You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Zark seizes 5 towns along the Syrian border
2005-09-27
A senior U.S. Marine commander said Monday that insurgents loyal to militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had taken over at least five key western Iraqi towns on the border with Syria and were forcing local residents to flee. In an interview with The Chronicle, Lt. Col. Julian Alford, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines Regiment stationed outside the western Iraqi town of al Qaim, said insurgents in the area had been distributing flyers they called "death letters," in which they ordered residents of this western corner of volatile Anbar province to leave -- or face death.

"Basically, the insurgents say if they don't leave they will ... behead them," said Alford, who took command this month of about 1,000 Marines stationed in the dusty desert area populated by roughly 100,000 Sunni Arabs. "It appears that al Qaeda in Iraq is kicking out local people from a lot of these towns out there," he said. Alford said he did not know why the insurgents were forcing townspeople to leave, but he estimated that as many as 100 families per day were passing through a Marine checkpoint just east of the troubled area, their cars packed with their belongings as they flee east alongside the Euphrates River on the ancient Silk Road.
Nice of them to clear the civilians out of the target area.

Two weeks ago, Marine spokesmen denied initial reports that insurgents had taken control of the area and were enforcing strict Islamic law, whipping men accused of drinking alcohol, burning a beauty parlor and shops that sold CDs and executing government workers for collaboration with the Iraqi government. But Alford told The Chronicle that fighters linked to al-Zarqawi had been in complete control of these ancient smuggling communities for at least the past month, and that neither U.S. nor Iraqi forces held any sway over the swath of land that abuts Iraq's desolate, porous 450-mile border with Syria. Washington has repeatedly accused Syria of providing a safe transit route for foreign fighters headed for Iraq.

He estimated that between 300 and 400 insurgents were operating in the area. Most of them, he said, are foreign fighters who have crossed into Iraq through the border with Syria. "For the time being, they run these towns," Alford said. He said he could not confirm reports that insurgents had been executing suspected American sympathizers. "We have seen a number of extra graves when we fly over in a helicopter, usually after we have killed" insurgents, he said.

Marine units stationed outside al Qaim and four neighboring towns perched along the Euphrates River -- Dulaym al Husayba, Karabila, Sada to the west of al Qaim, and Al Ubaydi to the northeast -- do not venture into these towns, Alford said. Insurgents open fire at any Marine patrol that approaches the town lines. No Iraqi soldiers or police officers operate inside the towns. Marine units patrolling close to town limits "have seen a lot of guys in black pajamas and black ski masks and with weapons, and we've killed a number of them," Alford said.

Insurgent forces have in the past controlled major towns in Iraq, especially in the so-called Sunni triangle north and west of Baghdad, including Fallujah, Ramadi and, most recently, Haditha.
And that worked well, didn't it?
Alford believes that intensive attacks by U.S. forces on their strongholds in Ramadi and Fallujah, two Euphrates River cities, respectively, 120 and 140 miles downstream from al Qaim, has pushed fighters west toward the border with Syria. In the border area surrounding al Qaim, he said, "they found their last foothold."
Alford said he was expecting to launch a joint offensive against the insurgents holed up in al Qaim and the surrounding towns after the arrival of about 3,000 Iraqi soldiers in the area. He did not say when the Iraqi troops were scheduled to arrive, saying only that it would be "soon." "They're dangerous, and they're extremely adaptive, but they can't beat us and the Iraqi army," he said.

Alford said he wanted to make the area safe enough to set up polling stations ahead of the Oct. 15 referendum on the new Iraqi constitution.
Also, he said, insurgents have posted signs across the area warning residents not to participate in the referendum. Having areas where insurgents intimidate thousands of people against voting in the referendum significantly undermines the desperate attempts by the United States to engage Iraq's disenfranchised Sunni Arabs in the nation's political process.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#14  2b, please elaborate on the "Zark is dead" comment.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike   2005-09-27 22:55  

#13  I should've sadi "Start at Syria and walk..."
Posted by: Frank G   2005-09-27 21:08  

#12  I detect a shrinking of the theater. Next week will it be three towns ? Two towns ? What will we do when our boots choke out their last breaths ?
Posted by: wxjames   2005-09-27 21:06  

#11  time to remind Syria what "hot pursuit" and "aiding and abetting insurgents against a sovereign country" means? Walk the artillery back to our front lines
Posted by: Frank G   2005-09-27 21:06  

#10  insurgents loyal to militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Zark is dead.
Posted by: 2b   2005-09-27 21:00  

#9  Meh, if they were concerned about civilians, they'd evacuate 'em back into Syria. Anyways, this is Zarqawi's devil-worshippers. Dead babies, mommas and grandpas make them giggle like schoolgirls. Why would WMD change matters? They planted a crude chemical-dirty bomb in Tal Afar in such a fashion as to encourage heavy civilian casualties.

No, this is them trying to drive out the local anti-al Queda tribe. I seem to remember hearing about the border in that area dividing up into a pro- and anti-Queda set of tribes. Sounds like the anti-Quedas have gotten their asses tanned.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2005-09-27 19:15  

#8  I have a baaaaad feeling about this:

Normally, the Jihadis would PREVENT people from leaving, for the purpose of providing human shields, and as propaganda fodder when Americans accidentally kill civilians (trust the MSM to omit the fact that the Jihadis have killed more civilians than the Americans have). Why drive them away and INVITE the response that verlaine is pining for?

speculative scenario (that I hope is dreafully wrong): Saddam's WMD is about to turn up. American and Iraqui soldiers attack the town to eliminate the Jihadis, and they set the WMD off, taking themselves and lots of Americans with them.
Posted by: Ptah   2005-09-27 18:58  

#7  Zarq kicking the civilians out only means one thing: he is more concerned about them tipping off their location to the Coalition than he is concerned about having human shields.
Posted by: Captain America   2005-09-27 18:56  

#6  Verlaine, if we were going to do that, why not, while we're at it, make it an even 100,000 new troops and STOMP DOWN HARD on the northwest area once and for all. I'm sick of this death by a thousand cuts strategy.
Posted by: jolly roger   2005-09-27 18:07  

#5  Actually telegraphing that we're going in and the scumbags not being able to do a damn thing about it is more demoralizing to their supporters than a quick lightning unannounced attack that they would spin into being an irrelevant victory for the good guys.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2005-09-27 16:57  

#4  Verlaine, good points. But why does a dawg lick it's balls?
Posted by: halfEmpty   2005-09-27 16:46  

#3  Basically, the insurgents say if they don't leave they will ... behead them,
Would it help us with the MSM,if we did this?
After all, it's what "minutemen" do, I've been told by the Michael Moore's of the world.
Posted by: plainslow   2005-09-27 16:21  

#2  We abandoned it long ago. Politicians and sleezy generals need sound bites don't ya know? I'm all for a sudden, unexpected and previously untelegraphed MRLS barrage on the towns followed by a swift assault by mechanized infantry. Kill 'em all (since the civilians are gone) and stack up the bodies. THEN bring in the press.
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-09-27 15:23  

#1  I have great confidence in the USMC and US forces generally, but .... would it kill us to just ONCE maybe show a little razzle-dazzle .... instead of telegraphing every move weeks in advance, use our resources to surge large forces overnight and establish an instant cordon around a given town .... and rush in depending on chaos and superior training and equipment to harvest all the vermin, instead of just a %? If the nitwits are emptying the towns of non-combatants, it seems they're virtually begging to be slaughtered.

Unit rotations here are depicted in colorful graphics that detail all the movements of US forces in and out of the theater. Many of the larger units' movements are a amply publicized in the US and world media even before they leave CONUS. Would it be impossible to just bring in some combat power without warning? Either I'm missing something, or we've completely abandoned maneuver, surprise, and local concentration of superior force. I'm puzzled.
Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq   2005-09-27 14:40  

00:00