| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| US forces to pull out of Falluja |
| 2004-04-29 |
| US marines are to withdraw from positions they have held in the flashpoint Iraqi city of Falluja, an American military commander has said. Lt Col Brennan Byrne said this would allow a newly created all-Iraqi force to take control of the city on Friday. The marines have been fighting insurgents based in Falluja for the past three weeks. Elsewhere in Iraq, 10 US soldiers have been killed in attacks - eight in a car bombing south of the capital Baghdad. Falluja, a predominantly Sunni Muslim city, 50km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, has been a hotbed of resistance to the US-led occupation of Iraq. Col Byrne said the new Iraqi force that will move into the city had been set up under a new agreement reached with local leaders. Known as the Falluja Protective Army, it will be made up of up to 1,100 Iraqi soldiers led by a former general from the Saddam Hussein era. It will operate under the overall control of US forces. US forces moved against insurgents in the town following the gruesome killings of four American civilian contractors there. Recent days have seen an aerial bombardment of insurgent targets in the town. Helicopters and AC-130 have gunships bombed and strafed targets in several districts of the city. But US commanders were holding back from an all-out assault on the city of 300,000 people, in the hope of reaching agreement. They had insisted that the insurgents - who they said included former members of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard military units and foreign Islamic militants - turn in their heavy weapons. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has warned that an American military assault on Falluja could lead to civilian casualties and fuel the resistance to the occupation. Doctors in Falluja say some 600 people have been killed since the siege began three weeks ago. Thousands have fled the city, but many are now attempting to return, despite the fighting. An unconfirmed report says US marines manning a checkpoint opened fire on a minibus on Thursday morning, killing four civilians. Known as the Falluja Protective Army, it will be made up of up to 1,100 Iraqi soldiers led by a former general from the Saddam Hussein era... Three guesses as to what happens next... [sigh] |
| Posted by:Howard UK |
| #32 If the US doesn't completely pacify Fallujah, there'll be another uprising or atrocity in 6 weeks, not 6 months. |
| Posted by: Tresho 2004-04-29 9:58:08 PM |
| #31 The danger with having the Iraqi troops involved reminds me of Israel forces in Lebenon. Some of their christian allies wiped out a Palestinian refugee camp and if you hear Fisk report it its as if Sharon killed each Pal with his bare hands. Its best to keep some allies on the back burner. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-04-29 4:26:08 PM |
| #30 115AS - well alright...fair enough...you are right, they are a data point. Credible source?? Not any more so than a blog. Data point worthy discussing?? yes..all right. I stand corrected. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-29 4:18:03 PM |
| #29 It's an election year. What did we expect... Resumption of suicide attacks in a couple of weeks. Another "uprising" (in Fallujah especially) in 6 months. Now where's that Futures link... |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-29 3:02:30 PM |
| #28 B: It's just a data point. That's the nice thing about Rantburg, we all contribute and then contruct our own probability vector from all of the contributions. All I was doing was contributing a data point. I wasn't trying to say whether the NYT is credible or not. Right now the probability vector is pointing towards pullout with a very weak scalar component. Once the DoD issues a press release confirming or denying, then the direction of the vector will either change or remain the same and the scalar component will become very strong. Is it ok by you if I post a link the DoD press release? Or are we going to start supressing information here? Jeez. People are way too touchy here today. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-04-29 12:54:29 PM |
| #27 Look at the NYT report, the wire service reports, etc on the one hand, and the Belmont Club post, and the Fox reports on the other. The reports of a deal say that the the FPA will replace US forces in fallujah. But some of the most heated fighting is on the northern edge?? Perhaps Im too much of a Talmudist (think jesuit for you Catholics) but could it be that we are interpretating the railway line on the north as NOT IN FALLUJAH??? After all we're certainly going to keep a cordon up. on the north the cordon comes adjacent to the city. So IF the baddies try to ambush the FPA (as they likely will) the USMC can still fire at and even raid the baddies from the north. And notice no mention of air power. So we will still be in position to hit the baddies, but the actual "occupation" will be by Iraqis, and under a Sunni general, so they dont start blaming the Kurds (ive seen reports of vengeance attacks on Kurds in Baghdad for the Peshmerga actions in support of the USMC in Fallujah) Im thinking Afghanistan as the model, with US special ops going in alongside the FPA, perhaps attempting to blend in with them. Question - have they found any Iraqis other than Kurds who are at least as reliable as the Northern Alliance? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 12:37:39 PM |
| #26 11A5S - why would we believe what the NYT says? You say that as if they have any credibility anymore. That's the bummer for the NYT, they lost their credibility. So now when you quote from them, we take it with the same level of skepticism that we give any other DNC propaganda rag. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-29 12:21:33 PM |
| #25 Why do I see reports about us putting an ex-Saddam general leading Iraqi forces, and there are reports on Drudge and elsewhere about intel reports stating that ex-Saddam loyalists planned this and are causing most of the trouble. Am I missing something? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-04-29 12:03:22 PM |
| #24 The NYT is now independently confirming the story above. If true, it represents a return to the previous situation. Fallujah will remain a Baathist/Islamist enclave from which the enemy can stage and launch attacks. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-04-29 12:00:11 PM |
| #23 A.C. We are not on the defensive. Being on the defensive implies that we are offering some sort of media defense. I don't see that here outside of Rummy's showing of a few pictures of them shooting from a mosque. We need to get video of them hiding behind women and children on the nightly news and the morning news shows. We need to show an 'insurgent' shooting a women or a child in the back on every network. Gruesome yes but this is a war. One of the things which grabbed the public attention during GW1 is the video of bunkers, bridges, and etc being blown up shown during the press briefings. Anyone remember the 'lucky Iraqi' who cross a bridge just before it was hit by a bomb? And when the media refuses to show this we need to call them on it - very publically. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-04-29 11:41:21 AM |
| #22 The thugs have to be defeated. They can't be allowed to have any ligitamacy. That would be just another extra dead innocent later. OTOH reconstituting Iraqi military elements to take over the calm areas is good business management. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-04-29 11:28:42 AM |
| #21 Screw the "world press", Kofi Annan, and every other yammerhead out there. The only people who need to be happy with the outcome are the Americans and the Iraqis. And possibly the Brits, although they probably understand this. CLEAR THE SECTOR! Go in there and kill everything with a weapon - man, woman, or "child". Fuck world opinion. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-04-29 11:18:13 AM |
| #20 Maybe it's time to reevaluate the idea that all reporters are neutral. IMHO, those that assist the enemy (rather than report on events) should be treated accordingly. It's not like it's hard to figure out who is who..you just read what they write and... viola! |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-29 11:18:13 AM |
| #19 Naturally, the Beeb would spin this as a defeat for the US, forced by patriotic resistance to abandon the offensive and compromise, etc. Nothing of the kind has happened, of course, but propaganda has become the major battleground in the war. I am loathe to suggest that this should drive our plans but we must face facts: we are on the defensive against the enemy media. This is not completely irremediable and an aggressive effort to counter it would not contradict valid military objectives, the exact opposite in fact. The offensive should continue until the BBC and Al Jazeerah either admit defeat or (failing that) make big enough fools of themselves trying to contradict obvious facts that even their most credulous viewers will start to notice. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-04-29 11:13:01 AM |
| #18 I suspect that even if they fought correctly, it would be spun against us. Hell, look at the reporting about the mob the Thais just put down -- it's being treated like a massacre of innocents Im sorry, i read the above as indicating that since the Thais were being skewered in the press, that was evidence that we'd be more skewered. Its hard to see why the Thais NOT being skewered shows that we would be. But RC is right we WOULD be skewered, in the West, in the Arab press and in Iraq. IF our troops did it. The question that was raised is what if the FPA did it? I think we'd STILL be skewered in Al Jazeera, and in Al Guradian, et al. But I dont think we'd be as badly skewered in IRAQ, which is the hearts and minds game thats most important now, not the game for the general arab street (important, but not urgent) or for the European left (feh on them) |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 11:04:33 AM |
| #17 LH -- no contradiction. It's being treated like a massacre of innocents but no one's screaming about even so. It's getting a "they's just wogs, what can you expect" reaction, not a "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY" reaction. Which do you think we'd get? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-04-29 10:55:22 AM |
| #16 dare i say it looks like RC and MH are reading different reports about Thailand? Now imagine if the U.S actually had something to do with the Thai action against those jihadis that holed up in a mosque. Get it now? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-04-29 10:52:23 AM |
| #15 Although the hard core of resistance is penned up in the northwest corner, large areas of the city may harbor stragglers. thats the job for the FPA. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 10:51:07 AM |
| #14 re Belmont Club - damn, he's good. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 10:49:57 AM |
| #13 What the hell is this? Who came up with this brainstorm? "Falluja Protective Army" my ass. Dumb. Very dumb. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-04-29 10:42:03 AM |
| #12 dare i say it looks like RC and MH are reading different reports about Thailand??:) "Its beeing treated like a massacre of innocents" "nobody gives two shits" Which is it guys? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 10:37:58 AM |
| #11 Belmont Club has links to a map and excellent analysis of the situation on the ground: It suggests that the enemy is basically confined to the northwest corner neighborhood of 'Golan', a slum area of winding streets. I would guess -- purely guess -- that the Marines hold the southern half of Highway 10 and everything east of the main road which leads up from the Mayor's compound to the northern city wall. The tactical motivation would be obvious. The Marines, and especially the snipers, would have clear fields of fire across these thoroughfares and use them to cut off the enemy stronghold from the rest of the city both to the east and to the south. To the north the Marines hold the 8-foot high railway embankment, which is about 200 meters parallel to the north city limits. If my map analysis is right it reveals an astonishing success by the USMC. The enemy is now largely in a square about 2,000 meters on each side, with the river to one side and the open railway area to the other, facing the city streets both south and east. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-04-29 10:35:32 AM |
| #10 Thousands have fled the city, but many are now attempting to return, despite the fighting. Here's a clue to support speculation that parts of the city are relatively calm. I doubt that many Fallujahans are interested in returning to Jolan. |
| Posted by: GK 2004-04-29 10:23:42 AM |
| #9 As an illustration of what RC is talking about, look at the Thai solution to jihadis hiding in a mosque. They gassed the hell out of it, and shot down anybody who stumbled out. It's A) chemical warfare (even if of the non-lethal variety) and B) shooting the incapacitated. If American cops or troops did anything even remotely similar, you'd never hear the end of it, even if you lived to the Judgment Day. Since it's Thais, nobody important gives two shits. Of course, if it were Thai troops under the nominal command of the US in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'd fall under I-Hate-America by contagion rules, and we'd catch the flak. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-04-29 10:17:17 AM |
| #8 And of course it depends what you mean by "run amok" If they massacre civilians, yeah we'll suffer. That would be the worst case. I suspect that even if they fought correctly, it would be spun against us. Hell, look at the reporting about the mob the Thais just put down -- it's being treated like a massacre of innocents. My shift to pessimism on this comes from the fact that, well, the press wants us to lose. If they don't, they sure act like they do. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-04-29 10:04:25 AM |
| #7 OTOH it does seem that may just be control of the more pacified parts of the city, and not the whole thing. Sounds like a good idea - I would like to know more about the Iraqi general in question though. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 9:37:48 AM |
| #6 some folks would blame us, but it would be easier to shake off. And of course it depends what you mean by "run amok" If they massacre civilians, yeah we'll suffer. If they do what we would have to do anyway, fire on mosques, blow up building, etc - stuff thats within the Geneva conventions - they might get away with it. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-29 9:36:14 AM |
| #5 And, on second thought, probably not true. The US would get blamed, regardless. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-04-29 9:23:42 AM |
| #4 RC..that's an interesting take. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-29 9:19:17 AM |
| #3 On the other hand, native Iraqi troops could probably run amok and no one would care. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-04-29 9:09:26 AM |
| #2 News on Fox says this is inaccurate. Good, I want to see Mr Spooky-pants AC130 circling overhead and breathing fire on the heathens one last time (pleeeeez.) |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-04-29 9:02:22 AM |
| #1 Fox is reporting that this is not true. Marines are moving some units but not withdrawing. Remember, the goal is to return the city to the control of the central government. If we can free up a rifle company or two by letting Iraqis patrol some of the already freed parts of the city or its environs, fine. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-04-29 8:59:55 AM |