U.S. Seeks Truce With Fallujah Militants

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
9,367
Location
USA
BAGHDAD, Iraq (April 10) - A U.S. general called on Sunni militants in Fallujah on Saturday to join a bilateral cease-fire. Insurgents struck U.S. troops in Baghdad and central Iraq, setting a tank on fire in the capital and engaging in battles that killed 40 Iraqis, a U.S. spokesman said.

Sunni insurgents did not immediately respond to the general's call for Fallujah, where bloody fighting has been raging all week, but a team of Iraqi leaders entered the city to hold talks with local leaders. Marine commanders said they had no orders yet for a full cease-fire.

Explosions and sporadic gunfire were heard Saturday afternoon, and Marines largely remained in the industrial zone they hold in the eastern part of the city, 35 miles west of Baghdad.

Some Marines moved a few blocks into a nearby neighborhood, breaking into homes, witnesses said, in an apparent attempt to clear out gunmen firing on them.

"Today what we are seeking is a bilateral cease-fire on the battlefield so we can allow for discussions (in Fallujah)," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad. "This is an aspiration."

He added that he was "hoping to get this message to the enemy through this press conference" and the Arabic press.

In Baqouba, northeast of the capital, gunmen attacked government buildings and police stations, fighting U.S. troops in battles that killed around 40 Iraqis and wounded several Americans, said Capt. Issam Bornales, spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade.

Insurgents also fought U.S. troops in Baghdad's northern, mainly Sunni neighborhood of al-Azamiyah.

Guerrillas attacked a tank on a highway near the airport in western Baghdad on Saturday, setting it on fire. Also in the west of the city, a convoy of supply trucks being escorted by two U.S. Humvees was attacked. One of the trucks was set ablaze and the driver kidnapped, said Majid Hameed, a witness. The kidnapping could be confirmed and the driver's nationality was not known.

Along with violence in central and southern Iraq this week, there has been a rash of kidnappings by militants, including of foreign civilians. Militants holding three Japanese have threatened to burn them alive unless Tokyo withdraws its troops from Iraq by Sunday, a demand Japan has rejected.

While violence continued in central Iraq on Saturday, there was relative quiet in the south - where the militia of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has waged an uprising against coalition forces, seizing several cities.

Leaders of al-Sadr's militia said Saturday that they would not launch attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces in Karbala, 65 miles south of Baghdad, until the end of a religious festival this weekend.

Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims are in Karbala and other Shiite cities to mark al-Arbaeen, the end of the mourning period for a 7th-century martyred Shiite saint. Ceremonies are to be held until Sunday night.

"We decided to halt the military activities until the end of al-Arbaeen," said Khudeir al-Ansari, head of al-Sadr's office in Karbala, home to the Imam Hussein Shrine at the center of the ceremonies.

U.S. commanders also have suggested they will hold off on trying to uproot al-Sadr's militia from Karbala and nearby Najaf and Kufa until after the al-Arbaeen ceremonies.

In their first major military move into south in months, around 1,000 U.S. troops backed by tanks swept into the city of Kut on Wednesday to push out al-Sadr militiamen who had seized control. Kimmitt said al-Sadr followers were driven from much of Kut in the initial assault, and he expected the rest of the city to be under U.S. control soon.

In Fallujah, a party of 35 Iraqi officials - including several Governing Council members - entered the besieged city Saturday to hold talks with local leaders. Council members have expressed increasing anger over the U.S. siege, calling it a "mass punishment" for 200,000 residents.

The purpose of the talks was unclear. Kimmitt underlined that the talks were going on with city officials who "want to see Iraqi police back in the police stations, that want to see Iraqi Civil Defense Corps members walking the streets of Fallujah, that want to see the Iraqi army walking the streets of Fallujah. Not terrorists, not extremists, not foreign fighters."

A Marine commander said he had no orders yet for a full cease-fire.

"I've got no direction of any kind on a cease-fire, so I will continue to fight until I'm instructed to do different," said Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne, commander of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, meanwhile, made a surprise visit to Italian troops in the southern city of Nasiriyah, which saw fighting with al-Sadr followers earlier in the week but has largely calmed since.

Despite heavy fighting since Monday morning, Marines have insisted they were winning the battle to uproot Sunni insurgents in Fallujah.

When ordered on Friday to halt all offensive operations, Marines complained that doing so would expose them to insurgent attacks. So they demanded and received the right to conduct offensive operations necessary to prevent attacks on their positions - a more aggressive stance than only responding to attacks.

The Marines have been in position encircling Fallujah and in a large industrial zone inside the southeastern part of the city.

During Friday's unilateral halt began, they did not advance into residential area to engage gunmen there. But one Marine was killed Friday and another wounded in exchanges of fire.

The death - along with those of three Marines a day earlier announced Friday - brought the toll of U.S. troops killed across Iraq this week to 46. The fighting has killed more than 460 Iraqis - including more than 280 in Fallujah, a hospital official said. At least 647 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

During Friday's pause, a stream of cars headed out of the city, carrying families trying to escape the violence. Marines allowed women, children and the elder to leave, but turned back men.

Fallujah residents emerged from their homes for the first time in days Friday, with many burying their dead in the city's football stadium since cemeteries on the city's edge could not be reached.

Abdul-Karim Mahoud al-Mohammedawi, a Shiite on the Governing Council, announced he was suspending his council seat until "the bleeding stops in all Iraq." He also met Friday with al-Sadr, whom U.S. commanders have vowed to capture.

A Sunni council member, Ghazi al-Yawer, said he would quit if the Fallujah talks fell through.

AP correspondents Lourdes Navarro, Bassem Mroue and Abdul-Qader Saadi contributed to this report from Fallujah.


04/10/04 06:08 EDT


I thought Bush said we don't NEGOTIATE with terrorists.
mad.gif
 
I think it was civilians in Fallujah and members of the Iraqi ruling counsel that wanted for there to be a truce. The terrorists in the city have not listened-many are still shooting. The Marines shoot to defend themselves. There does not seem to be an organized leadership among the terrorists to deal with.

After the so-called truce or lease fire we need to take care of business.
 
What happens now in Iraq is called a revolt against the occupation. And it remains occupation irrespective of its purposes. Good aims like the liberation from Saddam and the way openning to the democracy are far offset by numerous losses of relatives and friends. On the East such events are not easily and quickly forgotten. And who has decided for Iraq people that it needed to get rid of Saddam and needed the democracy ? We have decided that Saddam was a dictator, but may be the people would be quite happy to be in strong hands and just wanted the UN sanctions off to live in prosperity like its oil neighbours.

Conscious by themselves or most probably well prepared by outside forces, but this is a revolt. And according to a historic experience this usually implies the presence of both, guerillas and terrorists. The firsts are warriors, the seconds - jackals. To negotiate with warriors is not a shame.
 
This so called "truce" should NOT be confused with giving up. If it was up to the Marines, the entire city would be nothing more than dust by now. I've been watching the news very closely regarding this and what I believe is happening is an attempt to calm everybody down before the entire country turns on the US. This Al-Sadr guy isn't much of a leader yet, and the coalition there is trying to keep it that way instead of turning him that jack-arse into a martyr or something. These Iraqis dig the martyr crap....and we can't afford to make this guy one.

I personally believe we should overrun the town and put a bullet in the head of each and everyone of these animals......but sometimes you have to keep a cool head and bend backwards a bit in order to stabilize the country. I really would like to see Al-Sadr dragged through the streets.
Anyway.....just wanted to make sure people knew that Marines don't surrender.....and neither does the rest of the military.....at this point, this is more of a "political operation."
 
quote:

Originally posted by Primus:
but may be the people would be quite happy to be in strong hands and just wanted the UN sanctions off to live in prosperity like its oil neighbours.

I'm sure they would, but in the case of Sadam, it didn't matter how many U.N. sanctions were in place. Its Palaces and money to the Baath Party. People are totally screwed no matter what
frown.gif
 
Last_Z i've been watching the news closely this Easter too. Some disturbing images I've seen over the last two days will stick in my mind for some time. Live broadcast of an M1 Abrams just hit by an RPG and watching the soldiers trying to get out. The first got out with bloodied left arm but the next only makes it half way out. Very graphic from only a few meters away. Then yesterday a half page spread in the local paper of nine Marines huddled praying over a dead comrade next to a tracked vehicle of some kind. Really makes you think about what all this is trying to achieve. I really hope all your soldiers get home safely to their families as well as ours who are still there somewhere.
 
quote:

Originally posted by sprintman:
Last_Z i've been watching the news closely this Easter too. Some disturbing images I've seen over the last two days will stick in my mind for some time. Live broadcast of an M1 Abrams just hit by an RPG and watching the soldiers trying to get out. The first got out with bloodied left arm but the next only makes it half way out. Very graphic from only a few meters away. Then yesterday a half page spread in the local paper of nine Marines huddled praying over a dead comrade next to a tracked vehicle of some kind. Really makes you think about what all this is trying to achieve. I really hope all your soldiers get home safely to their families as well as ours who are still there somewhere.

They showed that footage here too, although not the part when the tank gets hit.....just the guys climbing out of it. I would like to think that those injuries was a result of the concotion from the blast, instead of srapnel entering the tank, since the A1 M1 can take direct hits from other more powerful weapons, including other tanks. The footage is disturbing indeed and does make you think twice, but to run at this point would be to commit suicide. I sure hope Iraq stabilizes soon and democracy begins to flourish there so that we can bring our boys back.
My heart goes out to all the suffering families out there!
frown.gif
 
I think we are looking for a quick way out which IMO is a HUGE mistake. They need to be destroyed, all of them. If we are going to do something lets do it right. I think the election is playing into this. Come september, if Iraq is still a mess, I'm not so sure the American people can stomach what it's going to take to secure and eliminate the fundementalists. We should go right into Iran too but the rest of the world doens't have the Balls. This whole situation stirred the pot to the point we can back down now. It's all or none and we chose to go all out and tackle Sadam. It's time to put the arguing behind us whether this war is just or not. Now that were in, it's a must win for us.
 
Within the context of the understanding that diplomacy is but war by other means, I would think that negotiations can be an effective form of psy-ops.

As well, there's a long standing tradition that it's good form to negotiate with a city under siege. Our British allies have a penchant for such formalities.

It is well to remember that Roosevelt's "unconditional surrender" was un-American (Grant gave conditions to Lee, as well the Japanese surrender was conditional in regards to the emporer, and could easily have been accomplished months sooner and saved many American lives). Simply put, Roosevelt's "unconditional surrender" and refusal to negotiate with the German resistance to effect regime change was done at Stalin's direction whose greatest fear was that the West would put its house in order and present a united front against the murderous Red horde. Prolonging the war in the Pacific gave time for the Red Army to receive further billions in U.S. aid and remobilize after the German defeat to gain the lion's share of the spoils in the Far East.

That said, terrorists fall outside the rules of war. Media attention is their oxygen and negotiation is counter-productive.

[ April 11, 2004, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: ex_MGB ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by ex_MGB:
It is well to remember that Roosevelt's "unconditional surrender" was un-American (Grant gave conditions to Lee, as well the Japanese surrender was conditional in regards to the emporer, and could easily have been accomplished months sooner and saved many American lives). Simply put, Roosevelt's "unconditional surrender" and refusal to negotiate with the German resistance to effect regime change was done at Stalin's direction whose greatest fear was that the West would put its house in order and present a united front against the murderous Red horde. Prolonging the war in the Pacific gave time for the Red Army to receive further billions in U.S. aid and remobilize after the German defeat to gain the lion's share of the spoils in the Far East.

Such a big "love" to Red Army could be expressed only by a former KGB officer ! Hope you are not. Nevertheless, your frivolous enterpretation of the WWII history means you don't know it well or you distort it expressly. May be somebody forgot or does not know that at the end of the war there was a confidential agreement between the US government and German generals that allowed Germans to transfer troups and concentrate their forces mainly on the eastern front in order to slow down the Red Army offensive thereby reducing the territory of potential Soviets influence after the war. At the same time the US did not like to take part in the assault of Berlin together with Soviets because of expected high losses. And this decision was based on a pure pragmatism: in Berlin the Red Army lost 350 thousand killed and more then 1 million wounded. And what are billions of the US aid in 1945 that helped the Red Army remobilization you are speaking about ? We grateful for the US help during the war that was rendered mainly during 1942-44. But had the US another choice ? So, let's not to overestimate this contribution.

We may hate the regime and its leaders, but not our herous. And nobody is allowed to re-write the history.
 
I'm not sure what we get out of making Iraq a democracy at this point. Hopefully the majority of the Iraqi's that want freedom and are glad we did what we did, take control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top