| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Fallujah accord leaves US policy in disarray |
| 2004-05-01 |
| EFL THE United States’ policy on Iraq was in disarray last night, as the Pentagon admitted it was unaware of a breakthrough agreement to end the siege of Fallujah announced by its troops on the ground. While a new poll showed a majority of Iraqis want US and British troops to leave in the next few months, an American marine commander revealed that his troops were preparing to withdraw from the outskirts of Fallujah, a major U-turn in US policy. Lieutenant Colonel Brennan Byrne said a newly created Iraqi force of 1,100 soldiers, called the Fallujah Protective Army and led by a former general from Saddam Hussein’s army, would take over security in the besieged city. It was a deal few of his superiors seemed aware of. In Washington, Larry Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said: "There’s no deal that we’re aware of." He added that he could not rule out that an agreement was in place, but said that officials at the US military command in Baghdad told him they could not confirm a final deal was sealed. In Washington, Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary, said the situation in Fallujah was confusing but a deal was being worked on. "The goal has got to be to try to isolate the killers from the population, so that if military action is necessary, it can be done with a minimum of civilian casualties," he added. To add to the sense of disarray, US marines to the south of Fallujah were yesterday packing up their kit and destroying earthworks in apparent preparation for withdrawal. Yet elsewhere in the city, airstrikes were being launched against insurgent positions and gunfire could be heard last night. The marines’ siege of Fallujah is the most controversial military action undertaken by coalition forces since the end of the war, with Iraqi doctors estimating that 600 Iraqis had died in the fighting. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #7 eLarson -- Not yet, we haven't, but IMO this isn't over. Plus, there's a significant chance that some, even many, of the desecrators are dead already. |
| Posted by: docob 2004-05-01 9:31:20 AM |
| #6 We never did get the guys who desecrated our people's corpses. Not good, in my view. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-05-01 9:06:22 AM |
| #5 Wretchard has dug up more interesting stuff on this here. |
| Posted by: someone 2004-05-01 4:10:57 AM |
| #4 There is obviously more to this story, but at some point the Iraqis have to take responsibility for security and we shouldn't be too choosy about which Iraqis do it. The question is whether FPA can bring law and order, and decrease terrorism. I also think that Sunni leaders recognize that confrontation with the Americans will just result in them being disarmed and as a result they will get slaughtered by the Kurds and Shias when/if the civil war comes. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-05-01 3:32:55 AM |
| #3 The Marines destroyed the earthworks in the sourther part of the city because they don't need to be there anymore. If we believe the tidbits elsewhere and the analysis of the Belmont Club, the fight is in the northwest corner of the city. Let the new Iraqi force garrison the pacified sectors of the city -- frees up the Marines, gives us a nice veneer, and lets us tell the UN to STFU. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-05-01 3:04:51 AM |
| #2 Commentary from the Scotsman is a contra-indicator - when they start saying that things are hunky-dory, that's when I'll start worrying. (Like *all* British papers, they're fifth-rate garbage compared even to a rag like Newsday here in NYC). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-01 2:15:09 AM |
| #1 Who wrote this crap? Notice no mention of WHY we surrounded Fallujah in the first place. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2004-05-01 2:02:57 AM |