Reply
Sat 6 Dec, 2003 01:14 am
From today's U.K. Independent newspaper.
"A bloody victory or dangerous fantasy? The true story of the battle of Samarra
By Phil Reeves in Samarra
06 December 2003
Nearly a week has elapsed since the American military issued the startling claim - puzzling even some within its own ranks - that its troops killed 54 guerrillas during running gunfights in the Sunni town of Samarra.
Official versions described how dozens of Fedayeen guerrillas wearing red or black chequered headscarves and dark shirts and trousers attacked troops in the bloodiest engagement since the US-led occupation of Iraq last April - and lost.
Repeated visits to the scene, interviews with Iraqi civilians and US soldiers, and close inspection of the battle damage by scores of correspondents have failed to eliminate several troubling and crucial questions. Where are the bodies? Did they exist? Or was this death toll - as some suspect - a fabrication which was intended to generate positive headlines for the US, after a disastrous weekend in which guerrilla attacks killed 14 foreigners, including seven Spanish intelligence officers?
All occupying armies lie, and so do their opponents. But Iraq is particularly perilous territory, given that so many millions of people believe the invasion was launched on the false pretext that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Samarra is a small, angry pocket of resistance on the banks of the Tigris. And it smouldered anew yesterday as two Apache helicopters circled only a few score feet above the rooftops, not far from the gold dome of the Ali al-Hadi Shia shrine, just minutes before Friday prayers. People were infuriated by an incident a few hours earlier in which an elderly shopkeeper, Abdel Rasul Saleh al-Abassi, was shot on his rooftop. His relatives say he was shot by a US sniper while trying to repair a water tank.
Accounts of last week's battle differ, sometimes alarmingly. But on one issue, they have remained adamant: only eight people were killed in Samarra, although 55 were injured as the US army sprayed the place with gunfire.
"If 54 people were killed here we would know. This is a very tribal society, in which everyone in the area knows everyone else," Yahir Mahmoud al-Abassi, a businessman, said. "It just did not happen. It's impossible."
The people of Samarra are not alone in their scepticism. A senior official from the occupation authorities in Baghdad said, with evident exasperation: "We said this would happen ... it isn't right."
There is no doubt that two US convoys came under attack on Sunday morning as they were arriving to deliver new Iraqi dinars to two banks, the al-Rashid in Babel Kabla Street and its other branch opposite the al-Risala mosque in Bank Street. Surrounding buildings in both areas - which are about half a mile apart - bear the scars of fierce gunfights.
The US says troops of the 4th Infantry Division entered Samarra at about 11am, with a force of some 100 soldiers, six tanks, four Bradley fighting vehicles and four Humvees.
With them were two squads of military police and four squads of infantry. The convoys entered town at opposite ends, and both were attacked with roadside bombs. The attacks seem to have been well-planned.
Both the US military and Iraqi residents agree that the ensuing battles lasted for several hours. The guerrillas used small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars; the US army fired their 120mm cannon on the Abrams tanks, 25mm machine-guns mounted on their Bradley fighting vehicles and armoured Humvees, and their own personal arms - M-16 rifles and pistols. As running battles spread through the town, some of the shooting was random.
At about 1.30pm Falah Hamid Salman, 48, a clerk, was in the front office of the Samarra Drugs Factory when a mortar shell landed near the front gates. Workers were queuing near by for a shift change. Amira Mahdi Saleh, an employee in her mid-thirties, was killed.
Mr Salman said bullets from passing US armoured vehicles smashed into the reception area. It bears the marks of at least five machine-gun bullets. Other mortar shells landed further inside the premises, injuring Hossam Shakir al-Douri, 25, who later died.
As the fighting flowed back and forth through the town, with guerrillas darting through the alleys, Abdullah Amin al-Kurdi was mown down outside a small mosque in front of the local hospital. His 10-year-old son, who was with him, survived with leg and stomach injuries. Another man, Raid Ali Fadhel, also died there.
Not far away Salem Mohammed al-Rahmani, a businessman, was inspecting his premises just a few yards from the Shia mosque when the US forces swept in and - he says - posted snipers on the roof. This was the scene of one of the ambushed bank deliveries. A firefight erupted, which injured Gazal Jado'a al-Bazi and killed Fatah Allah Hijazi, a 71-year-old Iranian pilgrim.
What happened in Samarra was a battle - and a big one at that. But the evidence suggests that the victims were mostly civilians, not guerrillas, and that their numbers were far fewer than US officials have said.
The US army is increasingly sensitive on the subject. Lt-Col George Krivo angrily accosted The Independent on Wednesday. "I can tell you one thing - we trust our soldiers!" he said, half-shouting. "
And some still believe the official fairy tales about September 11th!
But..but...but.. we're winning...really...we are...honest!
I've posted this elsewhere but from todays Mirror:
From an American soldier, quoted in today's Daily Mirror
THE EMAIL
THE reports of 54 enemy killed will sound great on the home front, but the greater story needs to be told to the American public.
Most of the casualties were civilians, not insurgents or criminals ...
During the ambushes the tanks, Brads and armored Humvees hosed down houses, buildings, and cars while using reflexive fire against the attackers. This was a rolling firefight through the town.
Rules of engagement are that US soldiers are to consider buildings, homes, cars to be hostile if fire is received from them (regardless of who else is inside).
The logic is to respond using superior firepower. This is then extended down to the average Iraqi, with the hope that the Iraqis will not support the guerrillas and will turn them in to coalition forces, knowing we will blow the hell out of their homes or towns if they don't.
If the insurgents goad us into levelling buildings and homes, the people inside then hate us (if they did not before) and we have created more guerrilla recruits.
We drive around in convoys, blast the hell out of the area, break down doors and search buildings. But the guerrillas continue to attack us. It does not take a George Patton to see we are using the wrong tactics.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace