Posted on 05/25/2004 2:08:15 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at trivalleyherald.com ...
Anyone who thinks Muslims won't kill Muslims for any reason, thinks that Saddam attacking Kuwait was just a desert mirage.
Human life is cheap in the Muslim world. For much of the last 1200 years the cheapest of all lives is a fellow Muslim's life.
For a Clue visit one of the mass graves where Saddam killed tens of thousands of Muslims. Saddam ordered Muslims to kill Muslims and they did it gladly.
That is so silly as to not require a response. If you want to talk serious strategy, I'm willing. Otherwise, truly you need to get back to "Starcraft."
Interesting that you use Crazy Horse and the Alamo. Those are PRECISELY two examples where wiping out the enemy so depleted the victor as to cause them to lose.
interesting article and commentary ping
And soon lost the war. One died on a reservation, the other died a failed diplomat and buisiness man.
I read this and thought it may silence some of the armchair warriors on FR who think they have the best battle plan. LOL
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.
Er, believe....
The Alamo was a fairly complete military victory for Santa Ana. So was Goliad.
But both were treated by the Texicans as 'war crimes' and reasons to demand independence. It did nothing to advance Santa Ana's real war aims of crushing the rebellion.
To think that Fallujah was about mostly quelling 1 town is to miss the bigger picture: Our goal in Fallujah was first *NOT* to let it cause us to lose the whole effort here, by careering out of control. The "MOAB" solution would have led to that. "Atrocities" would have led to a dangerous response from throughout Iraq. We forget that our main challenge was and is political, not military - and there was a deliberate provocative attempt to create an Iraqi 'rebellion'. We forget for example the Ramadi attack, a clearly coordinated attack that led ot one of the most difficult days in Iraq - 12 soldiers killed in Ramadi in one incident. had we had that sort of situation throughout Iraq, it was all over.
Thanks to cool heads in the Marines, the rebellion was first contained, and then sputtered into oblivion. The US military did jujitsu on the rebellion, refusing to play the part of over-reacting oppressor for the Al Jazeera cameras. The so-called 'uprising' failed, and we are now back to a lower level of violence and casualties. Moreover, the solution
Now a previous linked article mentions how 'mujahadeen' are enforcing islamic laws in Fallujah. If so, it begs the question - does this mean most people like that? Or that these folks dont represent Fallujah and represent something else? Either conclusion suggests that we were wise to let Iraqis deal with it themselves: If they *do* represent Fallujah, then in fact we could only win by flattening the place, which would not serve our war aims. If they *dont*, then, while we have missed an opportunity here to kill some militants (yet we got plenty), we give an opportunity to see how Iraqis can themselves assert a democratic authoriy *over* such forces.
I am frankly not disturbed by either case - this is local government at its best/worst. I think such lessons of governance are good lessons for Iraq, IF the trend to democracy is intact and safe, because then Iraqi voters will KNOW where their interest lies. Do they want alcohol sellers to get whipped? Do they want a govt of cranky clerics? etc.
"Now party cheerleaders will have us beleive it's a shinning pillar of democracy" Nope, nobody is saying that.
No, us cheerleaders a month ago were saying it was a *Mistake* to treat everyone in Fallujah as the enemy. There were a few terrorists and militants in a s***ty town that mostly hated us but would leave us alone. Killing civilians would have been a disaster to our Iraqi policy.
We still think Fallujah is a sh**pile, but we know that a steaming cesspool that isnt shooting at us is better than a town of 'martyrs' that is used by the insurgents and terrorists to justify further rebellion in the rest of the country.
"Some of our troops had entered a city and were progressing toward a mosque when they were confronted by a very large and very noisy crowd barring their path. It looked like it was going to turn ugly, then the platoon leader order his men to point their rifles toward the ground and knell down on one knee."
That was in Najaf, in front of one of those "holy shrines" ... this event so impressed the Shiite clerics, that they remember it still. Here is a quote from the letter of Shiite clerics to Hezbollah in Lebanan wrt Al-Sadr.
it is in:
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
"2. It is the movement of Sayyid Muqtada that has encouraged the occupiers to cross the red lines. And as aside from that, the American occupiers while storming into Iraq and marching towards Baghdad through Najaf and Karbala did not commit the stupidities and insolence with regard to the sanctities in the two holy cities they have committed now.
And it is clear that the organization of Sayyid Muqtada - and whoever follows the Sadrist movement - were the first to violate the sanctity of the yard of Haydari Shareef (Imam Ali's shrine in Najaf) when they fired shots inside it at Sayyid Abdul Majeed Al-Kho'ei and killed Sayyid Yasiri within it and wounded Sayyid Majeed and killed Sayyid Hayder Al-Kelidar afterwards. And they are the very same who ignited the fuse of the bloody fight, whose victims among gathered believers were sacrificed over control of the shrine of Imam Hussein (peace be upon him),
...
5. The firing of shots at the great dome of the shrine of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) [in Najaf], according to some specialists was most likely from the weapons of Sayyid Muqtada's followers and not from the weapons of others, inasmuch as the time of shooting was the day fighting flared up in the Valley of Peace cemetery, and there wasn't any fighting from the side of Alnabi street, whereas you claimed in your important sermon that the direction of the shooting was from the side of the Qibla gate [to the shrine], which is the side of Alnabi street.
6. The strike on the home and office of his Excellence Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani happened within the security perimeter whose every span was controlled by the organization of Sayyid Muqtada, ..."
In other words, the Shiite clerics figured out by our behavior that we would not cross the 'red lines' unless provoked, and are rebuking others for blaming Americans for violence caused by al-Sadr's forces. They remember how we acted in April 2003, repsecting the shrines.
Patience and low-level persistent killing wins this war.
You've nailed it here. There is some indication the murder of the four contractors in Fallujah was done with the specific intent of igniting a violent response by our Marines against Fallujah. Like our recent strike against smuggling operations in the western desert (it was NOT a wedding party) they would use our response to enflame a nationwide uprising. But dammit if our response wasn't controlled. Even rational. Certainly not fuel for an explosive and sustained uprising. We didn't fall into their trap. We stepped around it, while still managing to kill a very large percentage of their fighters. They are now trying to regroup. But much of their manpower pool is dead. And some of that pool is accepting less dangerous and better paying employment reconstructing what was destroyed.
The Marine Corps strategy in Fallujah is clearly a gamble. But so far, it appears to be working.
Nope, nobody is saying that.
Huh? Hundreds said that. Who are you kidding? There was total outrage and shock that we pulled back from this battle. And then the fanatics were partying in the streets claiming victory. It was all too much to bear. Your not fooling anyone.
>>Where did the bad guys go?
A lot of them died. Marine snipers, in particular, had a field day, or rather, a succession of them. I'm sure some went back to Syria. And I'm sure others have melted into the general populace.
Thank you for that information. That was one of the most impressive things I have ever witnessed. Thank God we have troops like those.
Its strange that nobody worried about creating Nazi martyrs in WWII. The only time you have to worry about creating martyrs is when you know that your enemy has more willpower to see the war to its end.
The insurgents didn't win anything except the chance to be killed at a later time by our soldiers, and at one more fortuitous for our guys. Going into the town would have been much more dangerous for the Marines, and the Sadr thugs were beginning to lose any support they may have had in the town. The mullah, Sistani, had a 'come to Allah' meeting with al-Sadr and convinced him and his goons to leave town. That's when they went to Karbala and on to Najaf. In both successive places they didn't get support from the townspeople, who knew the Marines would be coming after Sadr again. Sadr is in a much more dangerous position now than he was in Fallujah, and our soldiers aren't dealing with a population that is angry for unnecessary destruction. Our guys don't want to destroy stuff; it only means they'd have to come back and help put it back up!
You:" A month ago everyone in Fallujah was our enemy,"
Me:"Nope, nobody is saying that."
You:"Huh? Hundreds said that. Who are you kidding?"
Actually, Joe Hadenuf, you are right ... YOU WERE SAYING IT.
You were calling for the over-reaction that would have been militarily 'neat' but politically disastrous. April 08 : "Tell me Ernie, why is there still a continued heavy fighting going on at these two freaking mosques, while we have billions of dollars worth of this really neat, modern air power just sitting there?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1113954/posts
This was my reaction THEN (recorded in my blog) to those calls for the "MOAB" solution:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_freedomstruth_archive.html#108157143949074649
"My basic point: being humane to civilians in the long run SAVES AMERICAN LIVES. ...
Every Army officer understands why "rules of engagement" exist. War is subservient to the political and national security ends for which it is used. If it ceases to serves those ends, it is harmful and wrong. It puts American lives at risk and harms our nation."
Do you know who the yahoo is who I was responding to in that thread when I made those points on April 8?
I'll let you guess!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.