with the mightiest
> firepower the world has ever seen has been mightily trying to capture
> Fallujah. But no luck so far.
>
> Instead the Americans faced an opposition that broke the back of the
> assault. Instead of "breaking bone by bone" and crushing "the backbone of
> the insurgents", it seems to appear that the same has been done unto them
> as they were planning to do unto the resistance.
>
> At the peak of the assault, the Americans held no more than 35-40% of
> Fallujah (largely the north on or around the 18th of November.)
Thereafter,
> they appear to have been steadily repulsed and in fact the coalition
forces
> currently have been repulsed to where they were on November 13th or
> thereabouts and to the outskirts of Fallujah.
>
> Now consider the fate of the rest of the occupation. It is in tatters. The
> mightiest military in the world cannot control a 8 km stretch of road,
> perhaps the single most important road in all of Iraq  the Airport Road
> from the center of Baghdad to the airport. The purported troop
> concentration is 120 soldiers per km of a open road and despite that the
> Australian defence minister could not even make it to the green zone and
> simply flew back from the airport.
>
> Unlike Vietnam, where the American were largely in control of the cities
> for most parts (save Tet, and even there complete control was not lost),
> the US/UK garrisons are isolated in the middle of a hostile population.
>
> They cannot even traverse a km or two out of the 'green zone". Their
supply
> convoys have come to a standstill over the last month and a salvage
> operation of re-supplying by air has started over the last 10-12 days. Air
> supplies are limited and there is no reason to believe that these can be
> significant (a max of 400 tonnes a day, slated to rise to 1600 tonnes a
day
> against an estimated minimum 20,000 odd tonnes needed daily to keep a
force
> of 160,000+ fed, watered, armored and resupplied).
>
> The 300 mile long supply line is toast. Well, at least anything dark,
> metallic, armored or otherwise. (4000 pounds of armor on a humvee that can
> carry a max load of 5000 pounds.) Can it move? And even that is not
helpful
> Â in the words of the great military strategist, Rumsfeld, circa Dec 04,
> even tanks blow up. Why bother at all?)
>
> Against the most heavily armed opponent in the history of War, Fallujah
has
> still not let itself be "taken" to date (as of 20th Dec, 2004). Falluah
and
> indeed the rest of Iraq post April 2003, heralds "supersymmetrical"
warfare
> and the end of conventional warfare. This represents a turning point in
> military affairs  the end of warfare -- as practiced by the Americans i.e
> the application of overwhelming force to obtain a victory.
>
> If this is indeed correct (and there is no reason to consider any other
> alternative) then the Iraqi Resistance's repulsing the assault and indeed
> the forcing back of the American positions represents not only a turning
> point in the American occupation of Sovereign Iraq but in fact a turning
> point in warfare itself.
>
> In fact, it would certainly be one of the greatest military victories in
> history.
>
> Over the last 30 years since Vietnam, the normative amount of explosive
> power and force multipliers available to the Americans and their opponents
> (compared to say the North Koreans in the 50's, the NVA in the 60s) has
> normalised and in fact are comparable if one were to factor in the context
> in which the firepower is used and deployed.
>
> The 'normalisation" of firepower on a level playing field  in this case,
> Fallujah, or for that matter the rest of Iraq, is noteworthy.
>
> Consider one such example. A RPG 7 can travel up to 300/700/950 meters. At
> 300 meters, even a basic warhead can penetrate 330 mm of steel armor. Yes,
> 33 cms, 13 inches -- that is a lot of steel. The projectile would cost
> perhaps $30-40. Conservatively, a squad of 3 armed with RPG-7s have more
> than a fighting chance against a M1 Abrams. In close urban quarters, the
> advantage that the tank had (in say open ground in a conventional war) is
> completely lost.
>
> The cost/personnel advantage is noteworthy. With minimal or no training,
> just about any one can operate a RPG. A squad of say 3 would cost perhaps
> no more than $5000 to equip. Against this, the M1 Abrams ("the mightiest
> tank", 70 odd tonnes of steel, a few million a pop).
>
> Now consider the mightiest Gun in the West against the rookie squad of
> three. Throw in a street. Add cover (even rubble will do, in fact quite
> nicely, thank you).
>
> Even odds?
>
> Now consider for a moment. Consider a force of say a few thousand men <
the
> best in the business and certainly the bravest men on the face of this
> planet -- say no more than 3000, anything more and it would be one sided.
> 3000 against 12,000 to 20,000 sounds about right.
>
> Now add ingenuity, intelligence and passion and a good reason to be very
> very angry. Throw in a just cause. In fact, the "most just cause of all".
>
> Now consider that these are equipped with only say RPG 7s as well as say
> RPG 9s, a few dozen Strellas, a few thousand modified versions of the S5K
> rocket, basic antiaircraft guns, a few hundred tonnes of say c4/semtex (it
> is quite cheap), a few thousand fin stabilised rockets (52 mm to 152 mm),
> basic artillery and mortar (say 60mm, 82mm, and 120mm shells), a few SAMs
> (say SAM7 and SAM 9), a few thousand grad rockets, faithful ole
> Kalasnikovs, a few hundred sniper rifles with say .50 mm explosive ammo.
It
> may also be possible that few Samud and Abgail missiles (range of 100 km)
> are available.These are not very large missiles. Add a few more, nothing
> fancy again -- say, the Tariq and Katyusha, very very basic indeed.
>
> There is more, but you get the idea. Not very state of the art weapons,
far
> from it. But very very functional. Now, consider the sheer amount of
> counter offensive power these represent.
>
> Add to that pre-prepared defensive positions, not very fancy for sure but
> very functional and very very functional minefields with a variety of
> triggers. Throw in, the "most ingenious" booby traps ever.
>
> Add the Iraqi resistance -- the bravest of the brave -- operating these.
> Well now, it is state of the art. The State of the Art of Urban Warfare.
>
> Oh yes, and yes, how can I forget toys. Well, one needs to buy those since
> "remote controls from toys" (Well at least as per the American Military)
> are a primary trigger in IEDs.
>
> So we add a few 10s of dollars per toy car and remote kit, say from your
> local K-mart. K-mart? Turns out that an army cannot be equipped from
K-mart
> to quote the great military tactician Rumsfeld once again, circa early Dec
> 04. Also turns out Centcom claims that they cannot jam these (circa Dec
04).
>
>
> It does appear that we have a problem here. Toy remotes. Rather sad, would
> you not say? Coming from the second in command of the Mightiest
> Superpowers' mightiest command. Beam me up, Scotty.
>
> Now pit against them a "superpower" that has already spent 150 billion of
> declining currency for sure but buys plenty still. Do not forget to add
450
> billion recurring every year. Hey it can buy anything but armor. Add
> another 100 billion on the cards (Jan 04).
>
> But this does not help.
>
> Short of using a neutron or a nuclear bomb (the Americans did use chemical
> weapons in Fallujah), despite all efforts, what the Americans have been
> able to achieve is relatively little, if anything at all, even in the best
> case estimates of the official narrative.
>
> 45 days and going on and on and on and on.
>
> Oh, oh, but, but, but we took Baghdad in 21 days.
>
> 45 days for 16 sq kms.....
>
> The opposing American army in this case has not been able to be actually
> "take" them out. Never mind control or physically occupying 16 sq kms.
>
> In fact, even a neutron bomb would not be militarily significant. You need
> to "take" it and keep it and keep on keeping it and keep on and on and
> on....
>
> And they have not. They will not. They cannot.
>
> The limits of raw firepower have been reached and no matter what (2000
> pound bombs to container cluster bombs to the new "large Abrams" tank. Oh
> well, if not a RPG7, a RPG9 or two will do the trick, thank you), the
> American military objective is no longer possible.
>
> Shoulder-held surface to air weapons limit the role of armored copters. In
> fact there are several 'copter graveyards in and around Fallujah. Big
ones.
> Some of them are quite near the tank killing fields. Yes, several hundred
> armored vehicles resting, not quite in peace but hey...
>
> Close air support is not feasible on account of the proximity of
> "friendlies". Savage bombing without limits does not help.
>
> The war in the former Yugoslavia is a case in point. Despite 72 days of
non
> stop bombing, it is now (post facto) a conceded position that the opposing
> side lost no more than 5-10% of their military hardware. (The loss was
> political, but that is another story.)
>
> Now consider an entirely different narrative. Of the the land between the
> two rivers, of your ancestors and my ancestors, of the fountainheads of
> civilisation, of Sumer, Ur, Mesopotamia, of Lions, of Hummurabi, of Salah
> al Din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub and much much more.
>
> And yes, a place. Called Fallujah. But, say, about 84 years ago.
>
> And now add to the narrative, parts of the present: a unilaterally
disarmed
> opponent (remember the tizzy circa late march 03 about night vision
> equipment? Night vision? Never mind state of the art SAMs and Kornets. The
> sanctions? Oh what were they?)
>
> Now add 25 million men, women and children  the richest denizens on this
> planet (Yes the richest. In every sense. As the very inheritors of
> civilisation it self. Or in a more mundane sense with 300 billion+ barrels
> of oil, an average Iraqi's garbage would be reconstructing the streets of
> Manhattan in a fairer world (the Americans have in contrast 22.5 billion
> barrels left), and, yes, the bravest. And the most suffering on the face
of
> this planet.
>
> Add to that the Story of Fallujah (circa late 2004). Then perhaps you will
> not be so astonished to hear what appear to be strange words to your ears.
>
> For these are Iraqi words. Yes, Iraqi. Dated 10th of December 2004.
>
> "The enemy is on the run.They are in fear of a resistance movement they
can
> not see nor predict. We now choose when, where, and how to strike. And as
> our ancestors drew the first sparks of civilization, we will redefine the
> word 'conquest'. Today we write a new chapter in the arts of urban
warfare."
>
> The Iraqi resistance has put an end to "the end of history". A new history
> is being written. Yes indeed it has been written. Not just another chapter
> but an entirely new book. One may see the the beginning of the great
> American retreat across the oceans, if they are lucky. Over 50,000
American
> soldiers have been medically evacuated out of Iraq till Nov. 2004
> (interesting number, is it not?).
>
> Yes, there will be a lot lot more lives lost and the endgame's contours
are
> still unclear.
>
> Oh the last line. Yes the last line addressed specifically to one Mr
George
> W. Bush:
>
> "You have asked us to OBring it on¹, and so have we. Like never expected.
> Have you another challenge?"
>
> Yes indeed, has he another challenge? No, he is a trifle busy, you see. We
> did try a photo-op on 18th of Dec 2004. We are not fools you see. But no
> photos.
>
> I wonder why..
>
> Raw unopposed firepower has reached its limits. Never have so few battled
> against so many in face of overwhelming odds and brought a superpower to
> its knees. And the nightmare continues.
>
> It is indeed the greatest military victory in history. The self proclaimed
> mightiest empire that ever was, in fact, turns out to have had the
shortest
> reign ever. This Empire met its match in the land between the two rivers.
>
>
> ---
> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
>
> FREE DOWNLOAD "THE WAR ON ISLAM" at http://www.twf.org/Library/woi3aL.pdf
> MORE about the book at http://www.twf.org/Library/WaronIslam.html
>
> REPLY TO wisdom@twf.org -- to ADD or REMOVE your name from our mailing
list
> put "ADDtwflist" or "REMOVEtwflist" in SUBJECT line.
>
> The Wisdom Fund
> www.twf.org
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Message transport security by GatewayDefender.com
> 10:37:25 PM ET - 12/26/2004
>
