An account from Agence France-Presse about demonstrations in Fallujah by Sunnis celebrating the American withdrawal from Iraq included this strange passage about the battles of Fallujah:
That year, the U.S. military launched two massive offensives against Fallujah, signs of which are still visible today in collapsed buildings and bullet holes in walls. The first offensive in April aimed to quell the burgeoning Sunni insurgency but was a failure — Fallujah became a fiefdom of Al-Qaeda and its allies, who essentially controlled the city. In November, a second campaign was launched, just months before legislative elections in January 2005. Around 2,000 civilians and 140 Americans died, and the battle is considered one of the fiercest for the U.S. since the Vietnam war.
“But was a failure” is not a good description of the first siege. The Marines were on the verge of taking the city until the Iraqi Governing Council petitioned Paul Bremer to call off the assault, making it more a tragedy than a failure, in that too many courageous Marines died on the verge of victory.
The AFP account also fails to mention that the second battle succeeded in more or less banishing al-Qaeda from the city, marking a turning point in the war, after which al-Qaeda was on the defensive and gradually lost Anbar Province. It is equally odd of them to have listed purported civilian fatalities and the 140 American deaths but failed to mention enemy losses. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates suffered their greatest losses of the war in Fallujah (1,000–1,500 killed) and, of course, had themselves conducted a nightmarish reign of terror during their brief control of the city from April to November.
The entire history of the two battles of Fallujah has yet to be written, and the topic is full of lurid and unproven charges about Marine cruelty, white phosphorous used indiscriminately, and the shooting of prisoners, without much attention paid to what the Marines found when they removed al-Qaeda or the brutal manner in which the terrorists fought and how they treated civilians — or the courage with which the Marines fought and won. But at this early juncture it at least can be said that there was far more to the first assault than the single noun “failure,” and any mention of the second without a word about massive al-Qaeda losses is political airbrushing.
Is this the thanks we get from Iraqis for all the blood and treasure the US spent in Iraq? So much for the NeoCons lie about the Iraqis welcoming the US as liberators. Just sit back and watch the Saudis and Iranians start their proxy war in Iraq on January 1.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is probably like talking to the wind, but don't confuse the Iraqi people with the warlords and politicians of the battling factions within Iraq, nor confuse the Iraqi people with the Iranian agents.
Your comment would be parallel to saying that the Americans 'lied' about the Germans 'welcoming the US as liberators' in WWII: no, the Nazis weren't happy that we were there. The German people were another matter altogether.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseget a dog if you want thanks for doing the right thing ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHA!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere was no lie about the US being greeted as liberators--demonstrably, we were thus greeted by the vast majority of Iraqis. Where we failed, as we so often do, was in the political aftermath. It is difficult to blame any civilian population for going sour when the liberators screw up their victory in so many ways, from totally disbanding (and thereby impoverishing) the Iraqi army, to not reacting immediately and forcefully to Iranian attacks on our forces. We managed to remove a vicious tyrant quickly and decisively only to waffle in the critical aftermath for fear, apparently, of appearing "heavyhanded" in the occupation.
At the first appearance of Iranian involvement (the IEDs, for example) we should have turned the Iraqi-Iranian border into a free fire zone and, if necessary, shown Iran and its Revolutionary Guards what "shock and awe" feels like. Unfortunately, just as GHW Bush blew it after Gulf War 1, GW Bush waivered after Iraqi Freedom. And now OHB continues the tradition by kowtowing to Iran for our drone instead of just destroying it in place--and anybody within about a square block of it, The price to be paid now, as then, is in continued violence and regional mayhem, thanks to the barbarians who rule the area and the loss of will of the West in general, and America in particular..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOutstanding summary. realistic. honest. Sadly , also true. Any chance you would be willing to serve as sec of defense in the new administration? With esteem JPS
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVDH's contention that the history of the fallujah battle hasn't been completely written is
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseprobably true. But for an excellent account, written by an eye witness I strongly suggest "No True Glory" by Bing West. West describes both the military action and the politics that surrounded this effort,
I think you are probably wrong about one thing, Victor: I think they *did* mention the enemy casualties - they included them in the number of "civilians" that died. (And, despite the wording that implies otherwise, they were very likely to have been killed by al Queda, and not by us.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere was a good program on the battle for Fallujah on the History Channel recently.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs not the point here that it is an account from Agence France-Presse?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother superb book about the Second Battle of Fallujah is "House to House" by David Bellavia. Both it and "No True Glory" compliment each other very well, as "The Longest Day" and "Band of Brothers" compliment each other on D-Day. (The books, not the movies, though those are good too.) Bellavia's is more of a worm's eye view of the battle, and includes one of the more horrifying descriptions of hand-to-hand combat.
Though after reading Dr. Hanson's column, I'm reminded of Sgt. Bellavia joking to his men that ten years after the battle, all the accounts will be about the Marines and the Army will be forgotten.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Marines were on the verge of taking the city until the Iraqi Governing Council petitioned Paul Bremer to call off the assault."
Untrue. The assault was called off by the Bush administration, as an act of outreach to our enemies. The Iraqi Governing Council knew they had been betrayed by the Administration, and one Council member lamented, "Today they are in Fallujah, tommorow they will be in Baghdad."
The Administration's overall goal was to negotiate a political withdrawal from Iraq. When a Marine officer on the scene described the situation as a "blueprint for all of Iraq" he wasn't joking. Eventually, the west of Iraq was ceded to the Sunnis, and the entire south to Iran and its proxy al Sadr. The "surge" was our retreat into Baghdad, not a drive to victory. Fighting stopped in Iraq because we surrendered and gave our enemies what they wanted.
To preserve Iran as a negotiating partner, the Bush administration looked the other way while Iran killed, via proxies, hundreds and perhaps thousands of our troops in Iraq. (Ever wonder why the Administration twice allowed al Sadr to slip through its fingers?) The desire for a political exit explains our absolute failure to fight to win, and to shy away from every action that might interefere with a rapid exit. Even securing the 5-mile-long road to the Baghdad airport took years, because the Bushies never missed a chance to avoid escalation -- even though winning outright was always the shortest and best road to a worthwhile peace.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you have any links for this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a veteran of the surge who served in southern Iraq between 2008 and 2009 I can tell you first hand that what you have written is entirely false and without fact or merit. The first battle for Fallujah was called off 48 hours before completion by the President after numerous press reports on the number of casualties. He felt pressured by the media. It was an appeasement to the liberal media rather than an outreach to our enemies.
I was headquartered in the south at COB Adder in Tallil and the area was in no way ceded to Iran or Al Sadr. I also served quite a bit of time in western Iraq and it was in no way ceded to the Sunnis.
The Bush Administration and the Department of Defense would have prefered to win outright, but were out hussled by the propoganda of the left wing media and the Democratic Party.
The end really came when the Obama Administration came in and started looking the other way from Iran and working on a political exit strategy rather than secure peace and prosperity for Iraq.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRILonghorn, it is difficult, without a book-length response, to refute someone who thinks the Bush administration folded at Fallujah because it was pressured by lefties. But at least you admit the Bush administration capitulated, and did not fight to win -- and that is a worthwhile beginning. To help you get started doing some digging (and finding out that that's how the rest of the war went, too), consider the following about following about the Bush administration's approach:
External Link
In the south, the British were in charge of doing the actual surrendering to Iran, and they followed Bush's lead by creating their own, Fallujah-style turnover:
External Link
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr Hanson, G Bush was the Commader in Chief. It was his decsion to stop the attack on the verge of Victory, just one more terrible mistake by a fool who made many.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse