[L'enfanTerrible]

From CNN

U.S. troops leave school after deadly clash with Iraqis

Central Command: Soldiers acted in self-defense

Tuesday, April 29, 2003 Posted: 5:04 PM EDT (2104 GMT)

FALLUJAH, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. troops pulled out of a school in a farming community 40 miles west of Baghdad on Tuesday night, a day after their presence there sparked a deadly clash with hundreds of Iraqi protesters.

Conflicting accounts emerged about Monday night's confrontation in Fallujah that Red Cross officials said killed at least 15 civilians and wounded up to 53 others. Among the dead were three boys under the age of 11, Red Cross officials said.

The violence broke out as the demonstrators approached members of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division -- based at the elementary school -- and demanded that they leave, according to a telecommunications engineer. (Full story)

U.S. Central Command said that the protesters fired on the soldiers with AK-47s and that the soldiers fired back in self-defense.

According to CNN's Karl Penhaul the demonstrators say that didn't occur. They say that some of their number did start throwing stones, and that is what prompted the U.S. soldiers to open fire. The engineer says that at that point "all hell broke loose." (On the Scene: Karl Penhaul)

One U.S. Army sergeant said he shot at what he saw, "and what I saw was targets. Targets with weapons, and they were going to harm me."

"It's either them or me, and I took the shot, sir, and I'm still here talking to you," he said.

A second U.S. soldier said the clash began when some protesters started throwing rocks at the soldiers and others started chanting.

"Then others joined in throwing rocks, and others brought weapons to the party," the soldier said. "Then they started firing them -- not just into the air but toward the soldiers on top of the buildings."

The confrontation reportedly went on for hours.

The situation at Fallujah is under investigation, Pentagon officials said.

U.S. military officials said they occupied the school originally because they had evidence that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein used schools to stash weapons.

Soldiers said they found no evidence that the Iraqi military stored weapons at this school, but they said they decided to stay in the building to keep control of the neighborhood. They moved in five days ago, military officials said.

Residents said U.S. soldiers had occupied the 20-classroom school for 10 days.

[mixin visuals]

blame the united states again... iraqi's with ak-47's in the streets firing was made up just to give american's more reason to kill a few more...

not like i would believe that at all, but the rest of the anti-war people will use any excuse they can to blame the US

[UNTeMac]

This kind of incident was well predicted by the movie "Rules of Engagement"

[mixin visuals]

rocks can easily be lethal when thrown. the first one that would have hit anyone i was with would have been the last one.

they had every right to fire back

[Logic]

And now we have a new palestine, yay!

Let's hope that the US version was true. But at the same time what is the excuse for occupying a school............

I ashamed to be a part of the coalition of the willing Especially when you here things like this:

Conflicting accounts emerged about Monday night's confrontation in Fallujah that Red Cross officials said killed at least 15 civilians and wounded up to 53 others. Among the dead were three boys under the age of 11, Red Cross officials said.

How big a threat is a kid under 11 years of age?

[mixin visuals]

Originally posted by Logic:
And now we have a new palestine, yay!

Let's hope that the US version was true. But at the same time what is the excuse for occupying a school............

I ashamed to be a part of the coalition of the willing Especially when you here things like this:


How big a threat is a kid under 11 years of age?

how smart is a crowd of so called "unarmed" iraqi's trying to start trouble with US marines/army ?

[Logic]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
how smart is a crowd of so called "unarmed" iraqi's trying to start trouble with US marines/army ?

How smart is it to occupy a school?

They didn't ask you to invade nor stay.

Can you come up with some arguments for occupying the school, letting Marines guard it instead of MPs(no not members of parliament), for not planning on how to govern the occupied areas directly after the area is "secured"?

Or are you content on trolling and showing of your ign............... ?

[mixin visuals]

Originally posted by Logic:
How smart is it to occupy a school?

They didn't ask you to invade nor stay.

Can you come up with some arguments for occupying the school, letting Marines guard it instead of MPs(no not members of parliament), for not planning on how to govern the occupied areas directly after the area is "secured"?

Or are you content on trolling and showing of your ign............... ?

how am i being ignorant or trolling. chill out. it doesn't take a that much brainpower to realize that if you choose to throw rocks at people, you deserve what comes back at you. i do feel sorry that they aren't able to use there school for 5 days... but considering the change that iraq is about to gain from, i think they can rest assured that a few weeks without school in order to guarantee that the overall safety of the iraqi people is behind us, and to get the country running as fast as possible is a little more important that a few weeks of school

don't throw insults mister and i will refrain as well

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
And now we have a new palestine, yay!

Let's hope that the US version was true. But at the same time what is the excuse for occupying a school............

I ashamed to be a part of the coalition of the willing Especially when you here things like this:


How big a threat is a kid under 11 years of age?

A couple of interesting details according to the Associated Press. The incident took place at 10:30 at night. Odd time for a demonstration. Personally, if I were peacefully demonstrating a group of highly armed infantrymen, I'd do it in broad daylight, not after dark, when they might be jumpy.

Secondly, it seems fairly clear that there was shooting, and they did have assault rifles. Again, shooting assault rifles at, or near, a group of infantrymen is not smart.

Third, according to the AP, the school was occupied initially to check for weapons. Several schools were found with weapons in them. Oddly enough, these students apparently had weapons.

This may all have been a royal c*ck up. The Associated Press article does give enough for that possibility. It may well be that the US soldiers were objectively in no danger. But at a minimum, the information suggests that they thought they were being shot at by a large and well-armed crowd late at night in a part of Iraq that is basically in Saddam's stronghold (I have read elsewhere that the town is in the North, where Saddam had his base). If that is the case, their actions sound at least colorably reasonable - or at least understandable.

Unless, of course, you demand a combination of clairvoyance, and a suicidal pacivity on the part of soldiers who have every right to defend themselves.

Edit; I have just realized that I got some of the details I referred to above here, not from the AP article.

[Logic]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
how am i being ignorant or trolling. chill out. it doesn't take a that much brainpower to realize that if you choose to throw rocks at people, you deserve what comes back at you. i do feel sorry that they aren't able to use there school for 5 days... but considering the change that iraq is about to gain from, i think they can rest assured that a few weeks without school in order to guarantee that the overall safety of the iraqi people is behind us, and to get the country running as fast as possible is a little more important that a few weeks of school

don't throw insults mister and i will refrain as well

OK, I'll chill out.

Of course it isn't "intelligent" throwing rocks at soldiers but was the response not too strong? 15 dead, there of 3 under 11. Apparently they were celebrating SH birthday, could that have had something to do with the US reaction?

BBC

Demonstrators had been marking Saddam Hussein's 66th birthday when the Americans opened fire, local witnesses say.

Protesters were carrying portraits of their ousted leader and Iraqi flags when they approached the school manned by US troops, they say.

"It was a peaceful demonstration. They did not have any weapons. They were asking the Americans to leave the school so they could use it"
Local Sunni cleric Kamal Shaker Mahmoud

A US officer at the scene, Lieutenant Colonel Eric Nantz, said the bloodshed occurred after the crowd shot into the air, making it hard to tell if his men were under threat.

"There was a lot of celebratory firing last night," he told Reuters news agency.

[mixin visuals]

i have a hard time believing any US soldier would purposely target an 11 year old. they should have been around more responsible adults

[L'enfanTerrible]

I didn't post this to place blame on the United States. This is tragic, and the only fault can be placed on the dynamic series of events that caused this war.

That being said, everyone should take more responsibility for their actions, from you and me, to a greater scale, such as a country. This goes back to the argument: "is it right to shoot a child, even if they are a percieved threat?"

I ask myself that question, but before I can come up with an acceptable answer to my own heart, I have to also ask: "what actions should I have taken before the tragic dillema occured that could have avoided that situation?"

[clarkgoble]

I heard an interview with a soldier on NPR. He was pretty emphatic they were being shot at and that the crowd was very agitated and unruly. One Iraqi overheard the interview and came over and challenged him.

It sounds to me like most of the crowd probably was sincere and didn't know about the firing. I suspect this is guerillas using protests to set the US up. The US should realize this and recognize that this is a very intelligent guerilla tactic. If they don't come up with better responses soon then they'll lose the peace.

There are numerous parallels to Viet Nam in this. Further this sort of event was predicted weeks ago.

Here's hoping Franks knows how to deal with these sorts of asymmetrical attacks in the political arena. After all this is primarily a political batter and not a military one. It follows Sun Tzu. Use your enemy's strength as a weakness. This is a perfect example of how a guerilla can do this.

[Troll]

We've had some of these arguments over in the 'The US doesn't have a clue thread.' My take is that the US invaded and thereby placed itself in a conflictual position with the populace. The onus is on the US now to stabilise Iraq. It's difficult for troops to go from being invaders to peace keepers overnight (although the British seem more adept at this than the Americans - perhaps different training) and it's also difficult for the population to suddenly see you in a different light but that's the challenge the US set for itself and if they don't start getting it right pronto, they will have done more damage going into Iraq than if they'd stayed at home.

This is not an isolated incident. Iraqis are demonstrating against the Americans and dying for it almost daily in Iraq. The outcome of this particular incident? Well, soon after the killings, the army hightailed it out of the school (which raises the question why they chose to stay in the first place knowing the population was upset about their presence ... or if they didn't know, then they really are clueless). I saw pictures of Iraqis holding their sandles in the air and jeering the soldiers as they left (reminiscent of the images of the attitude to Saddam only a few weeks ago). The soldiers themselves seemed more angry and indignant than nervous as they guarded the departing trucks. According to Al Jazeera, two Iraqis "bothered" US troops as they left and they were killed. Al Jazeera's words suggest the Iraqis were partly to blame, but still, today is another day in Iraq and it started with the US killing people demonstrating against it. How long do you think Iraqis and Arabs generally will believe the US army's excuses even if they are true? The US has got to get a handle on this problem. They've got to find a better way of dealing with demonstrations and they've got to restore order, electricity and water services, get the kids back in their schools etc. or they'll be drawn into a long, violent struggle in Iraq. If they aren't up to the task, then they need to grovel a bit at the UN.

[Oswald Defense Lawyer]

From tthe Guardian, here

To the Americans it was justified self-defence, to most residents it was murder.

What is beyond dispute is that 14 Iraqis were dead yesterday and 70 wounded lay in the main hospital, surrounded by angry family members, after US troops fired on a crowd of demonstrators.

The shooting late on Monday night was the bloodiest incident since the fall of Saddam Hussein. It occurred 40 miles west of Baghdad in an overwhelmingly Sunni town which had been quiet for two weeks until the Americans arrived.

By yesterday the mood was changed. Tempers were highly charged as demonstrators chanted slogans and waved their fists across coils of razor wire at men of the 82nd Air borne Division, the US army's elite paratroopers, who had commandeered a school in a residential street.

They were the ones who fired the fatal shots in what they insisted was return fire.

According to the Americans, tension had been mounting in the town for most of Monday as a few supporters of the former Iraqi president celebrated his 66th birthday and firing into the air. US commanders used loudspeakers to warn in Arabic that the firing could be perceived as a threat and be met with deadly force.

The crowd also included people with complaints about US checkpoints and demands that the Americans leave the school so that children could return to classes. They first gathered outside a US command post close to the town hall then marched to the main US post in the school. This was where the killing occurred.

Lieutenant Colonel Eric Nantz was not at the scene at the time but he insisted yesterday that people in the crowd fired the first shots at troops in the school. "They came under heavy fire. The troops on the roof returned fire. We later found eight AK-47s on the ground and nearby rooftops, and over 50 expended rounds. I don't know if it was planned," he said.

Cradling a machine gun, a soldier gave a more emotional account. As well as single shots fired from their M4 rifles US troops had used machine guns, he conceded.

Monday night's incident was not the first, explained the soldier, who refused to be named. "We've been sitting here taking fire for three days. It was enough to get your nerves wracked. When they marched down the road and started shooting at the compound there was nothing left for us to do but defend ourselves. They were firing from alleyways and buildings where we couldn't see.

"Guys were standing in line with hot chow. When bullets fell into the compound, people in that chow line ran for cover. From that moment on it was all business. We started putting on body armour and went up on that roof," he said.

Asked whether the troops could have mistaken shots fired into the air to celebrate Saddam's birthday with fire aimed at the US compound, the soldier insisted bullets had been coming over the roof.

No bullet holes were visible yesterday on the school, unlike the house opposite which had several holes.

Lying in hospital with his right foot amputated, Musana Saleh abdel Latif, 41, the house-owner who works as a taxi driver, gave a different version. "They just shot at the protesters. Some of the wounded tried to take cover in my front yard.

"My wife and I started to pull them in. I was hit in the foot. My wife was hit in both legs. My brother, Walid, came to take me to hospital, and he was shot and killed. Another brother was shot and injured."

Told that the Americans claimed to have been responding to fire from the crowd, he said: "They are lying. They're ready to shoot for any reason. They're criminals. Saddam Hussein is gone but I think he's better than the US."

In the town hall police inspector Omar Minar Esawi said there was no reason for US troops to be in Falluja.

They were not needed as liberators because the Iraqi army fled the day Baghdad fell. They were not needed as a security force because people had chosen a new mayor and the imams in the mosque had managed to stop the looting and get some of the stolen goods returned. Most of the police force was back in action.

"We controlled the town. When the troops came eight days ago they said they would stay for two or three days, but they're still here and the numbers have been increasing," he said. Like many Iraqis, Inspector Esawi is part of the "thank-you-and-goodbye" school of thought. With Saddam gone, the US ought to leave, he believes. "We need freedom and democracy. Now we're afraid because the US army creates these problems," he said.

Asked whether it might have been better to place his forces on the edge of town, Lt Col Nantz said: "No, I never considered that. You need to be engaged. You can't do that if you're sitting outside. We want to help them build themselves up and build a police force.

"It was obvious that some people did not appreciate us. But I still don't believe the majority was anti-coalition," he said. Monday's events have probably cut into that majority, if it ever existed.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
We've had some of these arguments over in the 'The US doesn't have a clue thread.' My take is that the US invaded and thereby placed itself in a conflictual position with the populace. The onus is on the US now to stabilise Iraq. It's difficult for troops to go from being invaders to peace keepers overnight (although the British seem more adept at this than the Americans - perhaps different training) and it's also difficult for the population to suddenly see you in a different light but that's the challenge the US set for itself and if they don't start getting it right pronto, they will have done more damage going into Iraq than if they'd stayed at home.

This is not an isolated incident. Iraqis are demonstrating against the Americans and dying for it almost daily in Iraq. The outcome of this particular incident? Well, soon after the killings, the army hightailed it out of the school (which raises the question why they chose to stay in the first place knowing the population was upset about their presence ... or if they didn't know, then they really are clueless). I saw pictures of Iraqis holding their sandles in the air and jeering the soldiers as they left (reminiscent of the images of the attitude to Saddam only a few weeks ago). The soldiers themselves seemed more angry and indignant than nervous as they guarded the departing trucks. According to Al Jazeera, two Iraqis "bothered" US troops as they left and they were killed. Al Jazeera's words suggest the Iraqis were partly to blame, but still, today is another day in Iraq and it started with the US killing people demonstrating against it. How long do you think Iraqis and Arabs generally will believe the US army's excuses even if they are true? The US has got to get a handle on this problem. They've got to find a better way of dealing with demonstrations and they've got to restore order, electricity and water services, get the kids back in their schools etc. or they'll be drawn into a long, violent struggle in Iraq. If they aren't up to the task, then they need to grovel a bit at the UN.

First of all, as a practical matter, the UN isn't going to be taking the lead in Iraq. The Permanent Five are deeply split. The UNO is therefore paralyzed just as it was during the Cold War. It's not in any shape to lead anything at the moment, and may not be for the foreseeable future - if ever.

As for groveling, that's not going to happen and you know it. Not by the US, and not by France and Russia. Since that it what it would take at the moment from one side or the other, it isn't going to happen. There is also no spirit of compromise right now. The refusal of France and Russia to lift sanctions that were imposed on a regime that no longer exists demonstrates that amply.

In addition, there is no evidence that I can see that would would have resulted in any difference on the ground even if these troops had been under UN colors. The situation on the ground is far too insecure for traditional peacekeepers. Security in those situations is always provided primarily by whatever two sides the peacekeepers are keeping apart. No such authority exists in Iraq at the moment. Therefore, any UN peacekeeping operation would be highly robust. Much more like Bosnia than Cyprus. Robust pacekeepers will confront an armed demonstration just as did this US company from the 82nd. They would defend themselves, and they wouldn't tolerate a violent late-night demonstration. They would therefore come across exactly like the US and UK troops as armed foreigners.

So the UN isn't a panacea. What will help will be as swift a transition as possible to Iraqi rule. That will allow the international presence to begin retreating into the background, and turn security and the question of the future of Iraq to Iraqis, which is where it should be. Involving the UN wouldn't help in that process, and given the conflicted interests on the Security Council (including Syria), it would probably just complicate, and therefore slow down, the process of power transfer.

I think there is also a point where you have to understand that this kind of situation shouldn't be blown out of proportion. This was a group of 100-200 demonstrators in one of Saddam's strongholds. Of them, a few were armed and shot at (or near) the US troops. The overwhelming evidence is that the general population has not turned on the US and UK troops. For the most part they are driving about and interacting with the population freely. The troops haven't retreated into armed confrontation even to the extent that the British did in N. Ireland. Isolated incidents therefore don't tell the entire story.

[theolein]

Same load of horsesh1t as usual, hey? I feel so happy for this new freedom that the Iraqis are getting: An American General to tell them what to do, Hilary Rosen to write their copyright law for them and a bunch of American soldiers to shoot wildly into crowds when the crowds aren't playing nice.

I wonder if someone didn't switch the signposts to heaven and hell when no one else was looking?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First of all, as a practical matter, the UN isn't going to be taking the lead in Iraq. The Permanent Five are deeply split.

The US is the only permanent member that doesn't see blue helmets getting involved in peace keeping. That's not a deep split. It's only US pride that's keeping the UN from getting involved and Bush may well decide that 'significant role' means blue helmets if the anger directed at Americans by Iraqis continues.

The refusal of France and Russia to lift sanctions that were imposed on a regime that no longer exists demonstrates that amply.

That's a misrepresentation of France's stance. First of all, France has been calling for sanctions to be dropped for years. Secondly, France recently repeated that it supports the dropping of sanctions and didn't make that conditional upon disarmament of Iraq. Finally, the sanctions are not against the Saddam Hussein regime. They're against Iraq. It's not a condition of the removal of the sanctions that Saddam disappear but that Iraq be disarmed (remember - that's what the US kept saying). As long as Iraq has WMD, or rather as long as it has failed to prove that it has disarmed, there are clear difficulties in dropping the sanctions. As a budding lawyer you should appreciate the incoherence of the US demand to drop sanctions. On the one hand, they insist that Iraq has WMD and they insist that they won't allow UN verification of Iraq's compliance with its obligations under UN resolutions, but on the other hand they expect the UN to drop sanctions.

The only vaguely acceptable way out of the impasse I can see is for the US to say that it will take over Iraq's disarmament obligations, but there are two difficulties with that. Firstly, the US won't say that Iraq is WMD-free for some time - at least until its people have forgotten why this war was waged in the first place. Secondly, the rest of the world doesn't trust the US. You don't have to have a very long memory span to remember when last the US turned a blind eye to Iraq's WMD stash or when last the US lied to the UN so they probably won't accept a unilateral statement that the US has disarmed Iraq. Same treatment Saddam got which is only fair - if Iraq doesn't have WMD, let us verify that for ourselves. If Blix could have done this job in 'months' before the war, I take it he can do it even faster now.

In addition, there is no evidence that I can see that would would have resulted in any difference on the ground even if these troops had been under UN colors. The situation on the ground is far too insecure for traditional peacekeepers. Robust pacekeepers will confront an armed demonstration just as did this US company from the 82nd.

The situation on the ground is volatile BECAUSE American troops are there and because Iraqis are protesting their presence. If they were replaced with blue helmets, a lot of the unrest would go away. Besides the legitimacy UN troops have, history has shown that they are better peacekeepers than American troops. These people have been prompted to resist an American invasion and subsequent occupation. As I said, people have difficulty understanding how the same guy can go from an invader one day to a peacekeeper the next. Easier to understand when a new guy comes in to keep the peace after the invader has gone home. If those were UN troops keeping the peace after an American invasion, there wouldn't have been a demonstration in the first place.

The UN's approach to peacekeeping has evolved over decades. We used to conduct occupations the way the US is doing it now and we realised that it doesn't work. Ask the British, ask the Spanish, ask practically any European colonial power. It's very difficult to persuade the people you just clubbed that now you're going to play nice.

I think there is also a point where you have to understand that this kind of situation shouldn't be blown out of proportion.

YOU mustn't focus on this incident either. Iraqis were killed on the weekend and again today and there have been incidents all over Iraq. This is not an isolated incident. You lose a lot of credibility in my eyes when you convert the army's allegation into a fact saying that the demonstrators fired on the crowd. You know as well as I do that the army denied liability as a matter of course. This particular denial seems at best unlikely. The reports I've read so far cast serious doubts on it. None of the journalists that were there heard shots coming from the demonstrators or saw guns lying around in the aftermath. Reuters reported that the houses opposite the school are riddled with bullet holes but there aren't any bullet holes in the school. I also think it's telling that the soldiers said that their nerves were shot and that they were afraid when they saw the demonstrators coming to the school. The circumstance remind me of the Sharpeville massacres actually.

[chris v]

This is becoming "just another day" in Iraq. That could present itself as an unforseen problem.


Blowback?

CV