 |
|
|
|
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
REMEMBER FALLUJAH: THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OCCUPATION
A briefing by Milan Rai of Justice Not Vengeance, 7 Oct 2005
This is the story of Fallujah, and how it became so famous and so dangerous; how it became a ruined city. It is also the story of how the United States—and Britain—became the problem in Iraq, not the solution. In April 2004, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, ‘[I]t was not the Americans who cast the first stone, either in Fallujah nor in the areas where they came under attack.’ This is a lie.
THE
FIRST MASSACRES
In April 2003, US troops entered the peaceful city of Fallujah (which
had not resisted the US-led invasion), occupying the local secondary school.
On 28 April, an unarmed demonstration by local people demanding the withdrawal
of the troops and the re- opening of the school was met with US gunfire.
13 civilians, including 3 teenagers, were killed.
The troops were probably responding to the sound of guns being fired in the air nearby to celebrate Saddam Hussein’s birthday. British journalist Phil Reeves concluded that the soldiers were not fired on: ‘There are no bullet marks on the facade of the school or the perimeter wall in front of it.’ (Independent on Sunday, 4 May 2003, p. 17)
Despite this unprovoked atrocity, Fallujah continued to protest nonviolently. Another unarmed demonstration followed two days later.
At the demo, reporters from the Daily Mirror saw a young boy hurl a sandal at a US jeep. A soldier in the jeep, perhaps mistaking it for a grenade, unleashed a 20-second burst of his machine gun at ‘a crowd of 1,000 unarmed people’. Two people were killed.
Reporter Chris Hughes said, ‘We heard no warning to disperse and saw no guns or knives among the Iraqis whose religious and tribal leaders kept shouting through loudhailers to remain peaceful.’ After the shooting, those in the crowd still standing—‘now apparently insane with anger—ran at the fortress battering its walls with their fists. Many had tears pouring down their faces.’ (Daily Mirror, 1 May 2003, p. 4)
TURNING
TO REVENGE
Two unprovoked massacres in three days. Fifteen unarmed civilians dead.
No apology. No punishment of any soldiers. No withdrawal of troops.
The people of Fallujah, a city of 300,000, turned decisively to violence. Sheikh Jamil Ibrahim Mohammed said, ‘What can you do if a man sees American troops kill his son, and then you see these same men on our streets every day? Of course he will seek revenge, especially if he sees there is no justice from the Americans.’ (Times, 12 June 2003, p. 16)
‘Everyone here was happy at first that the Americans threw out Saddam,’ Ibrahim Hamad, a retired soldier, said. ‘But these killings will make all our children go off with bin Laden.’ (Reuters, 1 May 2003)
IMPUNITY
The message of the April massacres was: US soldiers must prioritise their
own safety, whatever the cost to the civilian population. Any potential
threat may be destroyed, without fear of punishment.
These rules of engagement have been applied throughout the US zone of occupation. The resulting civilian deaths have fuelled and expanded the insurgency. This is how Fallujah and the wider ‘Sunni triangle’ became a hotbed of insurgency.
THE
ORIGINS OF INSURGENCY
Amnesty International said in a July 2005 report: ‘US forces have
committed gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian
law. They have not taken necessary precautions to minimize risk to civilians.
They have used cluster weapons in bombing residential areas, which have
resulted in the deaths of many civilians. They have used excessive force
in responding to demonstrations, tortured and ill-treated detainees and
made them “disappear”. They have made arbitrary arrests and
held people in prolonged incommunicado detention. These violations have
incensed the Iraqi population, especially in the predominantly Sunni areas
in central and western Iraq, and are believed to have fuelled the armed
insurgency.’<tinyurl.com/dovwa>
ERASED
FROM HISTORY
The 28 and 30 April massacres were almost immediately erased from history.
Reporting from Fallujah on a US operation on 16 June 2003, the Telegraph
(p. 10), the Guardian (p. 10), and the FT (p. 6) all referred to anti-US
attacks, and local hostility, without mentioning the massacres.
INVASION
MARK 1 - APRIL 2004
Since April 2003, there have been two major invasions of Fallujah (US
forces were forced to withdraw from the city soon after the massacres).
The first came after the killing, mutilation and public burning of four
‘private military contractors’ (mercenaries) by a massive
crowd just outside Fallujah on 31 March 2004.
Five days earlier, US marines had swept through Fallujah killing ‘at least six Iraqi civilians, including an 11-year-old boy, and a television cameraman’. (Observer, 28 March 2004 <tinyurl.com/btaaz>) Could this have contributed to the crowd’s hatred? The media did not ask.
At least one US battalion had ‘orders to shoot any male of military age on the streets after dark, armed or not’. One US soldier told the New York Times ‘he had seen an American helicopter fire a missile at a man with a slingshot. “Crazy huh?” ’ (NYT, 14 April 2004 <tinyurl.com/dssy8>). According to the local hospital director, 731 civilians were killed by US forces in Fallujah. <tinyurl.com/b8b2e> The invasion was halted by protests inside and outside Iraq, partly because of the loss of civilian life.
INVASION
MARK 2 - NOVEMBER 2004
In November 2004, there was another massive US assault (with direct British
military support), but there were no large-scale protests either inside
or outside Iraq, despite US Lt. Col Gareth Brandl’s remark on the
eve of battle that ‘the enemy has got a face. He’s called
Satan. He lives in Falluja, and we’re going to destroy him.’
(Times <tinyurl.com/9dstv>)
US forces announced before the bombardment that men under the age of 45 trying to leave the city would be arrested. (Sunday Telegraph, 7 Nov. 2004 <tinyurl.com/bpfcf> It was estimated that around 60,000 civilians but only between ‘600 to 6,000’ fighters remained in Fallujah before the assault. It was reported that ‘Anyone still in the city will be regarded as a potential insurgent.’ (Observer, 7 Nov. 2004 <tinyurl.com/af53d>)
Dr Rafa’ah al-Iyssaue, director of the main hospital in Fallujah reported to the UN after the invasion that more than 700 bodies had been recovered from the rubble in 9 out of the city’s 27 neighbourhoods. 550 were women and children. <tinyurl.com/8vrdv>
THE
PRETEXT
The main justification offered for the November assault was the need to
break the hold of ‘the terrorists’. However, in October, ‘local
insurgent leaders voted overwhelmingly to accept broad conditions set
by the Iraqi government, including demands that they eject foreign fighters
from the city, turn over all heavy weapons, dismantle illegal checkpoints
and allow the Iraqi National Guard to enter the city.’
True, the insurgents had their own conditions, ‘which included a halt to U.S. attacks on the city and acknowledgment by the military that women and children have been among the casualties in U.S. strikes.’ (Washington Post, 28 Oct., <tinyurl.com/47axh>) But this might have achieved the bloodless exclusion of ‘foreign fighters’ and heavy weapons from the city, if this was indeed the purpose of the invasion. The offer was rejected out of hand.
A (mainly Sunni) coalition proposed ‘a plan to establish the rule of law in those areas through peaceful means’ on the basis of six measures, ‘including a demand that U.S. forces remain confined to bases in the month before balloting’ for the January elections. An official involved in establishing the transitional government said this was ‘very significant... If you look at their demands, they’re not impossible. They are things that can be discussed.’
Larry Diamond, who served in the US-led occupation authority, said, ‘If there’s a chance that this could be the beginning of political transformation that could change he situation on the ground, I think we’ve got to take it.” (WP, 6 Nov. 2004 <tinyurl.com/6p69o>)
These proposals might not have worked. They were not tried.
SADDAM'S
PATH
The real purpose of the assault was to teach Fallujah a lesson in terror.
A lesson that has been taught elsewhere since, including in Karabila,
Qaim, and Tal Afar. Noted commentator Juan Cole remarks: ‘the massive
force employed clearly announces that a subsidiary goal is to terrify
the Sunni Arab population and to “encourage” them to report
on the guerrillas from now on... Saddam called this sort of policy “tarhib
wa taqrib”: first you terrify your subjects, then you find ways
of pulling them close to you.’ (29 June 2005 <tinyurl.com/7h598>)
We follow Saddam’s path.
CONCLUSION
Pace Jack Straw, the US did ‘throw the first stone’ in Fallujah.
With British support, and media self-censorship, the US continues to fuel
the insurgency with its racist brutality. Remember Fallujah, and resist.