Posted on 05/29/2004 7:06:01 PM PDT by saquin
NAJAF, Iraq - (KRT) - As he prepared last month to send soldiers across a volatile swath of Iraq to battle a rebel militia threatening to ignite a wider Shiite Muslim uprising, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey provided lethal instructions.
"Tactically, what we said to our soldiers is if you are attacked, turn and fight and finish it," Dempsey recalled. "Don't allow the militia to live to fight another day."
The blunt instructions, backed by a subtle strategy, pressured rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his al-Mahdi Army militia, eventually backing them into a corner with almost no way out.
After seven weeks of the bloodiest skirmishes since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq in May 2003, a cease-fire of sorts began late last week in parts of al-Sadr's last strongholds of Najaf and nearby Kufa as the rebel cleric sought a negotiated way out of his improbable fight with the Americans.
Whether the cease-fire holds remains to be seen. On Friday, insurgents launched mortar attacks against the main U.S. base and a four-hour firefight erupted between U.S. forces and militiamen in Kufa.
And whether the deal represents full-fledged U.S. success is also open to debate. Al-Sadr's fighters marched in the streets of Najaf after word of the agreement spread on Thursday, claiming victory. But the understanding with Sadr fails to resolve two key demands that U.S. officials have been making since al-Sadr launched his uprising - the dissolution of his militia and al-Sadr's surrender to face murder charges in the death of a rival cleric.
Instead, according to the deal reached between al-Sadr and Iraqi officials, militia fighters not from Najaf or Kufa must return home, and the ones who remain behind cannot carry weapons in the street. Also, Iraqi security forces will be allowed to move back into both cities. Al-Sadr's legal status remains unclear.
"I don't obey the occupation. Never," al-Sadr told an interviewer from Al Jazeera satellite TV channel on Friday.
For his militia, composed mainly of poor, young men at the bottom rung of society, the cost of fighting was devastating. U.S. military officials estimate that hundreds died during weeks of clashes from Baghdad's Sadr City slum to the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. Others, apparently, simply quit.
U.S. commanders estimated that there were 2,500 al-Mahdi fighters across the country at the beginning of the uprising. By late last week, they believed there were fewer than 500.
"We have reached this point, whether it's victory or progress, on the shoulders of some courageous and disciplined young soldiers," Dempsey said late last week at Camp Baker, the main U.S. base in Najaf.
What is clear is this: U.S. forces had pushed al-Sadr's fighters into two final strongholds in Kufa and Najaf by the end of last week and brought the United States to the cusp of solving one of the thorniest problems ahead of the June 30 hand-over of power to the Iraqi people.
Regardless of whether the cease-fire holds, American commanders say they inflicted maximum damage to al-Sadr's organization while limiting damage and civilian casualties in close urban environments.
There is no accurate civilian death toll from the fighting, but it appeared al-Sadr's fighters suffered most.
Even while operating in some of the holiest cities and around some of the holiest shrines in Islam, the United States in its offensive against al-Sadr did not inflame Iraq's wider Shiite Muslim population. It has also succeeded in isolating al-Sadr, the son of a martyred father with a revered family name.
"It was pretty clear he was trying to take what was a fairly small - let's call it narrow - uprising (and) was trying to expand it to a popular uprising," said Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division. "The principal goal in return was not to allow this thing to become a popular uprising, because if he gained broad support of the Shiite population, there truly would have been nothing we could have done."
It all looked far different April 4, the day the uprising was ignited after coalition authorities closed al-Sadr's newspaper and arrested one of his chief aides.
Dempsey's troops were caught in violent street battles in Baghdad. Some others already had gone back to home bases in Germany and Louisiana, having finished their yearlong tours in Iraq. All of those troops were given orders for an extended deployment.
Before setting the battle plan, Dempsey had to figure out his foe and motivations. "We had to embark on a course that maintained local, general popular support - at least neutrality," Dempsey said.
"It was very important for us to get the message out that what motivates Muqtada Sadr was not the betterment of the Iraqi people, the protection of Islam, the defense of the holy shrines," he said. "It was really power-based, money-based, influence-based and competition with other Shias for long-term control. We hammered that theme everywhere we went."
Dempsey said he brought that message to meetings with local and regional officials and tribal leaders. He also tried to rebuild the local security forces. Amid the uprising, the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps and local Iraqi police had cut and run in several major cities.
"We had to restore some degree of confidence in the Iraqi security forces," he said.
The final pieces of the plan were military.
On the operational level, where battles are linked together, Dempsey said "we had to be seen as very methodic, very patient, very precise, very disciplined."
At the tactical level, the actual fighting, Dempsey said "we need to be seen as rapid, decisive, overwhelming and lethal."
The result was a systematic destruction of the militia on a trail from Kut to Diwaniyah to Karbala to Kufa and Najaf. Dempsey's forces didn't try to clear neighborhoods. They went to the heart of the Sadr organization, whether at his political headquarters or at safe houses and weapons caches.
"We knew where to go and we went straight there, finished the fight and moved out," he said.
Once the militia was beaten in skirmishes, humanitarian projects were quickly started and radio stations were opened to spread the news. The former foes were given jobs.
"In Kut, we were fighting the al-Mahdi Army one day, and the next day we put them to work repairing the amusement park," Dempsey said.
Rubble was also removed as the battle moved to the next city.
Not wanting to inflame religious or political passions, U.S. troops couldn't forcibly remove al-Sadr's militiamen from holy sites in Karbala or Najaf.
"In both cases the local populace became so outraged by the use of the shrines essentially they were able to tip the scale in our favor," Dempsey said.
Al-Sadr finally relented and agreed to negotiate after U.S. forces captured his key aide and brother-in-law, Riyadh al-Nouri, early Wednesday.
Apparently, al-Nouri was relieved.
"He said, `First of all, thank you for capturing me not killing me,'
" Dempsey said. "
`Thank you for treating me as well as you are, and thirdly, I'm really glad this is over.'
The media has been talking about this Sadr militia as if they were the German 1st Panzer division. He had at most 6000 street thugs, half of which peeled off the first day the shooting started. The rest were blown away, several hundred per week, at a steady clip.
Not really...they prove as much every day.
"...many freepers are eager to know the truth... and are eager for the administration to show that it is in control and has a plan..."
May freepers are only intent on making it appears as if the administration doesn't have a plan.
"...we are eager for them to defend themselves with some bit of information or discovery that will validate our support for them."
LOL! There are too many freepers who are only seeking ways to invalidate them.
"When they remain silent and seemingly aloof, it causes doubts to well up and confidence to fade.
It will only fade if you don't have confidence in them to begin with, such as the Anybody But Bush (ABB) crowd, or if you are buying into the media and ABB spin.
The nay-saying FREEPERS are anti-Bush,anti-war,and/or gung-ho armchair generals,who have never been in a real war and NOTHING at all will suit them,short of a FRENCH win or total annihilation of the entire Middle East.
This article is great news.I hope that more of the same keeps coming and somehow reaches the masses.
That would depend on whether you actually care about the War on Terror and our troops or if you only care about your own petty political agenda.
I know you do...it seems the ABBies don't.
Nope,they don't.Heck,they don't even care about their own safety,for crying out loud.
More good news bump!
Well you certainly don't expect much. From a historical perspective can you point out the Wilson administration's public proclamations of its plans for World War I to demonstrate it was in control and had a plan? Same for FDR in World War II, Truman for Korea, etc.
President Bush has said we would take the fight to the terrorists. How many terrorist attacks have occurred against American targets or interests since 9/11/2001? President Bush asked for and got Congressional authority to depose the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The U.S., with assistance from several countries, routed the Taliban army and forced the Taliban government from control of Afghanistan. President Bush asked for and got Congressional authority to oust the regime of Saddam Hussein from Iraq and implement representative government with democratic principles. The U.S., together with several allies, crushed the Iraqi military, removed the Baathist government and arrested Hussein, The successful invaders are now working to implement the promised new government for Iraq.
So far the United States has been successful in accomplishing every goal set out by President Bush. We have not achieved final success, but we are making obvious progress. Don't the successes provide all the evidence needed to show the President and his advisors had competent plans for the operations conducted, and shouldn't that justify giving them the benefit of the doubt that events are being competently managed and in line with plans?
You are absolutely correct.
However, the one problem with what you say is this:
The media dopesn't wanna hear about or report on any of the positive news coming from Iraq these days.
Somehow, the Bush Administration needs to go around the media and make their case to the American people. Once the American people see the truth, Bush's poll numbers will likely rise.
Oh ye of little faith.
What do you want them to say?
Do not actions speak louder than words?
If words comfort you, Kerry never seems to be at a loss for them.
Gee, what if the generals in Iraq actually do know what the hell they are doing?
I admit to sometimes feeling like we should just level the place, but our commanders have it right: take out the enemy while winning the hearts and minds of the people. I've read that the Iraqis won't soon forget how the UN used them in the Oil for Food program. Let's hope that they don't forget who liberated them and helped them to re-build.
The one thing my mom taught me was to leave things better than you found them. My mom would be proud of our troops. I know I am!
A wonderful story. Thank you, saquin.
Because it gives them something to talk about.
What's all this 'anybody but Bush' noise?
There isn't anybody BUT Bush and everyone on FR knows that; they don't all agree on Greenspan, immigration, or even conduct of the war, but they know he's the candidate and they know [to an accuracy factor of 50%] who he'll be running against.
They also know that the media, Zogby, and most of europe's elite do NOT care about our progress in Afganistan, Iraq, and hopefully the middle east in general. I think a general consensus would say the GWB needs something near epic in order to get his points up with the middle ground voters...
That middle ground is busily convincing itself that the threat has passed, that 'they' will leave us alone if we stop irritating them. That middle ground hears about progress but has nightmares about discomfort. They will tune into the Memorial Day 500 anticipating an explosion rather than another boring IRL race with a patriotc theme.
My second greatest fear is that the middle ground voter is looking for excuses to vote in the candidate who promises a return to what appeared to be a safe 'post cold war' world despite knowing objectively that that world didn't exist and cannot exist.
[Did I mention the Lawyer I work with who decided to vote for Kerry "because Howard Stern had been taken off the air"?]
My first greatest fear is that GWB will not be able to convince them that progress on almost every front should trump their fear of the unknown.
And I still passionately oppose him on immigration.
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.