Supply mission in Fallujah descends into urban warfare

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4722914.html

FALLUJAH, IRAQ -- It began as a routine supply mission to the front lines, in a volatile but largely becalmed city.

It ended as a fiery and chaotic rescue mission, with a small force of Marine tanks, Humvees and ground troops surrounded and attacked as they fought their way through a hostile neighborhood to save the crew of a burning armored personnel carrier.

<snip>

...By the end of the tumultuous encounter, the charred personnel carrier had been towed to safety by a tank and most of its 17 crew members -- several of them wounded -- had been rescued.

But the incident also revealed some startling facts about the Iraqi insurgency that the Marines are facing here, officers said: It showed the tenacity, coordination, firepower and surprisingly large numbers of anti-American guerrillas who still dominate much of the city.

"We definitely stumbled into a wasps' nest. They were definitely a lot more organized than we thought," said Capt. Jason Smith, 30, commander of the company whose armored supply vehicle made a wrong turn into insurgent territory and was immediately inundated by gunfire.

...more...

Withdrawing Americans fly white flags to get out of
al-Fallujah.

A report posted at 1:20am 14 April 2004 Mecca time from
special correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam in al-Fallujah
reports witnessing more than 50 American tanks and
armored vehicles flying white flags in an effort to be allowed
out of al-Fallujah unharmed. The correspondent
personally witnessed one US soldier get out of a tank
unarmed to prove that his white flag meant what it
normally means in military practice. US forces pulled
out of al-Jawlan, as-Sakani, al-Jurayfi, and as-
Saqlawiyah neighborhoods and districts.

their retreating army druing Desert Storm. We literally burned to a crisp a line of white-flag retreating Iraqi conscripts retreating across the sands of Iraq.

And everybody knows it but the American people. :(

Al-Jazeera reported that two US F-16 fighter bombers
were intensely bombing an-Nizal neighborhood to cover
the retreat of the American units and reduce further
losses among the aggressor forces. Al-'Arabiyah TV
reported that the Resistance in al-Fallujah had cut off a
group of US troops inside one neighborhood of al-Fallujah
after they failed to withdraw along with the rest of the tanks
and armored vehicles that made a failed attempt to storm
the besieged city.

<Just before dawn Wednesday, however, AC-130 Spectre gunships launched a punitive raid over a six-block area around where the convoy was attacked. Marine officials said the area was virtually destroyed and that no further insurgent activity had been seen there.>

Maybe this is why over two thirds of Fallujah dead are non-combatants.

flag and let the "rescue" vehicles go. We are such good people.

Let the invaders retreat without further harm then see six blocks worth
of civilians destroyed. Hmmm.

And people rage at the "barbarians" who mutilate the already-dead bodies
of mercenaries? What is that when considered against the inhuman crimes
committed against innocent civilians by the "liberators"?

"Insurgency" means to rise up and rebell against a civil authority or government in power.

Is there really a "civil authority" there now? And is the "government in power" the US? Or is it a puppet of the US?

How many names have been used to describe the resistence? "Saddam Loyalists?" "Baath Party Loyalists?" "Terrorists?" "Insurgents? It seems to me these are "freedom fighters" who want the US out of their country.

Straight news reporting, as opposed to comment pieces, might appear to differ, constrained, as they are said to be, by the requirement that they be 'objective'. But the underlying assumptions of news reporting remain firmly in line with the requirements of power. This may be as simple as echoing the US-UK government view that escalating attacks on "coalition" troops in Iraq are the work of "Saddam loyalists". The latter is not a neutral term, as is clear when we substitute an alternative such as "anti-occupation forces". The central facts: that our country has participated in an illegal war, now in an illegal occupation, and is in breach of Geneva conventions designed to safeguard the security and health of civilian populations, are passed over in virtual silence.

Instead, the perspective of the occupying force is always dominant in the framing of news reports. And so, just as the BBC and ITN casually echoed fraudulent government claims of Iraqi "Scud missile attacks" during the war, both are now busy describing how US forces are determined "to crush remnants of the old regime" in Falluja (ITN Evening News, June 15, 2003).

Is it possible - in all the bloodshed, chaos, poverty and national humiliation that is Iraq - that resistance might be rooted in some factor other than blind devotion to the former dictator? As veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk argues, this perspective is literally unthinkable:

"If you were to suggest that it was a resistance movement, 'harakat muqawama', 'resistance party' in Arabic, that would suggest the people didn't believe they had been liberated, and of course, all good-natured peace loving people have to believe they were liberated by the Americans, not occupied by them."
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/030619_Stenographers_To_Power.html