PDA

View Full Version : Marines make payments to Najaf citizens



thedrifter
10-31-04, 07:24 AM
October 28, 2004

Marines make payments to Najaf citizens

By Laura Bailey
Times staff writer


Marines who clashed with insurgents on the streets of Najaf, Iraq, in August are now disbursing condolence and collateral-damage repair payments to civilians who were caught in the crossfire.
Members of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit have been making the payments since late September to families of civilians who were injured or killed, as well as to those whose property was damaged during the fighting, according to an Oct. 26 press release.

“Now that Najaf is secure, we’re working around the clock to get this city up and running again,” said Col. Anthony M. Haslam, the 11th MEU commander. “These payments are one way we are showing good will and building trust with the locals.”

The unit, which deployed to Iraq from Camp Pendleton, Calif., has distributed more than $1.9 million to 2,660 residents since Sept. 30.

The Marines give $2,500 to families that experienced a death, and also for injuries depending on the severity.

Damage to the city ranges from cracks in walls of homes to totally destroyed businesses. For those repairs, the MEU is giving residents anywhere from $100 to thousands of dollars. For damage to public buildings, such as schools, mosques and medical facilities, Marines have been contracting local construction workers to perform repairs.

Residents have filed more than 8,000 claims and each has to be verified to ensure it is authentic, said Capt. Carrie Batson, a MEU spokeswoman. So far, 150 cases have been found to be fraudulent, she said.

In addition to paying claims processed at local government centers, 11th MEU teams are visiting neighborhoods to assess damage and approve requests for repairs to homes and businesses.

Laura Bailey covers ground warfare issues. She can be reached at (703) 750-8687.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-292925-472813.php

Ellie

thedrifter
10-31-04, 07:24 AM
Bomber attacks Marines -- 8 die, 9 injured
Day's casualties are highest in 6 months
Edward Wong, New York Times

Sunday, October 31, 2004

Baghdad -- Eight Marines were killed and nine others wounded west of the capital on Saturday when a suicide car bomb rammed into their convoy, military officials said, making it the deadliest day for the U.S. forces in half a year.

In the heart of Baghdad, insurgents staged their first major assault on a news media organization by detonating a car bomb outside the offices of a popular Arab news network, killing at least seven people and wounding about 19 others, police and hospital officials said.

In a third incident, Iraqi security forces reportedly killed 14 people when they opened fire on vehicles carrying civilians in the aftermath of a roadside bomb attack on a U.S. Army convoy roughly 25 miles south of Baghdad.

The attack on the Marines took place near Abu Ghraib, the prison 15 miles west of Baghdad used by the Americans to hold detainees, said Capt. Bradley Gordon, a Marine spokesman. The military said in a terse statement that those killed were conducting "increased security operations." No other details were released.

The Marines later reported a ninth combat death on Saturday, the Associated Press reported, but did not say whether it was in the car bombing or another action.

Marines have been battling an increasingly lethal insurgency in rebellious Anbar province, which encompasses the parched lands of western Iraq and includes the provincial capital of Ramadi and the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

The American military is making final preparations for an all-out invasion of Fallujah in hopes that overrunning the insurgent sanctuaries there would quell the guerrilla war across Iraq and secure the city of 300,000 for the country's first democratic elections, scheduled for January.

But it is the insurgents who have seized the offensive in recent weeks, and the number of attacks per day has risen by 30 percent or more since mid- October, at the start of the Islamic fasting month of Ramadan, military officials say.

The relentless assaults have driven a wall between the foreign presence here and the rest of the country, with soldiers, diplomats and contractors holed up in their fortified hotels or bases while guerrillas move freely and strike at will.

The bomb that killed seven in Baghdad exploded in midafternoon outside the offices of Al-Arabiya, the prominent network based in the United Arab Emirates. Insurgents drove a car packed with explosives right up to the network's offices in Mansour, an affluent neighborhood west of the Tigris River that has suffered from a surge of violence.

An hour after the blast, a charred car chassis lay in the road as U.S. soldiers and Iraqi policemen raced to cordon off the site. Ambulances carried off bodies drenched in blood.

A deep pit marked the spot where the bomb went off. Large parts of the building collapsed, and at least three staff members were killed, network correspondent Najwa Qasim said on the air.

A group calling itself the 1920 Brigades claimed responsibility in an Internet posting, saying that the network's workers were "Americanized spies speaking in Arabic tongue." Al-Arabiya has covered the war with an anti- American angle and has been sharply criticized by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Al-Arabiya's offices are surrounded by the homes of Iraqi officials and are just blocks from the residence of Adnan Pachachi, a prominent member of the former Iraqi Governing Council. A recruiting center for the Iraqi police sits nearby, and U.S. soldiers in humvees often patrol the leafy suburb.

Employees of the station, based in Dubai but owned by Saudi investors, have paid a steep price for reporting on the escalating violence in Iraq. Two of its journalists were fatally shot by U.S. soldiers in March at a checkpoint in Baghdad, in what the military called an accident. Another correspondent was fatally wounded by fire from a U.S. helicopter while doing a report alongside a disabled armored vehicle in Baghdad. An Al-Arabiya video camera caught the instant in which he was hit.

Al-Arabiya was allowed to remain in Iraq after a rival Arabic language news network, the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera, was officially barred by Iraq's interim government on the grounds that it promoted the insurgency.

In the smoky aftermath of the bombing Saturday, two men debated whether al-Arabiya had so distanced itself from the insurgency that it had become a target for attack. "I noticed lately they started using the word 'dead' instead of 'martyr' for the people killed at Fallujah, for example," said one of the men, who gave his name only as Ahmed.

The Iraqi police shooting south of Baghdad came after an American convoy was attacked early Saturday with roadside bombs, witnesses told the Associated Press. After the Americans pulled out, Iraqi police and national guardsmen arrived on the scene and began firing wildly, the witnesses said. The U.S. military had no immediate comment.

Three minibuses and three vans were hit on the street near the town of Haswa, witnesses said.

Abdul Razzaq al-Janabi, director of Iskandariya General Hospital, said 14 people were killed and 10 others injured. More wounded were taken to other hospitals.

In Baghdad, Mohammed Bashar al-Faydhi, a spokesman for the influential Association of Muslim Scholars, demanded a government investigation into "this massacre" because "Iraqi policemen are carrying out such crimes."

Al-Faydhi also said a bid to mediate a peaceful solution to the Fallujah standoff failed because the government demanded that the city hand over extremists, including Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Hard-line clerics who run the city said al-Zarqawi is not there.

"There is no good news on the horizon in finding a solution," al-Faydhi said. "There is a belief among the Fallujah people that the Americans will invade the city even if the Arab fighters leave."

In the afternoon, Marine planes conducted air strikes in southern Fallujah as artillery pounded the area to weaken guerrilla positions before the planned invasion. There was no immediate report of casualties.

But Prime Minister Ayad Allawi appeared to hold out the possibility of a peaceful settlement. In the evening, Allawi issued a statement saying he had met with leaders from the Sunni-dominated cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul, and that he had told them "the door remained open for the religious and tribal leadership of Fallujah to deliver a peaceful solution to the situation there."

Chronicle news services contributed to this report.

Page A - 1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/31/MNG5O9JIJU1.DTL

Ellie

thedrifter
10-31-04, 07:25 AM
Iraq PM: Fallujah Diplomacy in Final Phase

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Sunday that Iraq (news - web sites) is entering the "final phase" of efforts to resolve the Fallujah situation peacefully, but warned that "our patience is running thin."


U.S. troops have been gearing up for a major assault on the insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad in a bid to restore control to Sunni Muslim towns north and west of the capital ahead of crucial national elections due by Jan 31.


Allawi said he had met with tribal leaders from the area on Saturday, saying "the window for such peaceful settlement is closing."


"I explained that I hoped that the peaceful citizens of the areas where the terrorists are based will help the government to arrest them," he said. "They assured me that they would work with my government to achieve this."


Allawi also said authorities have arrested 167 Arab foreign fighters, who are in Iraqi custody.


U.S. officials say the final order for an all-out attack on Fallujah will come from Allawi. Commanders have estimated that up to 5,000 Islamic militants, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) loyalists and common criminals are holed up in the insurgent bastion.




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041031/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_allawi&cid=540&ncid=716


Ellie

thedrifter
10-31-04, 07:26 AM
November 01, 2004

Vote – it’s your right and responsibility



The old saying — “A Marine ain’t happy unless he’s complaining about something” — may be an exaggeration, but it does have some truth to it. Happy Marines are almost always loud and outspoken. It’s when they are quiet that you know something is up.
One thing that Marines will always complain about is not having input on the things that affect their lives. It’s the nature of our training and mind-set that causes this thought process and — for the most part — it’s good that Marines want to express their opinions.

Asking Marines for their input is a great opportunity to foster initiative in them. When given the chance to weigh in on things, they are forced to think outside their grid square and must justify their opinions. This can be an effective training method, especially when combined with on-the-spot mentorship from a more experienced Marine.

Ask your most junior Marine for his opinion on something. You may not like it or agree with it, but you will get it.

However, ask a Marine if he plans to vote in the upcoming presidential election and, most likely, you’ll get a blank look, then excuses like: “I’m not voting, it doesn’t matter;” “I hate politics;” or “I don’t know how to vote.”

There are lots of excuses for not voting. Only about half of the qualified population in this country votes, and only about 37 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds, according to a recent study.

I bet the percentage is even lower among Marines in the same age group. That is simply unsat. Look at it this way: Would you be happy with a 37 percent score on a written test or performance evaluation? How about if only 37 percent of your Marines could pass the physical-fitness test or qualify on the rifle range? That would get attention fast.

As far as I know, we’ve never failed to meet unit quotas for Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society or Combined Federal Campaign funding drives. Why is something as important as voting not given as much attention?

The right to vote is one of the cornerstones of our freedom. It’s as important as any law we have on the books. It’s really the only legal method we have of changing not only the people who run our government, but the government itself. That’s powerful stuff, and it’s even more amazing how many Americans take it for granted.

Just over 500 votes in Florida decided that state’s 2000 presidential election results, which in turn decided the overall outcome. To put that in perspective, that is about half the Marines in my unit, so the argument that your vote doesn’t mean anything is obviously wrong.

Not knowing how to vote is an easy fix. Every command has a voting officer who can explain how to get an absentee ballot from your home state. It’s a no-brainer. I filled out mine in less than five minutes.

Years ago, it was considered disloyal for troops to vote, or even to show interest in elections. We are expected to serve whoever is elected as commander in chief loyally, and it was thought that if you supported a candidate and he wasn’t elected, your loyalty would be suspect. I don’t buy that.

I’m not talking about actively campaigning, which is illegal for active-duty military members. I’m talking about voting. Just because we serve directly for the president doesn’t mean we shouldn’t exercise our right to vote.

You are voting for your choice for commander in chief of the armed forces. You’re also voting about your children’s future, your parents’ retirement and your grandparents’ medical funding, along with many other serious issues.

It doesn’t matter who you vote for. What matters is that you do it.

Voting is a private and personal decision that you don’t have to share or justify to anyone. Do your own research and make up your own mind. Listen to what the candidates have to say. Read newspapers and watch the news instead of MTV for once.

Then vote. You’ve earned the right.

The writer, a master gunnery sergeant, is the senior enlisted adviser for Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 31 at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, S.C.



http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-445226.php

Ellie

thedrifter
10-31-04, 07:27 AM
November 01, 2004

2 takes on Iraq

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer


Democrats and Republicans in the House appear to have starkly different views of the current situation in Iraq, but both parties seem to agree on what it will take for U.S. troops to come home.
Withdrawal of American forces won’t be possible until Iraq can provide its own security, and that won’t happen until a lot more training takes place, key lawmakers of both parties said in pre-election interviews.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the House Armed Services Committee chairman whose son has served in two Iraq deployments, said he sees Iraq in generally the same terms as the Bush administration — a place that isn’t exactly safe, but isn’t as bad as often portrayed by the media.

“One thing Americans have got to understand about occupation is that occupations by their very nature are difficult, troublesome, for both the occupied nation and the occupying nation,” Hunter said Oct. 7.

“What we’re giving the Iraqi people,” Hunter said, “is the best running start on freedom that they’ve ever had.”

Hunter did not downplay the danger, saying he expects the insurgency in Iraq to continue.

“What we need is a government that can endure that type of environment and move forward with a modicum of freedom for their people,” he said.

Hunter said the United States has made “steady progress” in Iraq and that troops returning from deployments are proud, with good reason, of their work.

The key to further progress, he said, is to “stand up the Iraqi forces.” And Hunter warned that the ability of the Iraqi police and military forces to tackle insurgents and to provide security for an evolving government is “something that cannot be measured by anything other than their performance.”

Contrasting views

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the House Appropriations defense subcommittee’s senior Democrat and a frequent ally of Republicans on national security issues, agreed with Hunter on what the United States must do before withdrawing from Iraq. However, Murtha painted a different portrait of the situation on the ground there.

“It is unbelievable to me that they don’t think things are going badly,” Murtha said of Republican leaders in Congress and the Bush administration.

Interviewed Oct. 8 along with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California and John Spratt of South Carolina, the Democrats’ expert on the overall federal budget, Murtha said he senses the U.S. military — or at least rank-and-file combat troops — are turning sour on the Iraq mission and the American public might not be far behind.

“There is a vast change in attitude in troops today from six months or a year ago,” Murtha said. The intensive fighting that troops are reporting to him is “entirely different than the rosy scenarios that I hear from the administration.”

Murtha, a former Marine officer, also said his impression is that in contrast to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when the military ran the show, the current administration has chilled the senior officer corps and has civilians running the war.

“Today … the military has no input and if they say anything, they fire them,” he said. “You think that doesn’t ripple through the military?”

The ‘Rumsfeld rule’

Murtha said a young sergeant told him there’s a rule in the field that “you say nothing against the war or you get fired.” The sergeant said troops call that the “Rumsfeld rule,” referring to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Despite his upbeat assessment of the progress made to date in Iraq, Hunter acknowledged that the war on terrorism would test the American public.

“The American public needs patience. In the war on terrorism globally, there is not going to be a surrender on the battleship Missouri,” he said, referring to the end of World War II when the Japanese formally surrendered.

Although Hunter is optimistic about America’s ability to disrupt terrorist networks and to deter attacks, he says he’s a realist about terrorism ever being wiped out.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-461056.php

Ellie

thedrifter
10-31-04, 07:28 AM
November 01, 2004

Troops can get cash back for body-armor purchases

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer


One precedent-setting initiative in the 2005 defense authorization bill would reimburse the personal expense of obtaining body armor and other protective or field gear for troops who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan last year, when the Pentagon did not have enough armor to go around.
Based on information from manufacturers and distributors of body armor, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates up to 30,000 troops could be reimbursed for buying personal bulletproof vests, other protective armor and accessories at a total cost of close to $10 million.

Defense officials opposed the reimbursement program, arguing it only encourages troops, family and friends to come up with what could be a rag-tag collection of weapons, force protection equipment and personal gear that does not meet military standards and cannot be easily repaired or replaced.

Lawmakers swept aside those protests, however, because of the fervor sparked last year when troops in or on the way to Iraq pleaded for help. The Defense Department will control who gets paid and under what conditions, and Congress agreed to a limited one-year period to file claims.

The bill requires the Defense Department to reimburse service members who purchased — or had someone else purchase for them — protective, safety or health equipment to be used during operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom.

There are several conditions. Items must have been purchased between Sept. 11, 2001, and July 31, 2004; reimbursement is capped at $1,100 per item; and the item must be certified as being critical to the health, protection or safety of the service member and not available as military issue. In some cases, reimbursement can be made on the condition that the military gets ownership of the item.

Exact rules for reimbursement, covering such issues as when nonmilitary items can be reimbursed, have to be written by the Pentagon within three months.

Anyone who deployed or was expected to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan could qualify, depending on the final rules.

The one-year period for reimbursement will start on the day the Pentagon issues its policy on what is covered and how to apply for payment.


http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-465337.php

Ellie

thedrifter
10-31-04, 09:02 AM
Iraq's Patience Running Out in Fallujah

By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq (news - web sites)'s interim prime minister said Sunday that efforts to peacefully resolve the conflict in Fallujah have entered their final phase and warned that "our patience is running thin," vowing to clear the city of militants who have carried out some of the bloodiest attacks in Iraq.


Ayad Allawi's strong comments signaled that the start may be near for a major assault on Fallujah that U.S. forces have been preparing. Allawi warned there would likely be civilian casualties if an offensive takes place.


U.S. commanders say Allawi will give the final order to launch the assault, which would aim to restore control to Sunni Muslim towns north and west of the capital ahead of Jan 31 elections.


Speaking to reporters in Baghdad, Allawi vowed that the elections, a key step in plans to move Iraq toward democracy "will take place on schedule." The country's deteriorating security situation has led to doubts that nationwide voting can take place in Iraq.


Allawi said there was no deadline for talks with Fallujah leaders aimed at finding a peaceful resolution. But he said if no deal is reached, "I have no choice but to secure a military solution."


"I will do so with a heavy heart, for even with the most careful plan there will be some loss of innocent lives," he said. "But I owe, owe it to the Iraqi people to defend them from the violence and the terrorists and insurgents."


"The terrorists and insurgents continue to use Fallujah and the Fallujah people as a shield for their murderous acts," Allawi said. "Some of the most incredible crimes have been committed in Fallujah and out of Fallujah by these terrorists."


Fallujah, west of Baghdad, is considered the strongest bastion of Sunni insurgents who have carried out a spiraling campaign of bombings, ambushes and kidnappings. Allawi's warning came after a particularly bloody day even by the standards of this conflict-ravaged country.


In all, at least 30 people died Saturday in politically motivated violence across Iraq — stark evidence of a security situation threatening to spiral out of control.


Among them were eight Marines killed by a car bomb near Fallujah. The U.S. military earlier said a ninth Marine was also killed but later corrected the report, confirming the death toll of eight.


Also, early Sunday, the Japanese government confirmed that the decapitated body of a young Asian male — found wrapped in an American flag and dumped in an insurgent-infested neighborhood of Baghdad — was that of Japanese hostage Shosei Koda, 24, said Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura.


Koda's abduction was claimed by the al-Qaida in Iraq group, led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who Iraqi and U.S. leaders claim is in Fallujah. Allawi has demanded Fallujah's city leaders hand over al-Zarqawi to avoid an attack, thought the leaders deny he is there.


Allawi said he had met with tribal leaders from the area Saturday and told them "the window for such peaceful settlement is closing."


"I explained that I hoped that the peaceful citizens of the areas where the terrorists are based will help the government to arrest them," he said. "They assured me that they would work with my government to achieve this."


Allawi also said authorities have arrested 167 Arab foreign fighters, who are in Iraq's custody.


U.S. commanders have estimated that up to 5,000 Islamic militants, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) loyalists and common criminals are holed up in the insurgent bastion.


U.S. Marines carried out a three-week siege of Fallujah in April, but when hundreds of people were killed, the military was forced to back down. Insurgents have since tightened their grip on the city, and several other cities in the Sunni Triangle north and west of Baghdad have fallen under their sway.





For the second straight day, clashes erupted Sunday between U.S. forces and insurgents in the town of Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad, leaving seven people dead, according to hospital officials. The fighting broke out in the eastern and central part of the city. Sporadic gunfire could be heard near City Hall. Shops and schools in the area have been closed for days due to the deteriorating security situation, residents said.

On Saturday, U.S. forces pounded insurgent positions on the outskirts of Fallujah in some of the heaviest skirmishes in weeks. Marines and guerrillas traded mortar and artillery fire, and U.S. jets bombed positions inside the city.

The Marine deaths came when a car bomb went off next to a truck southwest of Baghdad, between the capital and Fallujah, said Maj. Clark Watson of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. It was the biggest number of American military deaths in a single day since May 2, when nine U.S. troops were killed in separate mortar attacks and roadside bombings in Baghdad, Ramadi and Kirkuk.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041031/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

Ellie

thedrifter
10-31-04, 09:17 AM
Hell To Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rod Nordland, Babak Dehghanpisheh and Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

Nov. 8 issue - Sgt. Jonathan Scarfe, a broad-shouldered U.S. Marine with a square jaw and a 5 o'clock shadow, is trudging through a small town near Fallujah. On the opposite side of the street, taking his cues from Scarfe's movements, is Hussein Ali Jassim, who commands a small unit of the new Iraqi Special Forces. Scarfe says he trusts Jassim implicitly-which is more than he can say for most Iraqi National Guardsmen, less-trained locals thought to be collaborating with the insurgents. "The ING guys usually slept outside during the summer," says Scarfe. "When they slept inside, you knew a mortar barrage was coming." At one intersection, children laugh and shout as Jassim, who sports a small, well-trimmed mustache, distributes candy.

But a young Iraqi across the street smirks and makes an obscene gesture. "These people," says Scarfe, "will let us walk right to our death."

Now the Marines and their Iraqi protegés are gearing up for the biggest offensive in Iraq since April. Barring an unexpected breakthrough in talks with local leaders, a long-awaited attack on the insurgent strongholds of Fallujah and neighboring Ramadi may come as early as this week, shortly after the American presidential election. Fighting is expected to continue at least until December, U.S. officials say. In recent weeks American military trainers have been frantically trying to assemble sufficient Iraqi troops to assist in the assault. And they are praying that the soldiers perform better than last April, when two battalions of poorly trained Iraqi Army soldiers refused to fight. The insurgents struck first last week. On Saturday, a convoy of Marines was moving into position around Fallujah when a suicide bomber drove into them. The explosion killed eight, bringing the war's total to nearly 1,120 American dead.

And so the bloody battles of the Iraq war-which never quite ended-are about to start up again in full force. Much depends on the new offensive. If it succeeds, it could mark a turning point toward Iraqi security and stability. If it fails, then the American president will find himself in a deepening quagmire on Inauguration Day. The Fallujah offensive "is going to be extremely significant," says one U.S. official involved in the planning. "It's an attempt to tighten the circle around the most problematic areas and isolate these insurgents." But it will also be "the first major test" of the new Iraqi security forces since the debacle in April, says Michael Eisenstadt, an Iraq expert at the Washington Institute. Their performance, he says, will "provide a key early indicator of the long-term prospects for U.S. success in Iraq."

For months the American people have heard, from one side, promises to "stay the course" in Iraq (George W. Bush); and from the other side, equally vague plans for gradual withdrawal (John Kerry). Both plans depend heavily on building significant Iraqi forces to take over security. But the truth is, neither party is fully reckoning with the reality of Iraq-which is that the insurgents, by most accounts, are winning. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former general who stays in touch with the Joint Chiefs, has acknowledged this privately to friends in recent weeks, NEWSWEEK has learned. The insurgents have effectively created a reign of terror throughout the country, killing thousands, driving Iraqi elites and technocrats into exile and scaring foreigners out. "Things are getting really bad," a senior Iraqi official in interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government told NEWSWEEK last week. "The initiative is in [the insurgents'] hands right now. This approach of being lenient and accommodating has really backfired. They see this as weakness."

A year ago the insurgents were relegated to sabotaging power and gas lines hundreds of miles outside Baghdad. Today they are moving into once safe neighborhoods in the heart of the capital, choking off what remains of "normal" Iraqi society like a creeping jungle. And they are increasingly brazen. At one point in Ramadi last week, while U.S. soldiers were negotiating with the mayor (who declared himself governor after the appointed governor fled), two insurgents rode by shooting AK-47s-from bicycles. Now even Baghdad's Green Zone, the four-square-mile U.S. compound cordoned off by blast walls and barbed wire, is under nearly daily assault by gunmen, mortars and even suicide bombers.

Everyone is vulnerable. One evening two weeks ago a group of employees was leaving by bus from the Iraq Hunting Club, a green-lawned retreat once occupied by Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon's former favorite exile leader. Only one man survived to tell what happened: gunmen in a passing car fired on the bus, forcing it off the road. The attackers took a heavy machine gun out of the trunk and shot up the bus some more. Then they approached with Kalashnikovs and casually finished off the wounded. The sole witness lived only because he was under a corpse. A similar massacre on Oct. 20 along the highway to Baghdad airport, again on a mini-bus, killed six women and one man, Iraqi Airways employees on their way to work. The same day, ambushers murdered two women secretaries and a male official who worked in the office of Iraqi interim President Ghazi al-Yawar.

Throughout much of Iraq, but especially in the Sunni Triangle at the heart of the country, U.S. troops are unable to control streets and highways, towns and cities. And allied Iraqi troops are simply not numerous, well trained or trustworthy enough. Attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces are now in the range of 100 a day; casualties among Iraqis are far greater. More than 900 policemen have been killed in the past year, according to the Ministry of the Interior. The Iraqi media have been targeted, too: in just the past three weeks, assassins have killed two Iraqi journalists, both female TV personalities. On Saturday, a car bomb detonated near Al Arabiya TV in Baghdad, killing seven.

Most overseas attention has focused on the 160 or so foreigners who have been kidnapped, many of them representatives of Coalition countries. But militants and criminal gangs have also kidnapped thousands of Iraqis, most of them held for ransom. As a result, Iraqi elites are fleeing by the thousands, many to neighboring Jordan. "Iraq is there for the bandits now. Anyone with the financial ability to do so has left," says Amer Farhan, who departed last summer with his father, Sadeq, a factory owner, and all of their family.

The insurgents clearly have a strategy to isolate the Americans—from their Coalition partners, and also from ordinary Iraqis. They know that both Bush's and Kerry's plans for success depend on putting Iraqi forces in place, and they've stepped up their campaign to sabotage that effort. On Oct. 23, insurgents managed to capture 49 Iraqi soldiers heading home for leave in three buses. The homebound soldiers had just finished their basic training at the U.S.-run center at Kirkush; they were traveling unarmed. The insurgents shot them all dead, execution style. Two days later, 11 Iraqi National Guardsmen were captured, and masked jihadists posted a videotape showing them being executed.

Just as worrisome, the insurgents have managed to infiltrate Iraqi forces, enabling them to gain key intelligence. "The infiltration is all over, from the top to the bottom, from decision making to the lower levels," says the senior Iraqi official. In the Kirkush incident, the insurgents almost certainly had inside information about the departure time and route of the buses. Iraqi Ministry of Defense sources told NEWSWEEK the Iraqi recruits had not been allowed to leave the base with their weapons because American trainers were worried that some of them might defect. "The current circumstances oblige us not to give them their weapons when they're taking vacations, in case they run away with them," said one Iraqi intelligence officer.

At Sergeant Scarfe's base outside Fallujah, the Marines discovered that the Iraqi Guard commander "was taking soldiers' paychecks and giving them to the resistance," says Lt. John Jacobs. "He was passing information to them and sometimes meeting them in person." The commander is now in Abu Ghraib Prison, but many ING recruits later quit, citing fears for their safety. Elsewhere U.S. soldiers have removed machine guns from Iraqi armored vehicles, fearing how they might be used. Even the Bush administration official who evinced confidence about the new Fallujah offensive admitted that the new Iraq under the interim government is "not jelling. How can [ordinary Iraqis] support a government that doesn't really exist in many ways?"

Last July, the Iraqi army's new chief of staff, Gen. Amer Hashimi, was quietly removed after one of his secretaries was implicated in passing information to the insurgents. In late September, U.S. forces arrested the commander of the 32nd Iraqi National Guard Brigade, Lt. Gen. Talib Abd Ghayib al Lahibi, "for having associations with known insurgents." His arrest came as he was being considered to command all the National Guard forces in Diyala province, part of the Sunni Triangle. The deputy governor of that province, Akil al Adili, was assassinated there on Oct. 22.

U.S. and Iraqi officials believe that a big victory in Fallujah and Ramadi is the best way to reverse this trend. They say more money has been spent recently on training, with a focus on producing quality troops, instead of churning out unreliable foot soldiers. Over the next few weeks, an additional six battalions of Iraqi soldiers should become operational, with a further six due by Christmas, effectively doubling active Iraqi forces. Some of the best local forces are in the First Iraqi Intervention Force brigade. Many have experience from the Iran-Iraq war. "Those guys are serious business," says an American officer who has observed them.

The U.S. military must convince ordinary Iraqis that in aligning themselves with the American-installed government they are siding with a winner. And U.S. occupation officials hope that Fallujah will take on symbolic importance, and that insurgents will attempt to stand and fight. "The model is Najaf," a senior Western official said. Last summer *****e militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr lost thousands of his militia in a major battle for Najaf, and American and Iraqi forces killed or captured 45 of his top aides. Sadr has been muted since, and has hinted he will run in the January elections being orchestrated by the U.S.-installed government.

continued........

thedrifter
10-31-04, 09:17 AM
Yet unlike the *****es of Najaf, the Sunnis of Fallujah cannot imagine that democracy will bring them power. (Sunnis represent a minority in the country, the *****es a majority.) While Shia Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was able to persuade insurgents to stand down in southern Iraq, no single Sunni leader has the moral authority or the inclination to play that role. Still, administration officials hope that the Fallujah offensive will so damage the Sunni insurgency that it will be reduced to containable levels through 2005. It's expected that many insurgents may simply flee; U.S. intel officials say that many are already hiding in surrounding villages along with escaped Fallujans. Yet the militants could still be deprived of a geographic base, which "will allow elections in January to proceed in areas they've vacated," says one administration official.

Washington has declared several times that the insurgency would soon be defeated or at least mostly neutralized. Senior officials made such statements when electricity was restored to its pre-occupation levels in 2003, when Saddam was captured in December, when sovereignty was handed over on June 28. Each time the insurgency has only grown. Now even military officials who are hopeful the insurgency can be defeated—or perhaps just reduced to a violent annoyance—say it will be a long haul no matter who is U.S. president.

The U.S. military is now pushing for what one top officer calls "a tipping point," when a critical mass of Iraqi units are on the streets, operating against the insurgency. Optimists hope this will happen by the Iraqi elections—if the Fallujah offensive succeeds. The Iraqis, they say, are resilient. One American general has a favorite anecdote. Last spring a car bomber drove into a crowd of would-be soldiers who were waiting outside a recruiting station in Baghdad. Several were killed, scores wounded. What didn't make the news, he said, was that the recruiting station was open for business the next day. And some of those injured in the blast turned up again, in their bandages, still determined to re-enlist in a war for the future of their country.

Ellie

thedrifter
10-31-04, 12:43 PM
Tours For 6,500 Troops Extended
Associated Press
October 31, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Army has extended by two months the Iraq tours of about 6,500 soldiers, citing a need for experienced troops through the Iraqi elections scheduled for late January.

About 3,500 soldiers of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, and 3,000 from the 1st Infantry Division headquarters will remain in Iraq two months longer than planned, Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Saturday.

The purpose, Whitman said, is to "maintain continuity of forces in the theater during the election period."

Roughly 135,000 American troops are in Iraq.

Whitman said the extensions will result in a net addition of about 3,500 troops in the country, since replacements for the 3,000 from the 1st Infantry will delay their arrival until after the elections.

Soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division, scheduled to replace the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry, will not be delayed. Whitman said it was possible that the 3rd Infantry could accelerate its deployment if commanders in Iraq say that is necessary, but no decision has been made.

The Army had scheduled 10-month deployments for the units whose tours are being extended, rather than the usual 12-month tours, to stagger the rotation of forces in and out of Iraq this winter and avoid overburdening transportation systems.

A description of the troop extensions posted on the Pentagon's Web site Saturday mentioned "the troops' frustration" over having their tours extended. It said some of the soldiers previously had been told they would be leaving Iraq as early as November. Instead they will stay through January.

Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, requested the extensions in late September, and his immediate superior, Army Gen. John Abizaid, made the decision Oct. 16, the Pentagon said.


The decision appeared to mark the second time in recent weeks that soldiers of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, have had their Iraq deployments extended. On Oct. 4 the U.S. military command in Baghdad announced that rather than complete its redeployment to Fort Hood, Texas, in December, the brigade was to begin heading home in January. It now appears they will stay through January.

"It makes sense to keep experienced soldiers who know the area and have developed relationships in Iraq on the ground during the election period," Whitman said. He stressed that the extensions will not exceed the Army's goal of keeping soldiers in Iraq no longer than 12 months.

Whitman said it was possible that other adjustments will be made to bolster U.S. and allied defenses in Iraq prior to the elections in January.

"The department will continue to be responsive to requests by the combatant commander for adjustments," Whitman said.

The 3,000 soldiers of the 1st Infantry Division headquarters, based in Wurzburg, Germany, will remain in Iraq for an extra 30 to 60 days. They previously were scheduled to have been replaced in January, before the elections, by the 42nd Infantry Division headquarters of the New York National Guard.

The 42nd Infantry will be the first division-level National Guard deployment into combat since World War II, reflecting the extraordinarily heavy reliance the Army is placing on part-time soldiers to provide troops for the Iraq mission. More than 40 percent of the U.S. force in Iraq is Guard or Reserve.

Whitman said it would be wrong to infer from the delayed deployment of the New York Guard unit that Pentagon officials doubt its readiness.

Ellie

Sgt. Smitty
11-19-04, 11:21 AM
This is BS........I don't see them making payments to any of the families of the soldiers of this country for being wounded or killed. This govt. is just givin this country away hand over fist.

Sparrowhawk
11-19-04, 01:34 PM
Collateral-damage repair payments to civilians was done during the Vietnam War.

They paid, $250.00 to a women who's legs I shot off, even though she was running away from us along with two NVA soldiers.

No one paid the NVA soldiers' family LOL

But they were in no possition to tell us where they lived.


Sometimes we paid more to civilians for having killed their water buffalos, then when we killed their kin folks, or innocent civilians caught in the cross fire, or bombing.

Still you're right Smitty, they should have paid our families for wounds suffered in combat.