Insurgents fight U.S., Iraqi forces to stalemate in Ramadi

[bigtree]

Associated Press
May 22, 2006

''It's out of control,'' says Army Sgt. 1st Class Britt Ruble, behind the sandbags of an observation post in the capital of Anbar province. ''We don't have control of this ... we just don't have enough boots on the ground.''

Reining in Ramadi, through arms or persuasion, could be the toughest challenge for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's new government. Al-Maliki has promised to use ''maximum force'' when needed. But three years of U.S. military presence, with nearly constant patrols and sweeps, hasn't done it.

Today Ramadi, a city of 400,000 along the main highway running to Jordan and Syria, 70 miles west of Baghdad, has battles fought in endless circles. Small teams of insurgents open fire and coalition troops respond with heavy blows, often airstrikes or rocket fire that's turned city blocks into rubble.

''We're holding it down to a manageable level until Iraqis forces can take over the fight,'' Marine Capt. Carlos Barela said of the daily violence battering the city.

How long before that happens is anybody's guess.

more: http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=WORLD&ID=564739189821015536


my 2 cents -- Bush's Wicked Iraq Lies (5-22-2006)

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. What does this tell the rest of the world

If the great and mighty US Military can't beat a group of insurgents?

[bigtree]

2. the Vietnamization of Iraq is another bloody U.S. failure

nationalism trumps colonialism

[rodeodance]

3. and sounds like the city will be rubble soon.

[Recursion]

10. Don't take it too hard

A motivated insurgency with even half-hearted support from the populace almost always beats a regular military force in time. It's been that way for millenia.

Hell, the USA's insurgency lasted 8 years before the Limeys finally gave up.

[NNN0LHI]

11. This tells the rest of the world that IEDs are better than F-16s and tanks

And a lot cheaper too.

Don

[bluerum]

4. Who woulda guessed it?

[Dhalgren]

5. This is the reality. It will not make any difference how long the US

stays in Iraq, this will be the truth on the ground. Whenever the US leaves (and it will, sooner or later) it will be with its tail between its legs. Because the US cannot win a war like this. The Soviets couldn't win this kind of war in Afghanistan and the US can't win one in Iraq. And don't say, "If we had more troops", or "If we could be as ruthless as we wanted." That won't wash - the Soviets were not boy scouts in Afghanistan and we aren't ones in Iraq. The only solution - THE ONLY SOLUTION - is to get out now.

How come the insurgents can fight so well, but we can't train any Iraqis to fight even after 3 years of trying? When the Brits got out of America, they left the Loyalists to the tender mercies of the rebels, well, we should emulate the Brits now and just get the hell out! Today! Right now! Shit!

[Yupster]

6. Before the British left New York City

they brought whole flotillas of Tories up to Canada.

I hope we'll do the same in Iraq and bring the Iraqis who've helped us out before we go.

It's discraceful that we left the Cambodians to the mercy of the Khmer Rouge after we cut off their government, and I don't want to see our collaberators getting their heads sawed off one after another screaming on TV every night after we leave Iraq. We owe those people who've helped us that much.

[Dhalgren]

9. Yeah, I'm sure we will load up the choppers on the roof-tops

with as many as we can manage. It looks like the US has only one way to lose a war - bugging-out at the last possible moment, after causing as much death and destruction as possible. When you "can't lose" the way America "can't lose" it makes defeat awfully ugly. I wish the US could just grow up a little and face up to defeat. It would make for less traumatic exits....

[Spazito]

7. Oh, not to worry, now there is a "united government" the flowers

and candy are in transit, according to bush and blair. All will be well now, according to bush and blair. I feel so much better.

[bemildred]

8. Stalingrad. nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Was a city of 400,000, was it not? n/t

[Disturbed]

13. If the US didn't have planes and tanks...

the Iraqi Insurgents would have won already.

[bemildred]

14. Opinions will vary.

I think that communications, training, morale, and air support are the important differences. Armor has a tough time in urban combat against well-armed infantry and modern "terrorist" methods. I would not want to use it for that purpose, although the desire for "protection" leads people to do it anyway. There seems to be a tendency for the US to use aircraft as a substitute for artillery, which is expensive, but "safer" and presumably causes fewer random dead "civilians".

Given the relative numbers, the time elapsed, and the apparent attrition rates, I think what you infer is likely correct.

The point, of course, of mentioning Stalingrad, is that the notion of "taking" a city has been a stupid one for some time now. The means to resist are ubiquitious, the methods well-understood, and the ground of one's own choosing.