"A pause in offensive operations doesn't mean Marines can't act proactively to deal with immediate threats, Marine Maj. Gen. John Sattler, CENTCOM's operations director, said in a telephone briefing from CENTCOM's forward headquarters in Doha with reporters in the Pentagon.
He said the Marines in the area have not been "hamstrung or hampered in any way, shape or form" by their rules of engagement and don't have to wait until fired upon to take action, as has been reported in some media outlets.
He noted that he feels it's important to give the negotiations a chance to succeed. "Keep in mind, our goal is not to capture the town of Fallujah," Sattler said. "Our goal is to go and free the town of Fallujah, to go in and eliminate those fighters, foreign fighters, those extremists that are in the town that have taken it away from those who reside there." 16 April 2004
So did the Marines have their hands tied, or is this Marine 2 star lying?
"Many officials say Bush is determined not to back down in Fallujah, convinced that if the insurgents hold off U.S. forces there, they will try to do the same in other Iraqi cities.
"The stakes are too high for us to leave," Bush said Friday night at a campaign event in Florida. "This is an historic moment. You see, a free society will be a peaceful society. A free society in the heart of the Middle East will begin to change the world for the better. No, they're trying to shake our will, but America will never be run out of Iraq by a bunch of thugs and killers." NYT Apr 25
So was Bush campaigning for a Marine withdrawal from Fallujah, or is he lying here.
"Together, the latest approaches to dealing with Fallujah and Najaf represent a new effort by the U.S. military and civilian leadership in Iraq to avoid the sort of violent confrontations that occurred earlier this month, when Marines fought running battles in Fallujah and Sadr's militiamen skirmished with soldiers in Baghdad and across central Iraq.
"This is the way we want to do it," Mattis said. "We didn't come here to fight."Washington Post Apr 26
Is Mattis just parroting the will of his civilian leadership, or is the General who created the "No better friend, No worse enemy" slogan following his own philosophy.
"If at some point the military decides that the string has run out, then they will tell us that and take appropriate action," Rumsfeld said. "At the present time, I think it's accurate to say that their conclusion is that they see sufficient prospects that it leads them to believe that this is a useful thing to be doing." 27 Apr
Is Rumsfeld lying here, or is he letting military commanders make the final decisions.
"But, to answer your question directly, the Marines still believe that the talks have promise. They are still looking for a political, peaceful solution. None of the Marines, especially the commanders, are anxious about having to have their Marines cross the line of departure and go on an offensive. And if this can be solved by not putting our soldiers' lives at risk -- our Marines' lives at risk, so much the better." Kimmit 28 Apr
Is Kimmit just making this stuff up about the Marine Commanders?
"The Marines on the ground are the ones that are making those judgments, and thus far theyve calculated that its in our interest to do it the way theyre doing it and to have these discussions with the Sunni tribal leaders." Rumsfeld, 29 Apr
Again, is Rumsfeld lying here?
MATTHEWS: Okay. What is the White House role? The Washington Post reported today the White House is so concerned about the political I mean, grandly political sensitivity about the issue of Fallujah that theyre involved in calling the shots over there.
RUMSFELD: The president has said to me, thats up to the combatant commanders and you. You figure it out." 29 Apr
More Rumsfeld lies???
"It is not clear whether Conway conveyed the terms of the deal to his superiors in Baghdad and at the Pentagon, or even to leaders of the U.S. occupation authority. One person familiar with the deal said it took senior U.S. military and civilian officials in Baghdad by surprise. Because of the apparent lack of consultation, some officials said elements of the agreement, particularly the speedy troop withdrawal, may be tempered by the Pentagon or by the U.S. Central Command, which is in charge of operations in Iraq." Washington Post apr 30
So nobody knew who these folks were but the Marines, yet this decision was dictated by someone beside the Marine Corps?
"But I think it's very important to understand a number of things. Number one, the Marines are not withdrawing from Fallujah. These forces will be working alongside the Marines. These forces, when they come to fruition, will be answering to the Marines as well as the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. So this is just an Iraqi component of the coalition forces surrounding Fallujah. It is only happening in certain portions of the cordon. And the initial reports that we are getting would indicate that this repositioning of the Marines to allow these forces to come in is going well.
With regards to the selection of the general who will be answering to General Conway, I understand -- I don't know his background. I would refer you to the Marines on that. I know that he has been carefully chosen, has been initially vetted. General Conway and General Mattis have expressed confidence -- initial confidence in him, and we'll see where this proceeds." Kimmit 30 Apr CPA
So Kimmit wrongly says there will be no Marine withdrawal, and refers questions concerning Selah to Conway. Yet this was a Coalition dictated plan???
Q General Abizaid, this is Bob Burns from Associated Press. I'd like to follow that up. Can you confirm that the Iraqi who is going to be developing or leading this force is named Saleh, Jassim Mohammed Saleh? And can you tell us about his background?
GEN. ABIZAID: Well, I have seen several reports from the Marines and from General Sanchez. I think that I would defer the question to personalities and to their background to the people in the field because I don't know the person and I can't say for certain that the person that you have named will be a commander, a staff officer, a liaison officer.
But clearly -- you know, give me another question that doesn't have to do with the details of Fallujah, because I think you need to go to Baghdad for the details. If you could ask me broader questions, I'd appreciate that. Why don't you give me another question." Gen Abizaid, 30 Apr
Abizaid can't even answer questions concerning the formation of the Fallujah Brigade, but it was a CPA plan???
"The decision to turn to former Iraqi army generals to help regain control of Fallujah, for instance, took place under confusing circumstances, with military officials in Iraq announcing terms that officials in Washington had yet to review."Washington Post May 1
Washington hadn't even reviewed the plan, but somehow managed to force it on the Marines???
Yet somehow a single USA Today reporter is enough to convince you the Fallujah Brigade and Marine withdrawal from Fallujah was forced on the Marine Corps from the CPA or Washington. I just don't get it.
BTW, this is exactly what my MARINE COUSIN told me was going to happen---that the very last option was to go into the city and have a big bloody battle. And, last I looked, the Marines had identified 28 baddies they needed to kill or capture . . .and have now killed or captured 27 of them. I'd call that effective.
Good post, that took some work! A good wrap to the debate.
Okay, you made me work this time... ;^)
Three or four of those quotes are relevant and specific. You shouldnt have buried them in a dozen others relating to who managed the implementation of the Fallujah brigade. Ive told you several times that thats not in dispute.
- Rumsfelds denial of the accusation that the White House was calling the shots seems blanket enough for it to apply to the decision to halt the attack. But it doesnt speak to Rumsfelds involvement, (which is indicated in a story below.)
- Kimmitts quote is evidence that Centcom supports the ceasefire, but his comments about Marine commanders are too vague to draw the same conclusion about them. Going back to the source, the context of that snip describing Marine reluctance to attack Fallujah was Kimmitt trying to convince world press that we were not brutal aggressors, just responding to insurgent attacks.
- Mattiss quote is the first indication that Ive seen of any Marine buy in to anything other than a full assault. But, I see the context was of setting up joint US Iraqi patrols with air support. It was just before Bush conferred with commanders and announced there would be no full assault. And that was just before the implementing the Fallujah Brigade. Nevertheless, its some kind of indication that he bought into those engagement rules at the time.
- Sattles comments regarding there being no rule of engagement restrictions are puzzling. There was a ceasefire in place prior to that statement on April 16. I see this April 11 BBC report of a ceasefire, " US civil administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, said the ceasefire came at the request of members of the Iraqi Governing Council.
Does General Sattle consider a protracted loose ceasefire to not be a restrictions on rules of engagement?
Theres this quote from A former U.S. Marine infantry leader and paratrooper, W. Thomas Smith Jr. writing for National Review:
" By Friday, April 9, Ambassador Paul Bremer ordered the suspension of offensive operations by the Marines in-and-around Fallujah. The ceasefire, which officially began on Saturday, is a chance for cooler heads among the rebel forces to prevail. "How can Bremer order something that General Sattle in Centcom doesnt know exists? Googling Bremer ordered yields mostly stories of him ordering US troops to close Sadars paper, so the perception is that he has the power to order our military.
- Heres another quote from an April 10 AP story indicating that there were some engagement restrictions, even if General Sattle at Centcom was unaware of them.
"The heavy fighting in Fallujah threatens to divide the Iraqi Governing Council and the US administration that appointed it.This April 9 NYT report says that Bremer ordered the offensive pause.Marines agreed only grudgingly to a halt in fighting. After initially being ordered to cease all offensive operations, they quickly demanded and received permission to launch assaults to prevent attacks if needed.
"We said to them [the commanders]: 'We are going to lose people if we don't go back on offensive ops'. So we got the word," Marine Major Pete Farnun told The Associated Press."
" The ceasefire lowered at least briefly the gathering drumbeat of warfare across central and southern areas of Iraq that has created the worst crisis of the U.S. occupation. But insurgents from both the Sunni and Shiite communities continued sporadic but widespread attacks, including an ambush of fuel trucks on a highway near Fallujah, just as the ceasefire began, in which one U.S. soldier was killed and two were reported missing. And at least one Marine died in Fallujah after U.S. commanders declared the ceasefire. U.S. officials said the pause was ordered by L. Paul Bremer, the American who heads the occupation authority, "to give a political track an opportunity to reduce the violence" and to allow Fallujah residents to bury scores of dead and meet with Iraqi intermediaries. "Heres an April 29 LA Times story saying IMEF was ordered to halt attacks by Bremer and Sanchez.
"It is the sense of Fallujahs importance to larger U.S. interests in Iraq and beyond, Pentagon and Bush administration officials said, that has caused delays in a planned full-scale assault - which at one point was set to begin last Sunday.This April 15 Washington Times story speaks Governing Council pressures on Sanchezs decision.By delaying the attack, U.S. planners have hoped to show the Iraqi population, the Muslim world and the American public that Washington has done everything possible to avoid a bloody assault on the city.
At this point, however, almost no U.S. officials expect the talks now going on between insurgents and local leaders in Fallujah to succeed.
Nevertheless, L. Paul Bremer III, the U.S. civilian administrator overseeing Iraq, and the top commander on the ground, U.S. Army Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, have at least once ordered the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force to postpone the scheduled attack, with the approval of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, defense officials said.
One senior official described the delay as part of a whole developing public diplomacy, information operations campaign designed to reduce negative reactions to a final assault.
Accordingly, U.S. officials have sought to focus attention on the insurgents violations of the cease-fire. And they have described the response by American forces as purely defensive and retaliatory"
"Iraqi politicians are playing a growing role in blocking U.S. commanders from unleashing fatal force on insurgents.All that you and I have posted fit together neatly (except for Sattles statement). And in light of all this Ill change part of my opinion. I appears that Bremer and Sanchez did order I MEF to halt the attack, but in response to pressure from Iraqi politicians, not Washington (possibly excluding Rumsfeld). And in light of your quotes, It also appears that at some time, there was some kind buy in to one version of the offensive engagement restrictions (joint patrols with air support) by top Marine commanders.In the most glaring example, Adnan Pachachi, a Sunni member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, insisted to American Administrator L. Paul Bremer that Marines cease their attacks on insurgents in Fallujah so he could initiate talks. (none)
"We consider the action carried out by U.S. forces as illegal and totally unacceptable," Mr. Pachachi told the United Arab Emirates-based Al Arabiya satellite channel at a time when Marines were in hot pursuit of criminals and terrorists inside the Sunni-run city west of Baghdad.
Mr. Pachachi joined other council members Friday in scolding Mr. Bremer for not consulting them before Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the U.S. commander in Iraq, ordered counterattacks in Fallujah and in southern Iraq, where firebrand cleric Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr is inciting violence.
The protests resulted in orders to end the Marine assault after forces had killed more than 400 Sunni holdouts and foreign "jihadists" who have come to Iraq to kill Americans and their allies. The Marine operation was triggered by the April 4 killing and mutilation in Fallujah of four former U.S. commandos who worked as a security detail.
The political pressure continued yesterday, as another council member, Shi'ite Ahmad Chalabi, warned the United States not to move against Sheik al-Sadr's militia in the holy city of Najaf for fear of enraging Muslims around the world.
"Najaf must not be touched," Mr. Chalabi, a staunch American ally, told Reuters news service. "The Governing Council is a political body that has no military experience," said retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, a military analyst. "They can certainly advise Paul Bremer and the U.S. administration on the political circumstances. But they dare not tell us how to put the life and limb of Americans who are there to bring freedom into jeopardy. I'm concerned these people will do just that if we're not careful."
Added a defense source at the Pentagon, "Kind of hard to imagine what Gen. Sanchez was thinking when he ordered the Marines to cease fire when they were killing the enemy all because the Iraqi leadership isn't able to control the terrorists. Aren't we supposed to be freeing the Iraqis from terror?" "
I dont know how much authority Bremer has over Centcom operations. The word ordered is frequently used, but it looks at least like they eventually bought in. I think evidence is now overwhelming that it was not a Marne decision and little evidence that it was Marine supported.
If Im missing something let me know. (Maybe without the misplaced condescension this time.)