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.

[TomasUSMC]

The so-called 'uprising' failed, and we are now back to a lower level of violence and casualties.

---

Now with respectfully, I would say. that the "uprising did not fail". News reports show that the terrorist are still in control and praising this as a great victory. And the absence of violence does not mean victory. When Saddam was in power there was no violence in Fallujah either, very little in Cuba and N. Korea either.

No, I have to say that Fallujah will have to be delt with and everyday that goes by, the terrs will get stronger. We have already seen a WMD Sarin mine attack. There will be more if we don't stomp them out now. And to think the Iraqis will be able to do it ... Well from your lips to Gods ear.

Those are my thoughts.

[Joe Hadenuf]

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. Nope, nobody is saying that.

Nope, nobody is saying that

Actually, Joe Hadenuf, you are right ... YOU WERE SAYING IT.

You bet I was, along with *many* others, on *MANY* different threads, calling for swift brutal attacks on Fallujah.

I don't know who you think your kidding? Sheesh!

[elfman2]

"We won't pay for it if we are not there. "

It’s too small a post 9/11 world to believe that.

[elfman2]

"The Marines should have never promoted this Matis guy. He is just looking after getting more stars. He's the one who changed the 1st Marines motto to "First do no harm". What crap!"

I thought you were joking, did a google search, and here it is

[elfman2]

"Instead Urbanturban legends will make Falujans sound bigger than David and Goliath."

Exactly!

This was about not allowing the instability of actually defeating an enemy before rebuilding him threaten a turnover date in an election year. Guess a few dozen Marines who thought that they were dieing for something else can be rationalized away.

[quadrant]

My advice to anyone who reads this excerpt is to read the whole article.

[NeonKnight]

When we were there, we were losing Marines lives everyday. We are not there now, and it is very, very quite. Pretty much proves my point...wouldn't you say?

[elfman2]

"They will play for the insurgents if that is their only choice, but they will play for our military if they are given a chance."

Or military appears to have little if any control over them. And I think it will diminish with time.

[elfman2]

"This may interest you."

I should probably thank you for that.

[LS]

Well, there is a reason no one worried about creating Nazi martyrs: we were not in Germany to liberate it from Hitler---whom most of the Germans liked and supported, unlike Saddam. We were there to destroy Germany (unlike Iraq) and had already killed all the would-be martyrs. BUT . . .

a much better example would have been needless or unnecessary destruction of, say, NORWAY or BELGIUM on the grounds that a handful of Nazis were there. We kill 20 Nazis, and in the process turn nations who welcomed us as liberators against us.

[LS]

You raise great points. There were many in our nation who thought Mormon government in Utah was out of bounds, but nevertheless most presidents, including Lincoln, let the Mormons govern themselves so long as they didn't cause problems for others.

[ASA Vet]

utterly decimated

Complete, absolute, total slaughter of 10% of the bad guys?

[LS]

It's General CROOK. And Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull did NOT go for "total victory": if they had, they wouldn't have left Reno and Benteen on that hill. You're off on your history, and it's affecting your assessment of Fallujah.

BTW, Santa Anna lost, by most estimates, 10% of his force taking 130 men. He still had several thousand to deal with.

[elfman2]

""martyrs," and the Marines had no intention of doing that"

I don’t believe Marines fear the minimal civilian casualties becoming martyrs as much as politicians fear them. I don’t believe that after the photos of 4 burnt bodies dangling from a bridge was repeatedly broadcast internationally, Fallujah could be rebuilt as an Alamo.

[Uncle Miltie]

Bottom line, the Iraqi "insurgents" get to CLAIM whatever they want, but they know the reality that their "victory" was totally at the sufferance of the U.S. and that, as the one guy said, most of them wanted to live.

In the Arab world, a claimed victory is the inspiration to other battles.

[Badeye]

Taking Fallujah wouldn't have entailed anything close to a "Dresden" type scenario. Not even close. That type of rhetoric on the part of the author is absurd to those of us that understand what happened to Dresden, and why.

The fact remains the target was never the city of Fallujah, it was Sadr.

And in 48 hours, we will once again witness "If its Friday, Its Meet Sadr!".

Thats the problem, thats the target.

[Uncle Miltie]

"At Karbala and Najaf, restraint in attacking "the city" combined with surgical slaughter of the bad guys has utterly decimated the enemy fighters."

Bzactly. Which strategy was not used in Fallujah, leaving the wackos with the inspiration of "victory."

[Uncle Miltie]

"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."

Wrong town: Shiite Sadrists were not in Fallujah, which is Sunni.

[LS]

"Which strategy was not used . . . ." According to whom? Not the people I talk to. It's just "vewy, vewy, quiet."

[Warren_Piece]

NOBODY seems to have listened to president Bush's speech the other day! Our goal is NOT total control of the country!

I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American. Iraqis will write their own history and find their own way.

All of you act like we're trying to make Iraq the 51st state.