|
|
What's going on in Fallujah? The
war-torn city in northern Iraq has dominated the
headlines for three weeks, but everyone from
Fallujah residents to US defence officials seem
confused about what's happening on the ground.
|
One minute we are told that the
clash between US soldiers and anti-coalition
forces is an epoch-shaping battle. A recent report
described Fallujah as 'a defining moment in
America's history'; British journalist in
Washington Andrew Sullivan said the battle of
Fallujah contained 'the entire future of the
attempt to break the back of Islamist terror and
Muslim autocracy'. It's 'Iraqalypse Now', said
some reports (1). Yet this morning we hear that US
marines have started to pull out of Fallujah,
having handed authority over the city to a new
1000-strong Iraqi force called the Fallujah
Protective Army, headed by a former Ba'athist
general no less (2).
|
Reporters have accused America of
using reckless force in Fallujah. From Britain's
anodyne morning show GMTV to the liberal Channel 4
News, journalists have pointed the finger of blame
for Fallujah at 'American arrogance' and 'extreme
force'. 'Jaw agape and fangs unsheathed, American
colonialism has lashed out with severe brutality',
said one American left-wing critic of the Bush
administration (4). From the polar opposite of
politics, Sir Peter Tapsell, Conservative MP for
Louth and Horncastle, asked Blair in a
parliamentary debate whether America's 'murder and
mutilation' of hundreds of women and children was
an appropriate response to the murder of four
American civilian contractors in Fallujah three
weeks ago (5).
|
Yet according to the New York
Times, 'Amid condemnation in Europe and
elsewhere for what some leaders say are
heavy-handed tactics, US military and civilian
officials in Iraq have shown much reluctance for a
return to all-out fighting [in Fallujah], despite
strong talk from President Bush' (5).
|
So what was Fallujah all about? An
historic battle between America and Islamist
terrorists, or a bloody skirmish that's now been
resolved? An example of US barbarism in action, or
something akin to the British siege of Basra last
year, where forces encircled the city for two
weeks, called in helicopter gunships to fire from
on high, and eventually struck a deal? Is the
battle of Fallujah even over yet? Reports claim
that following the announcement of a deal between
US marines and civilian leaders in Fallujah for
the creation of a new Fallujah Protective Army,
the US navy dropped three 500lb bombs in 'the
Fallujah area' (6). 'It's a confusing situation',
said US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowtiz
(7).
|
It certainly is. This confusion
over Fallujah is a consequence of two things: the
coalition's defensive occupation, which combines
big talk about battles between Good and Evil with
cautious action on the ground; and some deeply
cynical reporting of the occupation by American
and European journalists, who sometimes seem to be
motivated more by kneejerk anti-Americanism than a
commitment to investigating the story. As a
result, the truth about Fallujah is that few of us
really know the truth about Fallujah.
|
Looking through the fog of
Fallujah, the battle over the city seems to
provide something of a snapshot of the coalition's
war and occupation, of the disparity between the
coalition's grand claims about a mission against
evil and the reality of what looked like a
risk-averse war.
|
Before the war President Bush said
this was 'a defining battle', that the coalition
would 'apply decisive force�.this will not be a
campaign of half-measures'. In fact, the coalition
sought to achieve victory with minimum risk. It
dropped big, shocking bombs from the skies
(shock'n'awe) in an effort to encourage Saddam's
men to surrender, followed by the movement of a
relatively light, fast column of ground troops
from the south who, it was hoped, would be cheered
by liberated Iraqis (8).
|
In short, the coalition's war
contained a profound contradiction from the start:
it was presented as a mission of global
importance, but one in which few risks would be
taken and every effort made to limit casualties;
it was a display of America's military might in
the Gulf, where the strategists advised holding
back from deploying that military might to full
effect.
|
A similar process appears to be
underway in Fallujah. It was coalition officials
who first talked up Fallujah as the defining issue
in postwar Iraq, where the battle for democracy
would stand or fall. Two days ago, James Mattis,
First Marine Division Commander, confidently
declared: 'We will move precisely against the
enemy elements and crush them without harming the
innocent.' But again, there was a big difference
between the coalition's talk and its actions. For
all Mattis' claims about crushing the enemy, in
fact US forces have remained on the outskirts of
Fallujah for the past three weeks, and for months
before that. Indeed, US marines, who took over
from the US Army's 82nd Airborne three weeks ago
after things heated up, claim that 'the army's
practice of staying out of town allowed the
security situation in Fallujah to fester' (10).
|
Now the marines, too, appear to be
staying out of town. US commanders have said they
are 'taking great pains to avoid an all-out
attack' on Fallujah. The New York
Times reports that 'the idea of sending joint
American-Iraqi patrols deep into the city has been
put off several times' over the past three weeks
of tensions (11). Instead, marines have surrounded
Fallujah, firing at Iraqis from the outskirts of
the city, while calling in helicopter gunships and
bombers to fire on suspected hostile quarters from
on high.
|
Reportedly, one reason why
Washington has refused to give the go-ahead for an
invasion of Fallujah is because it fears that
'images of fierce fighting in Fallujah will stir
uprisings throughout Iraq and outrage throughout
the Arab world' (12). For all the big claims of
defending democracy in the Middle East, if not the
world, by taking a stand and crushing the enemy in
Fallujah, it turns out that the coalition wants to
avoid doing anything that might rankle Arabs and
end up on al-Jazeera.
|
This is the war and occupation in
action, where coalition forces lash out from a
distance, whether from the outskirts of a city or
from the relative safety of the skies, before
ducking behind the wall again or retreating back
into Saddam's former palaces (where many of the
135,000 American troops deployed in Iraq appear to
spend their time). That is what the Brits did in
Basra in April 2003 (though then it was referred
to as a 'genius military tactic' rather than 'jaw
agape' barbarism) and it is what America seems to
be doing in Fallujah. It is a one-step forward,
two-steps back kind of occupation, driven by a
broader sense of uncertainty and indecision at the
heart of the coalition.
|
It is this arbitrary execution of
the occupation, which can be shaped as much by
concerns over images on Arab TV as by strategic
considerations, that has allowed so many varied
interpretations of what is taking place in
Fallujah - whether it's seen as the defining
political battle of our age, or a ruthless
American assault from the skies.
|
Read
on:
spiked-issue:
War on Iraq
(1) Fallujah and
Najav, Andrew Sullivan, Daily Dish, 27 April
2004
(2) US troops pull
back from Fallujah, Guardian,
30 April 2004
(3) We are the
barbarians, M Junaid Alam, Counterpunch,
28 April 2004
(4) Battles rage
in Fallujah despite ceasefire, Toby Harnden
and George Jones, Daily
Telegraph, 29 April 2004
(5) US weighs
Fallujah pullback, leaving patrols to Iraq
troops, John Kifner and Ian Fisher, New York
Times, 30 April 2004
(6) US weighs
Fallujah pullback, leaving patrols to Iraq
troops, John Kifner and Ian Fisher, New York
Times, 30 April 2004
(7) Ten US
soldiers killed; US held Fallujah talks,
Bloomberg, 29 April 2004
(8) See Military
disengagement, by Brendan O'Neill
(9) US weighs
Fallujah pullback, leaving patrols to Iraq
troops, John Kifner and Ian Fisher, New York
Times, 30 April 2004
(10) US weighs
Fallujah pullback, leaving patrols to Iraq
troops, John Kifner and Ian Fisher, New York
Times, 30 April 2004
(11) US weighs
Fallujah pullback, leaving patrols to Iraq
troops, John Kifner and Ian Fisher, New York
Times, 30 April 2004
|
|
 | | | |
 | |
|
| Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA509.htm
|
The Mulindwas Communication Group
"With
Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is in
anarchy"
Groupe de communication Mulindwas
"avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans
l'anarchie"
|
