How Marines kept Fallujah from becoming Dresden; Destroying the city ill-conceived

TriValley Herald ^ | 5.20.04

[ambrose]

Article Last Updated: Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 3:14:49 AM PST

How Marines kept Fallujah from becoming Dresden

Destroying the city ill-conceived; Marines make a pact with

ex-generals instead

By Tony Perry,, Los Angeles Times

Patrick J. McDonnell

and Alissa J. Rubin

FALLUJAH, Iraq -- The insurgents came at the Marines in relentless, almost suicidal waves. By the time the two-hour firefight in the Jolan district of this Sunni Muslim stronghold was over, dozens of anti-American fighters and one Marine were dead.

When the April 26 battle ended, Lt. Gen. James Conway, commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, knew something else: It was, in a microcosm, what house-to-house fighting might look like if the Marines were forced to storm Fallujah and, possibly, level a city of 300,000 people. He didn't like the look of the future battlefield.

Conway had been given authority to cut a deal. He had long spoken about "putting an Iraqi face" on the security forces here. From unexpected quarters, a chance suddenly emerged to accomplish that goal in spectacular -- if far from ideal -- fashion. The April 26 firefight came during an uneasy, and often broken, cease-fire between the insurgents and the Marines who had laid siege to the city earlier that month. At the time, the best hope for a peaceful resolution appeared to be the negotiations involving Sunni clerics, Fallujah civic leaders and sheiks, the Marines and U.S. occupation officials.

[Rokke]

"Maybe you could list the assets they had that they didn't lose, to validate your point."

use, not lose. Assets they didn't use.

[Rokke]

"The lesson here is don't start a fight until you can prosecute it with full initiative and aggressiveness."

Thanks Gandalftb. And as previously discussed, I agree with you that the Marines were led down the primrose path with regard to what they were going to face when they rotated back into Iraq.

[gandalftb]

Posted by gandalftb to elfman2
On News/Activism 05/26/2004 5:38:14 PM PDT #294 of 297

This was Conways decision. But he had the "benefit" of the Iraqi Governing Council filtered through CentCom/Abizaid/Sanchez. There was a request to Conway to do a temp. ceasefire and to just look at other options such as joint patrols, more ICDC troops, beefed up local police/militias, etc. So he did take a pause, the Marines needed rest and resupply, and they knew that the needed Abrams and a MAW were on the way. Also, the snipers were racking up lots of KIAs, let 'em go.
So, Conway rejects all the possible options over the next few days when Gens. Saleh and Lteif show up with their "brigade" and an offer to bribe the ICDC deserters into redeserting to the "brigade". Gen. Conway has little patience for haggling so he asks Gen. Mattis to cut the deal which is what happened. By that time the initiative had been lost, CentCom/DC was really fussing and you see the result. We really did KIA most of the enemy but the cost/benefit wasn't there to do more, on top of the political snorting and braying.

One additional benefit: the aggressiveness in Falluja gave CentCom the assurance that they could go after al-Sadr and his mob without causing an Iraqi-wide uprising.

We suffered additional casualties due more to the lack of armor on the cordon which allowed infiltration of weapons to the rebels and their attack on 04/26.

[Pukin Dog]

Hey. Different thread, same crap? I'll enjoy the read.

[Pukin Dog]

I can't stand you arrogant jerks who exploit this Operation, roll in the gore, to satisfy some petty political ideology. You are quick to call others frauds, but it is you who is running a corrupt program here.

Good to see others have caught on to our boy elfman2. It is really a shame to watch this jerk spew BS from thread to thread without a fact to support any of it. I wonder just what color hair he has up his as about the Marines.

[FreeReign]

Zero insurgents turned over.

Many insurgents killed.

Zero terrorists turned over for the 4 contractors' murder and mutilation.

We've lost 700 soldiers in Iraq, yet there is no comment from you on the killers of each and everyone of these 700 being "turned over".

Why is that? Is it because there is no emotional group outcry to do so?

The object in a war is to defeat the enemy and not to avenge the death of specific soldiers or even our civilians.

It was the terrorists who wanted us to rip through the town frantically looking for the killers of the contractors. It was the terrorists who were hoping that we would kill many innocent people in Fallujah.

It was the Marines who fought the insurgents in Fallujah -- killing most of them -- and it was the Marines in Fallujah who fought the insurgents until they stopped fighting. And, it will be the Iraqi brigades that will maintain the peace in their new sovereign country.

Meanwhile the hunt for terrorists by our soldiers and special -- shhhh -- forces goes on and that includes the scum killers of our four countractors AND the killers of all other innocents in Iraq including our 700 hero soldiers.

[FreeReign]

Yup. A month ago everyone in Fallujah was our enemy, and it alone was a giant hive of terrorist. Now party cheerleaders will have us beleive it's a shinning pillar of democracy after we pulled back from one of the biggest battles of the war. Interesting how they go back and forth.

A month ago, some here on this website including myself said that everyone in Fallujah WASN'T our enemy.

[FreeReign]

...Conway had been given authority to cut a deal.

Most likely, by the CIC.

[FreeReign]

There was total outrage and shock that we pulled back from this battle.

Total outrage? Wrong.

[FreeReign]

The elfman original contrivance was that the 1st Marines were on the scene loaded for bear, ready to take Fallujah by force and that politicians (i.e. Bush Administration) intervened and orchestrated a retreat.

Now, in the face of the above article that says the 1st Marines were never originally planning to wage an all out military assault on the city, but rather work their systematic "Ulster" campaign ... his little world is turned all upside down and he strikes out like an adolescent punk.

Hey elfman, some of us have a good enough memory to recall what you were saying several weeks back.

[rbmillerjr]

Yikes, you can't nuance a victory in a war or battle.

If you want to buy that bill of goods...be happy.

[TomasUSMC]

Historical Note: Custer was wiped out AFTER GENERAL CROOK's column was turned back.....

---

True. I meant General Nelson Miles was attacked by Crazy Horse after defeating Custer.

Now although it may be true that, Ghengis Khan is not in command of I MEF, and that turning things over to the Iraqis -- however imperfect is the only choice, the question is to what Iraqi faction will we turn it over to?

In this case we have turned Fallujah over to the Iraqi faction that is Pro-terrorist and Anti-American. The Terrs have bought time, won the propaganda war and secured a sanctuary for a base of operation. In the future we will see
the enemy attempt to reproduce this situation in Najaf.

All the while, the terrs are looking for more Sarin shells, and other forms of WMD devices and tactics to attack our troops with.

I like the way we are killing 40 and 50 of these Islamic terrs everyday in and around Najaf. I think THAT is the reason other clerics are starting to speak out against Sadr.

Of course, if we had killed Sadr and 2000 of his goons a month ago, we would be better off now, and the Presidents numbers would be better. I would not worry about all this talk of Shiites rising up over the destruction of their " Holy Ammo Dump Site". We just have to make it clear that the responsibility of whether the "Site" is leveled or not lies with Sadr and not US. He leaves or we level. His call.

The World need to see that the United States does not grant Sanctuary to Terrorist. No where, NO Time for NO REASON.

[FreeReign]

Yikes, you can't nuance a victory in a war or battle. If you want to buy that bill of goods...be happy.

Ping me when you've got somethin' of substance -- to say.

Okay? Thanks

[TomasUSMC]

and since you are such a virulent critic of this campaign,

---

I am a virulent critic of
- the retreat from imminent victory in Fallujah,
- the retreat from avenging the murder, burning,
mutilation, and public display of American Civilians
- the retreat from the winning "Shock and Awe" rules of
engagement that took Iraq - to embracing the losing ROEs
of Vietnam
- and of anyone who comes up with the nutty motto of
" Do no Harm First" - for a United States Marine Division in Combat!

Yep. Gladly So.

[rbmillerjr]

Based on your gullibility, it certainly shouldn't take alot to equal substance.

So, I'll assume consent and respond to you no more.

[FreeReign]

If peace at all costs is a victor...

It's gullible -- as in duped by the media -- to believe that we have peace at all costs in Fallujah.

[rbmillerjr]

Strawman.

[Barlowmaker]

"We've taken your concerns under advisement."

[elfman2]

" Hey elfman, some of us have a good enough memory to recall what you were saying several weeks back." [The elfman original contrivance was that the 1st Marines were on the scene loaded for bear, ready to take Fallujah by force]

I not only did I say they were ready to take Fallujah by overwhelming force, I saw Kimmitt stand with anther general before the press and promised it. I saw the resolution in their face, and I believe them.

I made no claim about how the battle started.

[ought-six]

By the author's definition, Chicago is a rebel town. As is Los Angeles, and Detroit, and Newark, and Philadelphia, and....