Jump to content
The Education Forum

Fulluja and the Tet Offensive


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

They really don't want anyone else telling the US what to do.

Yes … One of the things that's always intrigued me about US attitudes to the outside world is the way people expect everyone in the rest of the world to be motivated by exactly the same things that motivate Americans - except for nationalism.

In other words, the Vietnamese/Cubans/Iraqis must be evil for not wanting their country to be dictated to by people they perceive as foreigners. However, if we can just find some who can be photographed drinking Coca-Cola, then we can claim that people in Vietnam/Cuba/Iraq deep down are on 'our side'.

It strikes me that, once again, US servicemen are fighting against nationalists who are, ultimately, far more motivated than they are. Add in a bit of strong religious faith, so that you actually welcome the chance to die a martyr, and it adds up to a conflict which the US can never win. The only question is how many dead and broken bodies on both sides will be left behind.

I think it would help us all if we asked the question "Who will be giving out the medals to the brave resistance fighters in Falluja?" In other words, we need to understand what it is that drives someone to attack vastly superior US forces with an AK-47. If it were largely coercion, then the fighting in Falluja would have been over the first day, as the coercers withdrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that one thing that US citizens have in common with the rest of the world is their desire to not have anyone else telling them what to do - which is one reason why, when WE try to tell others what to do the situation blows up in our face.

You perhaps underestimate the motivation of US troops; but I'm not sure that will make a difference. I think you are largely correct about the outcome. It reminds me more and more of Vietnam....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Escape routes have been sealed off, homes are being demolished, and an emergency health clinic has been razed - all in the name of preparing the city for January elections. In a letter to United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan, the US-appointed Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi explained that the all-out attack was required "to safeguard lives, elections and democracy in Iraq."

With all the millions spent on "democracy-building" and "civil society" in Iraq, it has come to this: if you can survive attack by the world's only superpower, you get to cast a ballot. Fallujans are going to vote, goddammit, even if they all have to die first.

And make no mistake: it is Fallujans who are under the gun. "The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He lives in Falluja," marine Lt Col Gareth Brandl told the BBC. Well, at least he admitted that some of the fighters actually live in Falluja, unlike Donald Rumsfeld, who would have us believe that they are all from Syria and Jordan. And since US army vehicles are blaring recordings forbidding all men between the ages of 15 and 50 from leaving the city, it would suggest that there are at least a few Iraqis among what CNN now obediently describes as the "anti-Iraqi forces".

In another demonstration of their commitment to freedom, the first goal of the US soldiers in Falluja was to ambush the city's main hospital. Why? Apparently because it was the source of the "rumours" about high civilian casualties the last time US troops laid siege to Falluja, sparking outrage in Iraq and across the Arab world. "It's a centre of propaganda," an unnamed senior American officer told the New York Times. Without doctors to count the dead, the outrage would presumably be muted - except that, of course, the attacks on hospitals have sparked their own outrage, further jeopardising the legitimacy of the upcoming elections.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...1350305,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You perhaps underestimate the motivation of US troops; but I'm not sure that will make a difference.  I think you are largely correct about the outcome.  It reminds me more and more of Vietnam....

Yes, I'm sure that the US troops are very professional, keen and ready to do their duty … but they don't live there.

One of the signs which ought to have warned the politicians in the USA that something bad was going to happen was Sadaam Hussein's decision to open the armouries and distribute weapons to the population in the run-up to the invasion. I remember thinking at the time that despots don't usually hand out weapons - they usually try to retain their monopoly on violence. He obviously didn't think that the people he'd been oppressing would just turn their guns on him and his people … and they didn't. I'm not too well-informed about the exact conditions in Vietnam, but I wonder if there were quite so many light and medium weapons in the hands of the local population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, the Viet Cong and the NVA never lacked for weapons, including some fairly large weapons (122mm rocket launchers, near the DMZ substantial artillery, anti-aircraft weapons). Of course, the VC often obtained weapons by over-running outposts (usually of poorly-trained South Vietnamese troops, but occasionally American) and grabbing weapons and ammo.

The locals used booby traps VERY effectively (most of our casualties came from these). They used fragmentation grenades with the fuses removed, attached to trip wires, and dud artillery rounds or aircraft bombs. Very similar to the roadside devices that are being used so effectively in Iraq right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The broadcast last week of footage showing a US marine shooting an injured Iraqi fighter in Falluja caused an international outcry. Yesterday the cameraman, Kevin Sites, published on his website this open letter to the marines with whom he had been embedded. Here is a brief passage from the article. The whole article is well worth looking at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1357275,00.html

did not in any way feel like I had captured some kind of "prize" video. In fact, I was heartsick. Immediately after the mosque incident, I told the unit's commanding officer what had happened. I shared the video with him, and its impact rippled all the way up the chain of command. Marine commanders immediately pledged their cooperation.

We all knew it was a complicated story and, if not handled responsibly, could have the potential to further inflame the volatile region. I offered to hold the tape until they had time to look into incident and begin an investigation - providing me with information that would fill in some of the blanks.

For those who don't practise journalism as a profession, it may be difficult to understand why we must report stories like this at all - especially if they seem to be aberrations, and not representative of the behaviour or character of an organisation as a whole.

The answer is not an easy one.

In war, as in life, there are plenty of opportunities to see the full spectrum of good and evil that people are capable of. As journalists, it is our job is to report both - though neither may be fully representative of those people on whom we're reporting.

But our coverage of these unique events, combined with the larger perspective, will allow the truth of that situation, in all of its complexities, to begin to emerge. That doesn't make the decision to report events like this one any easier. It has, for me, led to an agonising struggle - the proverbial long, dark night of the soul.

When NBC aired the story 48 hours later, we did so in a way that attempted to highlight every possible mitigating issue for that marine's actions. We wanted viewers to have a very clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fighting on that frontline. Many of our colleagues were just as responsible.

Other foreign networks made different decisions, and because of that, I have become the conflicted conduit who has brought this to the world.

I interviewed your commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time - something that now seems prophetic. It was this:

"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here - because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating.

"That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor - and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground." I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera - the story of his death became my responsibility.

The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...