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.

[LS]

Well, the problem with your theory is it's the MARINES THEMSELVES who are saying they didn't want to take Fallujah.

[elfman2]

"I find it interesting that the Marines, who everyone wanted to "go in" and "clean up," were the ones SUGGESTING these approaches and HAD TO GET PERMISSION FROM WASHINGTON to talk to these people. "

You refused to answer my question attempting to clarify this, and now your repeat your mischaracterization of your opposition. That’s dishonest.

You refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between Marines finding an innovative solution to exit from a flawed “cease fire” force on them and this being the Marines’ choice. They were not given the option of defeating the city with the training and with the weapons they brought.

I think this is a dishonorable debate on your part.

[elfman2]

"Well, the problem with your theory is it's the MARINES THEMSELVES who are saying they didn't want to take Fallujah."

I asked you 3-4 times to show me that, an you never could.

All that you could find were reports that Marines were hopeful, or that they had a big role in choosing plan B after their plan A of a fully supported invasions was off the table.

[elfman2]

"Interestingly, this "Iraqi-ization" has already occurred pretty much with 100% success in Kurdistan"

Please. That’s a silly comparison.

Kurdistan was occupied by the Sunnis, on our side from the beginning. They didn’t need to be defeated.

[SuziQ]

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

OOPS! My bad! Ba'athist Sadaamites in Falluhjah, al-Sadist's thugs in Najaf and Karbala; they're all possible targets!

[elfman2]

"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 "

Please, we went to both countries to destroy the fascist military regimes BEFORE rebuilding the county. Norway and Belgium are analogous to Kuwait, not Iraq.

[elfman2]

" 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?"

We stopped losing lives in Somalia the day after we pulled out of Somalia, but Bin Laden said it taught him about our strength and resolve. He subsequently attacked 3 US embassies, the USS Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon, US troops in Iraq and is still preparing attacks. That’s what’s “pretty much proved”.

[Tallguy]

Crazy Horse killed Custer and then spanked Gen. Cook. Matter of fact he would have wuped Cook if some friendly indians hadn't disrupted his plans.

Historical Note: Custer was wiped out AFTER GENERAL CROOK's column was turned back. These were two widely separated battles though part of the same campaign.

LS made some good strategic points. You can't mindlessly rush into a big city killing all before you unless you are prepared to take on a much larger rebellion in the future. We do not & will not have sufficient forces to hold Iraq unless we let the Iraqis do it, or we are prepared to terrorize the populace into submission. Last I checked, Ghengis Khan is not in command of I MEF, so turning things over to the Iraqis -- however imperfect -- is the only choice.

I suggest that you pickup a copy of the US Marine Corps "Small Wars Manual". Your screename suggests that you serve/served in the Marines. The Marines have a long history of fighting very limited conflicts (Haiti, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, China) -- meaning at some point you cut a deal. It works if done carefully and given sufficient time.

[Tallguy]

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.

There is a difference: The Nazis controlled Germany right up until the Armistice (yes there was an Armistice on V-E Day, signed by Karl Doenitz after Hitler's death). For your WW2 analogy to hold, Saddam's Baathists would have be in functional control of the Iraqi State & it's armed forces. Nobody -- not even the Iraqi insurgents -- are making that claim. A better analogy would be Somalia. Every few city blocks is controlled by another 'Gang'. Some are based on Baathist/Regime ties, other are Clan based, some have foreign loyalties -- you name it. A one-size-fits-all strategy just won't work.

[LS]

You can think what you want. It's clear from the article that the suggestions went from Fallujah to Washington, not vice versa.

[elfman2]

"Haiti, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, China"

Notice that those are all slum nations and corrupt banana republics, with the exception of communist China with their ICBMs pointed at us. We rebuilt none of them, like we are planning with Iraq. None became reformist examples to a hostile region that we want for Iraq. AFAIK, battles there did little if anything to uplift or even pacify the region.

If we’re not really engaged in a war to defeat terrorism, by changing the tyrannical environment from which it grows and from which it’s supported, then I think that Fallujah is a great example. It allows an unrecognized balkanization of Iraq to fester, where kids grow up mesmerized by resistance stories against the infidels, and go on to build dirty bombs and harbor wanted terrorist without fear of anyone more pro-American than the Fallujah Brigade. Iraq looks pretty good for an election year, and maybe it won’t be a disaster for the next generation of Americans, or maybe it will.

[elfman2]

"It's clear from the article that the suggestions went from Fallujah to Washington, not vice versa."

If someone took the time to map out how my behavior was dishonest and how I continued to fraudulently paint my opposition, I’d have a more substantial defense (or admission).

But I see honesty and honor or not as important to some.

[Tallguy]

My reference to China was circa 1900 (Boxer Rebellion). That's long before Mao, Chou or even Sun Yat Sen's period of prominence. Most of the world is a H*ll hole, so I wouldn't use that as an excuse to go full bore in Iraq.

A Balkanization of Iraq might not be a terrible outcome if controlled. Say a loose federation of Kurdistan, Mesopotamia (Baghdad) and so forth. Probably wouldn't be very stable, but it might be a start like our own Articles of Confederation were.

Only reason that we have resisted allowing Iraq to break up till now is the threat from Iran. Iran appears ready to fall apart again, as it periodically does.

[Tallguy]

BTW, I've never been enamored of Bush's strategic choice of declaring a "War on Terrorism". Terrorism is a technique, or a general tactic, not something that you can defeat with conventional military tactics.

I think that the conditions in this country are not yet ready for a mature debate about what is really going on: a major reshaping of the realities of the Middle East. If that were the enunciated policy the Media would be running around using the word "Crusade" and the ballgame would be over.

[ZULU]

We had no need to conduct a costly house to house fight to level Fallujah. Like Sodom and Gomorrah, fire from heaven should have been rained down on these obstinate miscreants until the city was leveled.

A point would have been made.

[PFC]

What I find interesting is that no one even mentions bringing to justice the murderers who butchered the American contractors and hung their charred bodies from a bridge. That is why we were trying entering the city - to find and punish those responsible for that atrocity. If those terrorists are still walking free - we wasted a lot of time, money and American lives for nothing.

[elfman2]

"My reference to China was circa 1900 (Boxer Rebellion). That's long before Mao, Chou or even Sun Yat Sen's period of prominence. "

Yet it left an outdated ineffective system intact, like the Fallujahn mini-Islamic state, with a population without hope of competing with the West. And communism was what followed.

We could afford to leave everyone of those nations you listed in the dirt because the world was a lot smaller place then. Notice that each of the islands and nations that TomasUSMC listed as actually being defeated are not on the list of world hell-holes and communist states like the ones you listed.

I think that balkanization of Iraq would not be a potential disaster only if we defeated each unfriendly part. Otherwise, we’re still left with untouchable places for terrorist to train, operate and float between as we play monkey in the middle.

[Tallguy]

What I find interesting is that no one even mentions bringing to justice the murderers who butchered the American contractors and hung their charred bodies from a bridge. That is why we were trying entering the city - to find and punish those responsible for that atrocity. If those terrorists are still walking free - we wasted a lot of time, money and American lives for nothing.

I sympathize with your reaction, but I have to disagree. Chances are good that some of those reponsible were killed during the battle. We just don't know. Chances are excellent that those remaining have shot off their mouths about their involvement. A little "walking around money" will loosen some tongues now that Marine/Iraqi security teams are patrolling in Falluja again. You can also bet that the Spec Ops guys are skulking around looking for the perps. Snatch & Grab, baby... and off to Gitmo with you.

The larger problem was the reaction of the Mob to the atrocity. THAT was shocking. It looked like Falluja U had just won an Superbowl, or something. So the choice is stark. Do you go for the Hiroshima/Dresden solution, and risk a general uprising in Iraq? Or do you bide your time and selectively smother the insurgency?

[elfman2]

"Terrorism is a technique, or a general tactic, not something that you can defeat with conventional military tactics."

I agree, we have to defeat it financially, and morally as well. We’ve had some success financially, but I think morally success is mixed. I don’t think that the majority of Freepers can even accurately define terrorism. If we can’t even promote its definition, we can’t promote its amorality.

I think the ME has been on the verge of reshaping itself for centuries, and its dependence on the “tool” of terrorism is one of the anti-reformers last legs.

"I think that the conditions in this country are not yet ready for a mature debate about what is really going on: a major reshaping of the realities of the Middle East. "

Agreed. We don’t have the ability to come to a consensus on how to reshape the ME, only that terrorism is evil, however poorly understood. And I think that since terrorism is a tool that the resistance to ME reform depends upon, a war against that is a good start.

[Tallguy]

Small point: Of those countries that I listed China, at least, can't be considered a H*ll hole any longer. It may not be paradise by our standards, and we may not agree with it's present form of government, but they have progressed since 1900 in measureable ways. The progress is uneven, but it has been a Chinese effort.