The BBC summary of the first day of the Falluja offensive paints a pretty grim picture. The 11 US soldiers killed yesterday (3 confirmed for Tuesday so far for a total of 14) have been widely covered in the media. The 30,000 to 50,000 estimated civilians left in Fallujah are currently without water, power, or the ability to leave their houses (what with the curfew, bullets, and explosions) with a limited supply of food.
What struck me in the BBC article was the number of insurgents thought to be in Fallujah currently: 3000. Despite Donald “Mr. Reliable” Rumsfeld’s assurance that:
There aren’t going to be large numbers of civilians killed and certainly not by U.S. forces.
the peril in which we have put the poorest (read: least able to evacuate) citizens of Fallujah in order to capture or kill absolutely no more than 1/10th their number is troubling. I have not seen civilian casualty reports yet, and given our early (and accomplished) objective of capturing the hospital and preventing civilian emergency vehicles from accessing it [sorry- can’t find that link at the moment], we may not. Of course, war is a very ugly beast, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that ratio is within certain formal theoretical parameters of “acceptable loss”. However, given (the NYT and rumor control via) relative path’s revelation that the Fallujah to Ramadi insurgent escape chute is unsecured, it seems unlikely that the number of insurgents killed or captured will exceed the number intentionally sacrificed by the insurgency for this PR event.
I wonder if Rumsfeld is as sanguine about how 50,000 poor Iraqi civilians without water, power, food watching US bombs and tanks crush their city will play in the Arab press. The BBC’s translation service provides a preview, which is neither surprising nor encouraging.
So, can we just agree to call Rumsfeld “The Beast Rabban” from here on out?
Welcome to the b-sphere, Josh. Hope you’re doing well.