Posted on 05/29/2004 7:06:01 PM PDT by saquin
NAJAF, Iraq - (KRT) - As he prepared last month to send soldiers across a volatile swath of Iraq to battle a rebel militia threatening to ignite a wider Shiite Muslim uprising, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey provided lethal instructions.
"Tactically, what we said to our soldiers is if you are attacked, turn and fight and finish it," Dempsey recalled. "Don't allow the militia to live to fight another day."
The blunt instructions, backed by a subtle strategy, pressured rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his al-Mahdi Army militia, eventually backing them into a corner with almost no way out.
After seven weeks of the bloodiest skirmishes since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq in May 2003, a cease-fire of sorts began late last week in parts of al-Sadr's last strongholds of Najaf and nearby Kufa as the rebel cleric sought a negotiated way out of his improbable fight with the Americans.
Whether the cease-fire holds remains to be seen. On Friday, insurgents launched mortar attacks against the main U.S. base and a four-hour firefight erupted between U.S. forces and militiamen in Kufa.
And whether the deal represents full-fledged U.S. success is also open to debate. Al-Sadr's fighters marched in the streets of Najaf after word of the agreement spread on Thursday, claiming victory. But the understanding with Sadr fails to resolve two key demands that U.S. officials have been making since al-Sadr launched his uprising - the dissolution of his militia and al-Sadr's surrender to face murder charges in the death of a rival cleric.
Instead, according to the deal reached between al-Sadr and Iraqi officials, militia fighters not from Najaf or Kufa must return home, and the ones who remain behind cannot carry weapons in the street. Also, Iraqi security forces will be allowed to move back into both cities. Al-Sadr's legal status remains unclear.
"I don't obey the occupation. Never," al-Sadr told an interviewer from Al Jazeera satellite TV channel on Friday.
For his militia, composed mainly of poor, young men at the bottom rung of society, the cost of fighting was devastating. U.S. military officials estimate that hundreds died during weeks of clashes from Baghdad's Sadr City slum to the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. Others, apparently, simply quit.
U.S. commanders estimated that there were 2,500 al-Mahdi fighters across the country at the beginning of the uprising. By late last week, they believed there were fewer than 500.
"We have reached this point, whether it's victory or progress, on the shoulders of some courageous and disciplined young soldiers," Dempsey said late last week at Camp Baker, the main U.S. base in Najaf.
What is clear is this: U.S. forces had pushed al-Sadr's fighters into two final strongholds in Kufa and Najaf by the end of last week and brought the United States to the cusp of solving one of the thorniest problems ahead of the June 30 hand-over of power to the Iraqi people.
Regardless of whether the cease-fire holds, American commanders say they inflicted maximum damage to al-Sadr's organization while limiting damage and civilian casualties in close urban environments.
There is no accurate civilian death toll from the fighting, but it appeared al-Sadr's fighters suffered most.
Even while operating in some of the holiest cities and around some of the holiest shrines in Islam, the United States in its offensive against al-Sadr did not inflame Iraq's wider Shiite Muslim population. It has also succeeded in isolating al-Sadr, the son of a martyred father with a revered family name.
"It was pretty clear he was trying to take what was a fairly small - let's call it narrow - uprising (and) was trying to expand it to a popular uprising," said Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division. "The principal goal in return was not to allow this thing to become a popular uprising, because if he gained broad support of the Shiite population, there truly would have been nothing we could have done."
It all looked far different April 4, the day the uprising was ignited after coalition authorities closed al-Sadr's newspaper and arrested one of his chief aides.
Dempsey's troops were caught in violent street battles in Baghdad. Some others already had gone back to home bases in Germany and Louisiana, having finished their yearlong tours in Iraq. All of those troops were given orders for an extended deployment.
Before setting the battle plan, Dempsey had to figure out his foe and motivations. "We had to embark on a course that maintained local, general popular support - at least neutrality," Dempsey said.
"It was very important for us to get the message out that what motivates Muqtada Sadr was not the betterment of the Iraqi people, the protection of Islam, the defense of the holy shrines," he said. "It was really power-based, money-based, influence-based and competition with other Shias for long-term control. We hammered that theme everywhere we went."
Dempsey said he brought that message to meetings with local and regional officials and tribal leaders. He also tried to rebuild the local security forces. Amid the uprising, the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps and local Iraqi police had cut and run in several major cities.
"We had to restore some degree of confidence in the Iraqi security forces," he said.
The final pieces of the plan were military.
On the operational level, where battles are linked together, Dempsey said "we had to be seen as very methodic, very patient, very precise, very disciplined."
At the tactical level, the actual fighting, Dempsey said "we need to be seen as rapid, decisive, overwhelming and lethal."
The result was a systematic destruction of the militia on a trail from Kut to Diwaniyah to Karbala to Kufa and Najaf. Dempsey's forces didn't try to clear neighborhoods. They went to the heart of the Sadr organization, whether at his political headquarters or at safe houses and weapons caches.
"We knew where to go and we went straight there, finished the fight and moved out," he said.
Once the militia was beaten in skirmishes, humanitarian projects were quickly started and radio stations were opened to spread the news. The former foes were given jobs.
"In Kut, we were fighting the al-Mahdi Army one day, and the next day we put them to work repairing the amusement park," Dempsey said.
Rubble was also removed as the battle moved to the next city.
Not wanting to inflame religious or political passions, U.S. troops couldn't forcibly remove al-Sadr's militiamen from holy sites in Karbala or Najaf.
"In both cases the local populace became so outraged by the use of the shrines essentially they were able to tip the scale in our favor," Dempsey said.
Al-Sadr finally relented and agreed to negotiate after U.S. forces captured his key aide and brother-in-law, Riyadh al-Nouri, early Wednesday.
Apparently, al-Nouri was relieved.
"He said, `First of all, thank you for capturing me not killing me,'
" Dempsey said. "
`Thank you for treating me as well as you are, and thirdly, I'm really glad this is over.'
I heard this being described on NPR either Thursday or Friday; the reporter said "The United States has said that they plan to accept the OFFER made by al-Sadr for a truce."
Seems like many freepers have a lot in common with NPR.
"Tactically, what we said to our soldiers is if you are attacked, turn and fight and finish it," Dempsey recalled. "Don't allow the militia to live to fight another day."
And so many people have been calling this a disaster.
I just do not understand why so many are willing to believe the worst, especially when they are not there and do not know the facts!
To be honest, I seriously doubt 5% of the people you are referring to care one bit about the war on terror or the welfare of our troops. Most of them are doing nothing more then "continuing" their political agenda against the President.
From what I understand, this reporter is embedded with the troops in Najaf so he's got the real scoop, as opposed to all the other reporters sitting in their Baghdad hotels getting the news from Al Jazeera and CNN reports.
The news coming out of Iraq, from the troops themselves via e-mail and letters, has been pretty positive all along. They are the ones telling us how they are greeted on the streets, of the conditions throughout Iraq not simply a few hot spots and of how positive the situation is.
Then we have the media who will stop at nothing to discredit the war and the President...and those who parrot the media for their own political grudge against President Bush. Strange, during war time most people find a way to rise above their petty politics while some lack the moral fiber.
At some point before the election US servicemen will have the opportunity to tell the American public that they were for the most part in fact treated as liberators.
"thank you for capturing me not killing me"(this means he will be released so that he can kill more infidels).
So many people are intent on putting a negative spin on this situation regardless of how it turns out.
I see something very different developing here.
What I saw as a rather scarey situation when it started out, I am now beginning to believe will ultimately work out for the better.
Those religious leaders who may have been leaning away from Democracy and toward more an Islamic theocracy for Iraq might be learning something valuable from this al-Sadr crisis.
That is without a Democracy where the rule of law protects individual rights of those of ALL religions and sects....they run the risk of fanatics like al-Sadr stirring up enough religious extremism to threaten even their own positions of prominence.
This is why we have seen the religious leaders helping the Americans in this conflict and stepping up to take more responsibility in securing the goal of a free and Democratic Iraq.
I think al-Sadr's attack on the Americans and the occupation has actually helped to further our goals in creating a free and Democratic Iraq.
Oh, and what has hurt Bush's poll numbers will in the end help him.
There is an incredible amount of inpatients here abouts. Some folks are willing to call the game lost well before half time. Not being privy to strategy meetings, I prefer to wait (as if I had a choice) and let things work out. Some of our 'it's a quagmire!' brothers ought to grow up a little bit.
It's all Bush's fault for not having our military leaders brief these people before hand.
Good post.
This is from Knight-Ridder??
Before setting the battle plan, Dempsey had to figure out his foe and motivations. "We had to embark on a course that maintained local, general popular support - at least neutrality," Dempsey said.This is a brilliant commander. Imagine when he and others like him begin to enter public life as executives or elected officials. Imagine a President Dempsey with these qualities of command and resolve and a patient and methodical attention to detail.
Things weren't as bad as they seemed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.