8-Day Battle for Najaf: From Attack to Stalemate

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/18/international/middleeast/18najaf.html
NAJAF, Iraq, Aug. 17 - Just five days after they arrived here to take over from Army units that had encircled Najaf since an earlier confrontation in the spring, new Marine commanders decided to smash guerrillas loyal to the rebel Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

Acting without the approval of the Pentagon or senior Iraqi officials, the Marine officers said in recent interviews, they turned a firefight with Mr. Sadr's forces on Thursday, Aug. 5, into a eight-day pitched battle, one fought out in deadly skirmishes in an ancient cemetery that brought them within rifle shot of the Imam Ali Mosque, Shiite Islam's holiest shrine. Eventually, fresh Army units arrived from Baghdad and took over Marine positions near the mosque, but by then the politics of war had taken over and the American force had lost the opportunity to storm Mr. Sadr's fighters around the mosque.

Fighting here continues, and what the Marines had hoped would be a quick, decisive action has bogged down into a grinding battle that appears to have strengthened the hand of Mr. Sadr, whose stature rises each time he survives a confrontation with the American military. It may have weakened the credibility of the interim Iraqi government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, showing him, many Iraqis say, to be alternately rash and indecisive, as well as ultimately beholden to American overrule on crucial military and political matters.

As a reconstruction of the battle in Najaf shows, the sequence of events was strikingly reminiscent of the battle of Falluja in April. In both cases, newly arrived Marine units immediately confronted guerrillas in firefights that quickly escalated. And in both cases, the American military failed to achieve its strategic goals, pulling back after the political costs of the confrontation rose. Falluja is now essentially off-limits to American ground troops and has become a haven for Sunni Muslim insurgents and terrorists menacing Baghdad, American commanders say.

The Najaf battle has also raised fresh questions about an age-old rivalry within the American military - between the no-holds-barred, press-ahead culture of the Marines and the slower, more reserved and often more politically cautious approach of the Army. Army-Marine tensions also have surfaced previously, notably when the Marines opened the Falluja offensive.

As they replay the first days of the Najaf battle, some commanders are wondering if a more carefully planned mission would have had a better chance to succeed.

"Setting conditions for an attack requires extensive planning and preparations," said Lt. Col. Myles Miyamasu, who commands an Army battalion that arrived to reinforce the Marine unit here two days after the fight began. "If you don't have those things in place and you attack, a lot of times it fails."

When the United States transferred power to the interim government in June, both American and Iraqi officials insisted that authority for major decisions on the use of force would be exercised by the new Iraqi leadership, in particular Dr. Allawi, a former enforcer for Saddam Hussein's Baath Party who defected in the 1980's and became leader of an exile political party. Senior United States military commanders emphasized that while they retained command of their troops, the forces were there to serve the Iraqi government.

But in the battle in Najaf, at least, the marines here say they engaged Mr. Sadr's forces at the request of the local Iraqi police. They did not seek approval from senior military commanders or from Iraqi political leaders, with the exception of the governor of Najaf. The governor, Adnan al-Zurfi, an Allawi appointee, refuses to confirm having given the green light, although American commanders in Baghdad cited his commands repeatedly as the political cover for the Marine attack.

In past week, the interim government has twice halted major American-led attacks on Mr. Sadr's forces as they were about to begin. It now says it will use Iraqi troops for future battles. But it is far from clear, judging from the lukewarm assessments of American commanders in Najaf, that the American-trained Iraqi units that fought alongside the Americans last week are capable of taking the lead in any showdown with Mr. Sadr.

Continued

I'm beginning to think the only way to settle this is:

1) Destroy the mosque and piss off half of Iraq and the Muslim world
2) Sadr dies of a heart attack or slips in the bath tub
3) Encircle the area with about 25,000 troops and starve them out or fire in hordes of tear gas.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Except Sadr is giving up...Text

He has made promises before. It would release tensions if he actually backs this up.
 

jdbolick

Member
Aug 12, 2004
72
0
0
The point should really be made more often at how al Sistani and others have saved the U.S. from no end of headaches by discouraging most Shi'a from supporting al Sadr. Another point is that, although it is almost never reported by the media, individual reporters (like one from the L.A. Times that I can't remember but heard on NPR) say that the inhabitants of Najaf cheer U.S. soldiers when they attack al Sadr's men because they hate the disruption to their daily lives and believe that al Sadr is just trying to make a grab for power. From the news media you'd think almost the whole country supports the guy, not the other way around.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Except Sadr is giving up...Text

He has made promises before. It would release tensions if he actually backs this up.

I have my doubts, too.. There also exists the possibility that he may not be in as firm control of his militia as he would have us believe.
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
I don't think Iraqis are as much for Sadr as they are against us mainly. The news might not potray the situation as accurately, making many people believe they're for Sadr, but then again, at this moment, many Iraqis are against us and the only symbol for that is Sadr fight against us.
I am glad that Sistani &amp; other Shi'ite leaders still on our side or at least haven't called for open rebellion against us &amp; the current Iraqis govt. not that they have any reason to so far. Yes we messed up the post-Saddam planning &amp; reconstruction &amp; made the situation worse with many wrong decision, but I believe it was with good intention, just ignorance or force upon by situation beyond control, not out of maliciousness like for example what Sadr is doing right now, making a power grab through arms &amp; intimidation.
Although I think any open rebellion will fail, it will probably lead to a small scale civil war of some sort and make our soldier's live there a living hell.... so we are really walking a tight rope here.
 

jdbolick

Member
Aug 12, 2004
72
0
0
According to most soldiers I've spoken to (many of them Democrats), the media is grossly misleading the American public as to the situation in Iraq. Certain isolated areas are very dangerous, but while many Iraqis may resent us being there, they just want us to get out as quickly as possible, not kill us. Many of them are even on cautiously friendly terms with soldiers. But I agree that things could have been handled a hell of a lot better.


And regarding al Sistani, he's not really on our side. He's on his own side. That guy seems like a brilliant future politician, although I hear that he's rather sick now, so I hope it isn't serious. He kind of scares me a bit because he is so adept at manipulating things. He's the one who order the Shi'a council members not to sign the first constitution when it was supposed to happen. I was discussing that with my mom and I told her that Sistani would have them sign it the next day, and sure enough, that's what they did. I don't really trust al Sistani because he could end up turning Iraq into an Iran-style government with himself as the head, but I think he's our best hope for some semblance of stability and I think it was dumb of us to go in with our preconceived notion about separation of church and state when that sentiment doesn't fly over there. Sistani kept things under control, but it probably would have been better if we worked more closely with him from the beginning. Even though he has the potential to be a major problem for us, I think he's canny enough and aware enough of his own self-interest that he wouldn't do anything foolishly confrontational.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Conjur: I am on your side with this one. We either need to leave this guy alone or just get him out of the picture. And by get him out of the picture make him a martry. Martrys dont talk and give orders. Sure it will piss some morons off but if we dont deal with this guy he will become a bigger problem than he already is.

This fighting him to the brink and letting him go only strengthens him. Look at what the Israelis do with arafat. How many times in the past 5 years have the Israelis stormed upto Arafats home only to eventually turn around.

What I dont understand is this guy is leading an uprising. If he did this in the United States he would be caught or killed by law enforcement. So why in a warzone does he get away with it? Esepcially since an Iraqi judge has issued a warrent for his arrest in the muder of a rival cleric.
 

jdbolick

Member
Aug 12, 2004
72
0
0
The issue is the mosque. I don't think most Shi'a would give a rat's ass if this guy was hanged or shot tomorrow, but they'd give birth to full grown cattle if an armed, infidel American set one foot into that mosque. I prefer that we do be careful, and quite honestly, I don't even see why we're bothering with that idiot. By fighting him we're making him more of a threat. I agree, we should either end it or forget it, but dragging this out is just making things worse.
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
I don't think we could ignore him either, as he has some support and his followers are armed and dangerous. Although not big, it is estimated in the news around 2000-3000 in Najaf alone, they are armed and stronger than the IP or ING at the moment. I think we need to equip Iraq Guard with something heaveier ie tank &amp; chopper if we want them to take care of their own problem.
Of course we also need to make sure they ain't using it to turn against us.
BTW, did we totally destroy all of Saddam's tanks?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
stumbling block in the road to peace
how, again, is peace a stumbling block to peace?

I?m not following the logic.

Perhaps you overlooked the bolded portion in the OP.

Here, I'll repeat it for you:

Acting without the approval of the Pentagon or senior Iraqi officials, the Marine officers said in recent interviews, they turned a firefight with Mr. Sadr's forces on Thursday, Aug. 5, into a eight-day pitched battle, one fought out in deadly skirmishes in an ancient cemetery that brought them within rifle shot of the Imam Ali Mosque, Shiite Islam's holiest shrine. Eventually, fresh Army units arrived from Baghdad and took over Marine positions near the mosque, but by then the politics of war had taken over and the American force had lost the opportunity to storm Mr. Sadr's fighters around the mosque.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Conjur: I am on your side with this one. We either need to leave this guy alone or just get him out of the picture. And by get him out of the picture make him a martry. Martrys dont talk and give orders. Sure it will piss some morons off but if we dont deal with this guy he will become a bigger problem than he already is.

This fighting him to the brink and letting him go only strengthens him. Look at what the Israelis do with arafat. How many times in the past 5 years have the Israelis stormed upto Arafats home only to eventually turn around.

What I dont understand is this guy is leading an uprising. If he did this in the United States he would be caught or killed by law enforcement. So why in a warzone does he get away with it? Esepcially since an Iraqi judge has issued a warrent for his arrest in the muder of a rival cleric.

I'd like to see someone infiltrate his ranks and pull a suicide bomber on him!
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Najaf mosque reportedly hit as standoff goes on
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1093183992894_70/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
Reports from Iraq say U.S. forces have hit part of a holy Shiite shrine in Najaf where rebels have been locked in a two-week standoff with U.S.-led forces.

The report, carried by the Reuters news agency, was from a senior commander of Shiite militants who said the wall of the Imam Ali Shrine was hit by U.S. fire on Sunday night.

Sheikh Ahmed al-Sheibani, who is also a top adviser to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, said it was hit during fighting.

It was not immediately possible to confirm the accusation independently.

Serious damage to the shrine would enrage millions of Shi'ites around the world and give al-Sadr political ammunition in his rebellion against U.S. troops.

The rebels are loyal to impassioned cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, who has gained a following denouncing the U.S. presence in the country.

Just before news came of the hit on the mosque itself, there were reports of a four blasts in Najaf as a U.S. military plane circled overhead.

The aerial assault came after U.S. tanks moved to within 800 metres of the shrine earlier in the day.

Al-Sadr fighters mortared a police station, and U.S. troops and fighters had clashed through the morning.

In the afternoon, militants attacked U.S. forces with mortars, prompting another round of clashes that lasted for around a half hour.

At least three people were killed and 18 injured during fighting overnight, said Tawfiq Mohammed of Najaf General Hospital.

The crisis had appeared to be largely over on Friday when the insurgents' agreed to remove their weapons from the shrine, where they had been staying, and turn the site over to top Shiite clerics.

Al-Sadr aides said they tried to hand the keys to the shrine over to representatives of Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani.

However, he refused to accept them, demanding the shrine be evacuated first.

Hopes had been high for a mediated by religious authorities -- a move that would allow Iraq's interim government to keep its pledge not to negotiate and let the militants say they had not capitulated to U.S.-led troops.


Hope it was just that wall, at worst, like before.