
| Year 2004 No. 59, April 14, 2004 | ARCHIVE | HOME | JBBOOKS | SUBSCRIBE |
|---|
Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :
Condemn US-British War Crimes in Iraq! End the Occupation Now!
Contradictions between British and US Military over "Tactics"
To Stop US Crimes Fight for an Anti-War Government
Iraqi Battalion Refuses to 'Fight Iraqis'
Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
Phone: (Local Rate from outside London 0845 644 1979) 020 7627 0599
Web Site:
http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail:
office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to RCPB(ML)):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
4 issues - £2.95, 6 months - £18.95 for 26 issues, Yearly -
£33.95 (including postage)
Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text
e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10
WDIE adds its voice to all democratic people who are condemning the criminal US offensives launched against the Iraqi people on the occasion of the one-year anniversary of the so-called "liberation of Baghdad". It also condemns Tony Blair and the British government for their complete backing of US-imperialism and as its accomplice in these crimes against the Iraqi people and against humanity.
Reports from Iraq reveal that US provocations aimed at defeating the Iraqi resistance have instead unleashed an increasingly united resistance war against the occupation. The US is responding with increasing savagery and war crimes.
Reports reveal that in Fallujah, a massacre has taken place as the US occupation forces launched Operation Valiant Resolve to "pacify" the city, which has continued to be both a centre for, and symbol of, the Iraqi resistance. It was in Fallujah where last year US forces openly fired upon protesters. In response, the people tore down the building, brick by brick, where the US tried to set-up a provisional headquarters.
In this issue, we are reproducing further material on the crimes being committed by the occupying forces and the uprising of the Iraqi people to liberate their country.
In an article on the Daily Telegraph of April 12, by Sean Rayment, it was revealed that senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.
The article continues:
One senior officer said that America's aggressive methods were causing friction among allied commanders and that there was a growing sense of "unease and frustration" among the British high command.
The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".
Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are."
The phrase untermenschen - literally "under-people" - was brought to prominence by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, published in 1925. He used the term to describe those he regarded as racially inferior: Jews, Slavs and gypsies.
Although no formal complaints have as yet been made to their American counterparts, the officer said the British Government was aware of its commanders' "concerns and fears".
The officer explained that, under British military rules of war, British troops would never be given clearance to carry out attacks similar to those being conducted by the US military, in which helicopter gunships have been used on targets in urban areas.
British rules of engagement only allow troops to open fire when attacked, using the minimum force necessary and only at identified targets. The American approach was markedly different, the officer said.
"When US troops are attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use mortar-locating radar to find the firing point and then attack the general area with artillery, even though the area they are attacking may be in the middle of a densely populated residential area.
"They may well kill the terrorists in the barrage, but they will also kill and maim innocent civilians. That has been their response on a number of occasions. It is trite, but American troops do shoot first and ask questions later."
The officer believed America had now lost the military initiative in Iraq, and it could only be regained with carefully planned, precision attacks against the insurgents.
"The US will have to abandon the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach - it has failed," he said.
"They need to stop viewing every Iraqi, every Arab as the enemy and attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people."
What the article does not say, while it is clear that the two militaries differ over "tactics", is that Britain has learned from its experience in the armed struggle to keep the north of Ireland annexed that a government has a hard time in maintaining that it stands for democracy and justice if it perpetrates blatant crimes against a people demanding self-determination. The British army learned its tactics of "low intensity operations" in the north of Ireland. The end of the armed struggle there has been a factor in its strategy of freeing its troops to participate in its invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as elsewhere.
- US Marxist-Leninist Organisation, April 9, 2004 -
US crimes against the peoples in Iraq and Palestine continue to mount as do the lies attempting to justify them. In Iraq the US claims occupation represents democracy, while the Iraqis resisting are the so-called outlaws and terrorists. Who possibly believes that carpet bombing of civilians, firing on and killing demonstrators, bombing mosques during prayers, brutal checkpoints criminalising all and unending efforts at humiliation, especially of women and youth, is democracy? The US crimes against humanity and those they instigate and fund using the Israeli government characterise the US imperialist system and its style of democracy, which is both deadly and of no use to the people, here, in Iraq or anywhere.
One means to begin developing a democracy of our own, that represents the striving of Americans for a society that guarantees their rights while contributing to progress on a world scale, is developing the fight for an anti-war government. An anti-war government takes as its starting point the will of the majority across the country against the wars of aggression being waged. It represents the stand that the US can best contribute to progress by having a government and constitution that outlaws wars of aggression and one that utilises its own troops solely for purposes of defence. The peoples worldwide have the right to determine their own affairs and can do a far better job, just as Americans have the right to themselves govern and can do a far better job. Empowering the people to themselves govern and decide is the basis for democracy today.
An anti-war government in the US is also one that recognises the social responsibility to the peoples of the world and the necessity for meeting this so as to counter the chauvinism of the ruling circles that says America first and only. One can readily see the result of a system that tramples on any and all to secure an "America" for the richest and most reactionary. Americans are favoured by contributing to the cause of progress on a worldscale, which is as much a need of the people here as it is needed by the world.
An anti-war government embodies not only a stand against war but for the interests of the people. The US Marxist-Leninist Organisation is calling on all to join in developing discussion during the elections on the necessity for an anti-war government and reiterates the following programme:
1) Outlaw any and all US involvement in wars of aggression and use of force
in settling conflicts between nations and peoples;
2) No US troops abroad;
3) Cancel the debts of all the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America;
4) Pay reparations now for all the crimes of slavery and all crimes of the US
government, present and past;
5) End all support for Israel and act to end the occupation of Palestine now,
beginning with withdrawal to the 1967 borders;
6) Stop paying the rich and increase funding for social programmes.
By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, April 11, 2004
BAGHDAD, April 10 A battalion of the new Iraqi army refused to go to Fallujah earlier this week to support US Marines battling for control of the city, senior US Army officers here said, disclosing an incident that is casting new doubt on US plans to transfer security matters to Iraqi forces.
It was the first time US commanders had sought to involve the postwar Iraqi army in major combat operations, and the battalion's refusal came as large parts of Iraqi security forces have stopped carrying out their duties.
The 620-man 2nd Battalion of the Iraqi Armed Forces refused to fight Monday after members of the unit were shot at in a Shiite Muslim neighbourhood in Baghdad while en route to Fallujah, a Sunni Muslim stronghold, said US Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who is overseeing the development of Iraqi security forces. The convoy then turned around and returned to the battalion's post on a former Republican Guard base in Taji, a town north of the capital.
Eaton said members of the battalion insisted during the ensuing discussions: "We did not sign up to fight Iraqis."
He declined to characterise the incident as a mutiny, but rather called it "a command failure".
The refusal of the battalion to perform as US officials had hoped poses a significant problem for the occupation. The cornerstone of the US strategy in Iraq is to draw down its military presence and turn over security functions to Iraqis.
Over the past two weeks, that approach has suffered a severe setback as Iraqi security forces have crumbled in some parts of the country. In recent days perhaps 20 percent to 25 percent of the Iraqi army, civil defence, police and other security forces have quit, changed sides, or otherwise failed to perform their duties, a senior Army officer said Saturday.
"I wouldn't say it is so widespread that it's the majority," the senior officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But it concerns us."
Eaton added: "The lines are blurring for a lot of Iraqis right now, and we're having problems with a lot of security functions right now."
A soldier with the 1st Armoured Division, who has recently been engaged in combat in Baghdad, said many of the Iraqi security troops with whom he has worked are no longer reporting for duty. "I think what we are seeing is not some mass quitting and mutiny by ICDC [Iraqi Civil Defence Corps], but rather just plain fear," the soldier said. "And all it takes is one Iraqi to take the lead in leaving, and they all do out of fear."
When the 2nd Battalion graduated from training camp on Jan. 6, Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hailed it as a major part of the future of Iraq. Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the US commander on the ground in Iraq, attended the ceremony and said: "We are now into the accelerated period of providing Iraqi security forces, and these soldiers look very proud, very dedicated. I have high expectations that in fact they would help us bring security and stability back to the country."
The battlefield refusal of the battalion one of just four that exist in the Iraqi army began Monday when it was ordered to travel about 60 miles to support the Marines, then locked in battle with fighters in Fallujah. The mission of the Iraqi troops was to help with secondary military tasks such as manning road checkpoints and securing the perimeter, Eaton said.
One of the problems, Eaton said, was that the Iraqi troops were not told they would be given a relatively benign role, and assumed they were being hurled into the middle of a bloody fight, battling on the side of the Americans against Arabs. "The battalion thought it was going to be thrown into a firestorm in Fallujah," he said.
Complicating communications, he said, was that the battalion had 10 new US advisers who rotated into their jobs April 1, just four days before the incident, replacing the advisers who had trained the unit for months.
The battalion, travelling by truck and escorted by troops from the US Army's 1st Armoured Division, passed through a Shiite area in northwest Baghdad. They were fired on, and six members of the unit were wounded, one seriously, Eaton said. A crowd of Shiites gathered and "surged" at the convoy, he said. "They were stunned that they were taken under fire by their fellow population," he said.
The battalion was then sent back to Taji, where preparations were made to fly it to the Fallujah area. But opposition to the mission stiffened, Eaton said, "so we decided not to involve them in the Fallujah operation."
Accounts differ on whether the other Iraqi battalion based at Taji also indicated that it would decline to go to Fallujah. Eaton said it was not involved, because it was not yet deemed ready to fight.
But the other Army official said that a decision was made not to force the issue with that unit's commanders. "I don't think they pushed them to the brink where they said, 'Hell, no, we won't go,' " the official said.
The two senior officers also differed on what motivated the refusal.
The Iraqi rebuff was based on "pure fear," said the Army official. "They just got cold feet."
But Eaton, who visited the unit the day after the incident, disagreed. He noted that Iraqi troops have "fought very, very bravely" against Iran. He said that, in his view, the problem was caused by poor leadership and complicated by the fact that the unit was trained by US advisers who emphasised that their job would be to defend Iraq against outside forces.
Eaton, who oversees the organisation, training and equipping of the Iraqi army, the civil defence force, the police, security guards and border patrol, said the recalcitrant battalion's Iraqi leadership would be "reorganised".
He also said that training would be different for future battalions, and handled almost exclusively by Iraqi officers, a group of which recently finished re-training in Jordan. "They will train their own men," he said.
Eaton, who previously was chief of infantry training for the US Army, said that solutions would be found to the setback.
"Is it disappointing? Obviously," he said. "We're just going to work our way through it."
Bush's War and the Lapdog Press Corps
By Robert Fisk, April 10, 2004
Just shut up. That's the new foreign policy line of our masters. When Senator Edward Kennedy dubbed Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam", US Secretary of State Colin Powell told him to be "a little more restrained and careful" in his comments. I recall that when the US commenced its bombing of Afghanistan, the White House spokesman claimed that some journalists were "asking questions that the American people wouldn't want asked". Back in the early 1980s, when I reported on the Iranian soldiers on a troop train to Tehran who were coughing Saddam's mustard gas out of their lungs in blood and mucus, a Foreign Office official told my then editor on The Times that my dispatch was "not helpful". In other words, stop criticising our ally, Saddam.
So maybe the policy has been around for quite a while. When the occupation authorities deliberately concealed the attacks against US troops after the start of the Iraq occupation last year, journalists who investigated this violence were told that they weren't covering the big picture, that only small areas of Iraq were restive. And there was a lot of clucking of tongues when a few of us decided to take a close look at US proconsul Paul Bremer's press laws last year. A whole team of "Coalition Provisional Authority" lawyers was set up to see how they could legalise the closure and censorship of Iraqi newspapers that "incited violence". And whenever we raised questions about it, the CPA spokesman--and its current attendant lord, Dan Senor, used the same phrase last week--would announce that "we will not tolerate incitement to violence".
So when Bremer's own closure last week of Muqtada Sadr's silly little weekly--circulation about a quarter that of the Kent Messengerincited the very violence he supposedly wanted to avoid, what did the American High Commissioner announce? "This will not be tolerated." One of the paper's major sins was to have condemned Paul Bremer for taking Iraq down "Saddam's path", an article which Bremer condemned in painstaking detail in his signed letter--in execrable Arabic--to the editor of the miscreant paper.
Now I'm all against incitement to violence. Just like I'm against incitement to war by the use of fraudulent claims of weapons of mass destruction and secret links to al-Qa'ida. Just like I'm against the use of Saddam's army against Iraqi cities and the use of America's army against Iraqi cities.
For let's remember that some of Muqtada Sadr's dangerous militiamen fought Saddam in the 1991 insurgency--the one we supported and then betrayed.
Saddam, of course, knew how to deal with resistance. "We will not tolerate...," he told his commanders. And we all know what that meant. No, the Americans are not Saddam's army. But the siege of Fallujah is likely to give that city the heroic status among future generations of Iraqi Sunnis as Basra--surrounded by Saddam's hordes in 1991--holds among Iraqi Shias today.
But still, we must shut up. I remember how last autumn the cabal of right-wing neo-conservatives who urged the Bush administration into this war suddenly went to ground. What was this so-called neo-conservative lobby behind Bush and Cheney, a New York Times columnist demanded to know, these so-called former Likudist supporters of Israel? When one of them, Richard Perle, turned up on a radio show with me a few weeks ago, he insisted that things were getting better in Iraq, that we were all en route to a cracking little democracy in Mesopotamia.
The moment I suggested that this was a massive case of self-delusion, Perle replied that Fisk had "always been for the maintenance of the Baathist regime". I got the message. Anyone who condemned this bloody mess was a secret Baathist, a lover of the dictator and his torturers. Thus far have the falcons of Washington fallen.
Of course, the "shut-up" principle works both ways. Back on 16 March 2003, when the world was obsessed with the war that would break out in Iraq
three days later, a tragedy occurred on another battlefield 500 miles west of Baghdad. On that day, an Israeli soldier and his commander drove a nine-ton Caterpillar bulldozer over a young American peace activist called Rachel Corrie who was unarmed, clearly visible in a fluorescent jacket and trying to protect a Palestinian home that the Israelis intended to destroy. The Caterpillar was part of the regular US aid to Israel. Israel acquitted its own army of responsibility for Rachel's death--which was taped on video by her appalled friends--and the Bush administration remained gutlessly silent.
Rachel's grieving mother Cindi has been a picture of dignity. US citizens, she wrote, "should ask themselves how it is that an unarmed US citizen can be killed with impunity by a soldier from an allied nation receiving massive US aid... When three Americans were killed, presumably by Palestinians, in an explosion on October 15th, 2003 ... the FBI came within 24 hours to investigate the deaths. After one year, neither the FBI nor any other US-led team has done anything to investigate the death of an American killed by an Israeli." Well, the answer is that Bush and his administration know how to shut themselves up when it pays them to do so. That's what Condoleezza Rice initially tried to do when summoned before the 11 September hearings. And, thanks to the subservience of many members of the White House and Pentagon press corps, the administration has an easy time. Why, for example, no press conference questions about Rachel Corrie? It seems that as long as you say "war on terror", you are safe from all criticism. For not a single American journalist has investigated the links between the Israeli army's "rules of engagement"--so blithely handed over to US forces on Sharon's orders--and the behaviour of the US military in Iraq.
The destruction of houses of "suspects", the wholesale detention of thousands of Iraqis without trial, the cordoning off of "hostile" villages with razor wire, the bombardment of civilian areas by Apache helicopter gunships and tanks on the hunt for "terrorists" are all part of the Israeli military lexicon.
In besieging cities--when they were taking casualties or the number of civilians killed was becoming too shameful to sustain--the Israeli army would call a "unilateral suspension of offensive operations". They did this 11 times after they surrounded Beirut in 1982. And yesterday, the American army declared a "unilateral suspension of offensive operations" around Fallujah.
Not a word on this mysterious parallel by America's reporters, no questions about the even more mysterious use of identical language. And in the coming days, we shall--perhaps--find out how many of the estimated 300 dead of Fallujah were Sunni gunmen and how many were women and children. Following Israel's rules is going to lead the Americans into the same disaster those rules have led the Israelis. But I guess we'll shut up about it.
In the end, I suspect, the Iraqis will probably have a greater say in the US presidential elections than American voters. They will decide if President Bush loses or wins. The same may apply to Mr Blair. Funny thing, that a far away people, just 26 million, can change our political history. As for us, I guess we'll be expected to shut up.
by Jo Wilding, April 11, Falluja
Trucks, oil tankers, tanks are burning on the highway east to Falluja. A stream of boys and men goes to and from a lorry that's not burnt, stripping it bare. We turn onto the back roads through Abu Ghraib, Nuha and Ahrar singing in Arabic, past the vehicles full of people and a few possessions, heading the other way, past the improvised refreshment posts along the way where boys throw food through the windows into the bus for us and for the people inside still inside Falluja.
The bus is following a car with the nephew of a local sheikh and a guide who has contacts with the Mujahedin and has cleared this with them. The reason I'm on the bus is that a journalist I knew turned up at my door at about 11 at night telling me things were desperate in Falluja, he'd been bringing out children with their limbs blown off, the US soldiers were going around telling people to leave by dusk or be killed, but then when people fled with whatever they could carry, they were being stopped at the US military checkpoint on the edge of town and not let out, trapped, watching the sun go down.
He said aid vehicles and the media were being turned away. He said there was some medical aid that needed to go in and there was a better chance of it getting there with foreigners, westerners, to get through the American checkpoints. The rest of the way was secured with the armed groups who control the roads we'd travel on. We'd take in the medical supplies, see what else we could do to help and then use the bus to bring out people who needed to leave.
I'll spare you the whole decision making process, all the questions we all asked ourselves and each other, and you can spare me the accusations of madness, but what it came down to was this: if I don't do it, who will? Either way, we arrive in one piece.
We pile the stuff in the corridor and the boxes are torn open straightaway, the blankets most welcomed. It's not a hospital at all but a clinic, a private doctor's surgery treating people free since air strikes destroyed the town's main hospital. Another has been improvised in a car garage. There's no anaesthetic. The blood bags are in a drinks fridge and the doctors warm them up under the hot tap in an unhygienic toilet.
Screaming women come in, praying, slapping their chests and faces. Ummi, my mother, one cries. I hold her until Maki, a consultant and acting director of the clinic, brings me to the bed where a child of about ten is lying with a bullet wound to the head. A smaller child is being treated for a similar injury in the next bed. A US sniper hit them and their grandmother as they left their home to flee Falluja.
The lights go out, the fan stops and in the sudden quiet someone holds up the flame of a cigarette lighter for the doctor to carry on operating by. The electricity to the town has been cut off for days and when the generator runs out of petrol they just have to manage till it comes back on. Dave quickly donates his torch. The children are not going to live.
"Come," says Maki and ushers me alone into a room where an old woman has just had an abdominal bullet wound stitched up. Another in her leg is being dressed, the bed under her foot soaked with blood, a white flag still clutched in her hand and the same story: I was leaving my home to go to Baghdad when I was hit by a US sniper. Some of the town is held by US marines, other parts by the local fighters. Their homes are in the US controlled area and they are adamant that the snipers were US marines.
Snipers are causing not just carnage but also the paralysis of the ambulance and evacuation services. The biggest hospital after the main one was bombed is in US territory and cut off from the clinic by snipers. The ambulance has been repaired four times after bullet damage. Bodies are lying in the streets because no one can go to collect them without being shot.
Some said we were mad to come to Iraq; quite a few said we were completely insane to come to Falluja and now there are people telling me that getting in the back of the pick up to go past the snipers and get sick and injured people is the craziest thing they've ever seen. I know, though, that if we don't, no one will.
He's holding a white flag with a red crescent on; I don't know his name. The men we pass wave us on when the driver explains where we're going. The silence is ferocious in the no man's land between the pick up at the edge of the Mujahedin territory, which has just gone from our sight around the last corner and the marines' line beyond the next wall; no birds, no music, no indication that anyone is still living until a gate opens opposite and a woman comes out, points.
We edge along to the hole in the wall where we can see the car, spent mortar shells around it. The feet are visible, crossed, in the gutter. I think he's dead already. The snipers are visible too, two of them on the corner of the building. As yet I think they can't see us so we need to let them know we're there.
"Hello," I bellow at the top of my voice. "Can you hear me?" They must. They're about 30 metres from us, maybe less, and it's so still you could hear the flies buzzing at fifty paces. I repeat myself a few times, still without reply, so decide to explain myself a bit more.
" We are a medical team. We want to remove this wounded man. Is it OK for us to come out and get him? Can you give us a signal that it's OK?"
I'm sure they can hear me but they're still not responding. Maybe they didn't understand it all, so I say the same again. Dave yells too in his US accent. I yell again. Finally I think I hear a shout back. Not sure, I call again.
"Hello."
"Yeah."
"Can we come out and get him?"
"Yeah,"
Slowly, our hands up, we go out. The black cloud that rises to greet us carries with it a hot, sour smell. Solidified, his legs are heavy. I leave them to Rana and Dave, our guide lifting under his hips. The Kalashnikov is attached by sticky blood to is hair and hand and we don't want it with us so I put my foot on it as I pick up his shoulders and his blood falls out through the hole in his back. We heave him into the pick up as best we can and try to outrun the flies.
I suppose he was wearing flip flops because he's barefoot now, no more than 20 years old, in imitation Nike pants and a blue and black striped football shirt with a big 28 on the back. As the orderlies form the clinic pull the young fighter off the pick up, yellow fluid pours from his mouth and they flip him over, face up, the way into the clinic clearing in front of them, straight up the ramp into the makeshift morgue.
We wash the blood off our hands and get in the ambulance. There are people trapped in the other hospital who need to go to Baghdad. Siren screaming, lights flashing, we huddle on the floor of the ambulance, passports and ID cards held out the windows. We pack it with people, one with his chest taped together and a drip, one on a stretcher, legs jerking violently so I have to hold them down as we wheel him out, lifting him over steps.
The hospital is better able to treat them than the clinic but hasn't got enough of anything to sort them out properly and the only way to get them to Baghdad on our bus, which means they have to go to the clinic. We're crammed on the floor of the ambulance in case it's shot at. Nisareen, a woman doctor about my age, can't stop a few tears once we're out.
The doctor rushes out to meet me: "Can you go to fetch a lady, she is pregnant and she is delivering the baby too soon?"
Azzam is driving, Ahmed in the middle directing him and me by the window, the visible foreigner, the passport. Something scatters across my hand, simultaneous with the crashing of a bullet through the ambulance, some plastic part dislodged, flying through the window.
We stop, turn off the siren, keep the blue light flashing, wait, eyes on the silhouettes of men in US marine uniforms on the corners of the buildings. Several shots come. We duck, get as low as possible and I can see tiny red lights whipping past the window, past my head. Some, it's hard to tell, are hitting the ambulance I start singing. What else do you do when someone's shooting at you? A tyre bursts with an enormous noise and a jerk of the vehicle.
I'm outraged. We're trying to get to a woman who's giving birth without any medical attention, without electricity, in a city under siege, in a clearly marked ambulance, and you're shooting at us. How dare you?
How dare you?
Azzam grabs the gear stick and gets the ambulance into reverse, another tyre bursting as we go over the ridge in the centre of the road , the sots still coming as we flee around the corner. I carry on singing. The wheels are scraping, burst rubber burning on the road.
The men run for a stretcher as we arrive and I shake my head. They spot the new bullet holes and run to see if we're OK. Is there any other way to get to her, I want to know. La, maaku tarieq. There is no other way. They say we did the right thing. They say they've fixed the ambulance four times already and they'll fix it again but the radiator's gone and the wheels are buckled and se's still at home in the dark giving birth alone. I let her down.
We can't go out again. For one thing there's no ambulance and besides it's dark now and that means our foreign faces can't protect the people who go out with us or the people we pick up. Maki is the acting director of the place. He says he hated Saddam but now he hates the Americans more.
We take off the blue gowns as the sky starts exploding somewhere beyond the building opposite. Minutes later a car roars up to the clinic. I can hear him screaming before I can see that there's no skin left on his body. He's burnt from head to foot. For sure there's nothing they can do. He'll die of dehydration within a few days.
Another man is pulled from the car onto a stretcher. Cluster bombs, they say, although it's not clear whether they mean one or both of them. We set off walking to Mr Yasser's house, waiting at each corner for someone to check the street before we cross. A ball of fire falls from a plane, splits into smaller balls of bright white lights. I think they're cluster bombs, because cluster bombs are in the front of my mind, but they vanish, just magnesium flares, incredibly bright but short-lived, giving a flash picture of the town from above.
Yasser asks us all to introduce ourselves. I tell him I'm training to be a lawyer. One of the other men asks whether I know about international law. They want to know about the law on war crimes, what a war crime is. I tell them I know some of the Geneva Conventions, that I'll bring some information next time I come and we can get someone to explain it in Arabic.
We bring up the matter of Nayoko. This group of fighters has nothing to do with the ones who are holding the Japanese hostages, but while they're thanking us for what we did this evening, we talk about the things Nayoko did for the street kids, how much they loved her. They can't promise anything but that they'll try and find out where she is and try to persuade the group to let her and the others go. I don't suppose it will make any difference. They're busy fighting a war in Falluja. They're unconnected with the other group. But it can't hurt to try.
The planes are above us all night so that as I doze I forget I'm not on a long distance flight, the constant bass note of an unmanned reconnaissance drone overlaid with the frantic thrash of jets and the dull beat of helicopters and interrupted by the explosions.
In the morning I make balloon dogs, giraffes and elephants for the little one, Abdullah, Aboudi, who's clearly distressed by the noise of the aircraft and explosions. I blow bubbles which he follows with his eyes. Finally, finally, I score a smile. The twins, thirteen years old, laugh too, one of them an ambulance driver, both said to be handy with a Kalashnikov.
The doctors look haggard in the morning. None has slept more than a couple of hours a night for a week. One as had only eight hours of sleep in the last seven days, missing the funerals of his brother and aunt because he was needed at the hospital.
"The dead we cannot help," Jassim said. "I must worry about the injured."
We go again, Dave, Rana and me, this time in a pick up. There are some sick people close to the marines' line who need evacuating. No one dares come out of their house because the marines are on top of the buildings shooting at anything that moves. Saad fetches us a white flag and tells us not to worry, he's checked and secured the road, no Mujahedin will fire at us, that peace is upon us, this eleven year old child, his face covered with a keffiyeh, but for is bright brown eyes, his AK47 almost as tall as he is.
We shout again to the soldiers, hold up the flag with a red crescent sprayed onto it. Two come down from the building, cover this side and Rana mutters, "Allahu akbar. Please nobody take a shot at them."
We jump down and tell them we need to get some sick people from the houses and they want Rana to go and bring out the family from the house whose roof they're on. Thirteen women and children are still inside, in one room, without food and water for the last 24 hours.
"We're going to be going through soon clearing the houses," the senior one says.
"What does that mean, clearing the houses?"
"Going into every one searching for weapons." He's checking his watch, can't tell me what will start when, of course, but there's going to be air strikes in support. "If you're going to do this you gotta do it soon."
First we go down the street we were sent to. There's a man, face down, in a white dishdasha, a small round red stain on his back. We run to him. Again the flies have got there first. Dave is at his shoulders, I'm by his knees and as we reach to roll him onto the stretcher Dave's hand goes through his chest, through the cavity left by the bullet that entered so neatly through his back and blew his heart out.
There's no weapon in his hand. Only when we arrive, his sons come out, crying, shouting. He was unarmed, they scream. He was unarmed. He just went out the gate and they shot him. None of them have dared come out since. No one had dared come to get his body, horrified, terrified, forced to violate the traditions of treating the body immediately. They couldn't have known we were coming so it's inconceivable that anyone came out and retrieved a weapon but left the body.
He was unarmed, 55 years old, shot in the back.
We cover his face, carry him to the pick up. There's nothing to cover his body with. The sick woman is helped out of the house, the little girls around her hugging cloth bags to their bodies, whispering, "Baba. Baba." Daddy. Shaking, they let us go first, hands up, around the corner, then we usher them to the cab of the pick up, shielding their heads so they can't see him, the cuddly fat man stiff in the back.
The people seem to pour out of the houses now in the hope we can escort them safely out of the line of fire, kids, women, men, anxiously asking us whether they can all go, or only the women and children. We go to ask. The young marine tells us that men of fighting age can't leave. What's fighting age, I want to know. He contemplates. Anything under forty-five. No lower limit.
It appals me that all those men would be trapped in a city which is about to be destroyed. Not all of them are fighters, not all are armed. It's going to happen out of the view of the world, out of sight of the media, because most of the media in Falluja is embedded with the marines or turned away at the outskirts. Before we can pass the message on, two explosions scatter the crowd in the side street back into their houses.
Rana's with the marines evacuating the family from the house they're occupying. The pick up isn't back yet. The families are hiding behind their walls. We wait, because there's nothing else we can do. We wait in no man's land. The marines, at least, are watching us through binoculars; maybe the local fighters are too.
I've got a disappearing hanky in my pocket so while I'm sitting like a lemon, nowhere to go, gunfire and explosions aplenty all around, I make the hanky disappear, reappear, disappear. It's always best, I think, to seem completely unthreatening and completely unconcerned, so no one worries about you enough to shoot. We can't wait too long though. Rana's been gone ages. We have to go and get her to hurry. There's a young man in the group. She's talked them into letting him leave too.
A man wants to use his police car to carry some of the people, a couple of elderly ones who can't walk far, the smallest children. It's missing a door. Who knows if he was really a police car or the car was reappropriated and just ended up there? It didn't matter if it got more people out faster. They creep from their houses, huddle by the wall, follow us out, their hands up too, and walk up the street clutching babies, bags, each other.
The pick up gets back and we shovel as many onto it as we can as an ambulance arrives from somewhere. A young man waves from the doorway of what's left of a house, his upper body bare, a blood soaked bandage around his arm, probably a fighter but it makes no difference once someone is wounded and unarmed. Getting the dead isn't essential. Like the doctor said, the dead don't need help, but if it's easy enough then we will. Since we're already OK with the soldiers and the ambulance is here, we run down to fetch them in. It's important in Islam to bury the body straightaway.
The ambulance follows us down. The soldiers start shouting in English at us for it to stop, pointing guns. It's moving fast. We're all yelling, signalling for it to stop but it seems to take forever for the driver to hear and see us. It stops. It stops, before they open fire. We haul them onto the stretchers and run, shove them in the back. Rana squeezes in the front with the wounded man and Dave and I crouch in the back beside the bodies. He says he had allergies as a kid and hasn't got much sense of smell. I wish, retrospectively, for childhood allergies, and stick my head out the window.
The bus is going to leave, taking the injured people back to Baghdad, the man with the burns, one of the women who were shot in the jaw and shoulder by a sniper, several others. Rana says she's staying to help. Dave and I don't hesitate: we're staying too. "If I don't do it, who will?" has become an accidental motto and I'm acutely aware after the last foray how many people, how many women and children, are still in their houses either because they've got nowhere to go, because they're scared to go out of the door or because they've chosen to stay.
To begin with it's agreed, then Azzam says we have to go. He hasn't got contacts with every armed group, only with some. There are different issues to square with each one. We need to get these people back to Baghdad as quickly as we can. If we're kidnapped or killed it will cause even more problems, so it's better that we just get on the bus and leave and come back with him as soon as possible.
It hurts to climb onto the bus when the doctor has just asked us to go and evacuate some more people. I hate the fact that a qualified medic can't travel in the ambulance but I can, just because I look like the sniper's sister or one of his mates, but that's the way it is today and the way it was yesterday and I feel like a traitor for leaving, but I can't see where I've got a choice. It's a war now and as alien as it is to me to do what I'm told, for once I've got to.
Jassim is scared. He harangues Mohammed constantly, tries to pull him out of the driver's seat wile we're moving. The woman with the gunshot wound is on the back seat, the man with the burns in front of her, being fanned with cardboard from the empty boxes, his intravenous drips swinging from the rail along the ceiling of the bus. It's hot. It must be unbearable for him.
Saad comes onto the bus to wish us well for the journey. He shakes Dave's hand and then mine. I hold his in both of mine and tell him "Dir balak," take care, as if I could say anything more stupid to a pre-teen Mujahedin with an AK47 in his other hand, and our eyes meet and stay fixed, his full of fire and fear.
Can't I take him away? Can't I take him somewhere he can be a child? Can't I make him a balloon giraffe and give him some drawing pens and tell him not to forget to brush his teeth? Can't I find the person who put the rifle in the hands of that little boy? Can't I tell someone about what that does to a child? Do I have to leave him here where there are heavily armed men all around him and lots of them are not on his side, however many sides there are in all of this? And of course I do. I do have to leave him, like child soldiers everywhere.
The way back is tense, the bus almost getting stuck in a dip in the sand, people escaping in anything, even piled on the trailer of a tractor, lines of cars and pick ups and buses ferrying people to the dubious sanctuary of Baghdad, lines of men in vehicles queuing to get back into the city having got their families to safety, either to fight or to help evacuate more people. The driver, Jassim, the father, ignores Azzam and takes a different road so that suddenly we're not following the lead car and we're on a road that's controlled by a different armed group than the ones which know us.
A crowd of men waves guns to stop the bus. Somehow they apparently believe that there are American soldiers on the bus, as if they wouldn't be in tanks or helicopters, and there are men getting out of their cars with shouts of "Sahafa Amreeki," American journalists. The passengers shout out of the windows, "Ana min Falluja," I am from Falluja. Gunmen run onto the bus and see that it's true, there are sick and injured and old people, Iraqis, and then relax, wave us on.
We stop in Abu Ghraib and swap seats, foreigners in the front, Iraqis less visible, headscarves off so we look more western. The American soldiers are so happy to see westerners they don't mind too much about the Iraqis with us, search the men and the bus, leave the women unsearched because there are no women soldiers to search us. Mohammed keeps asking me if things are going to be OK.
"Al-melaach wiyana, " I tell him. The angels are with us. He laughs.
And then we're in Baghdad, delivering them to the hospitals, Nuha in tears as they take the burnt man off groaning and whimpering. She puts her arms around me and asks me to be her friend. I make her feel less isolated, she says, less alone.
And the satellite news says the cease-fire is holding and George Bush says to the troops on Easter Sunday that, "I know what we're doing in Iraq is right." Shooting unarmed men in the back outside their family home is right. Shooting grandmothers with white flags is right? Shooting at women and children who are fleeing their homes is right? Firing at ambulances is right?
Well George, I know too now. I know what it looks like when you brutalise people so much that they've nothing left to lose. I know what it looks like when an operation is being done without anaesthetic because the hospitals are destroyed or under sniper fire and the city's under siege and aid isn't getting in properly. I know what it sounds like too. I know what it looks like when tracer bullets are passing your head, even though you're in an ambulance. I know what it looks like when a man's chest is no longer inside him and what it smells like and I know what it looks like when his wife and children pour out of his house.
It's a crime and it's a disgrace to us all.
From News Transcript
United States Department of Defence.
Presenter: Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Director, Coalition
Operations; and Daniel Senor, Senior Adviser, CPA Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:29
a.m. EDT
Q Jennifer Glass from "The World." General Kimmitt, the Iraqi police have refused to engage the Madhi Army across central and south Iraq, and the Iraqi army wouldn't go after insurgents in Fallujah. How do you work with these people who won't help you in operations against folks that you think are against the stability and safety of the country?
GEN. KIMMITT: Yeah, it was clear over the last couple of weeks that the progress we had hoped to have been made thus far on the Iraqi security forces is not as far along as we would have expected. But before we suggest that all the forces just walked away from the fight, in fact there have been numerous forces that when mustered went to where they needed to be, and have performed brilliantly. In Fallujah, we have two battalions of Iraqi Civil Defence Corps that are fighting alongside coalition forces. In many towns the Iraqi police service has come back to man their stations. But, in truth, there were a number of troops, there were a number of police that didn't stand up when their country called. We're going to take a very hard look at those. We are going to take a very hard look at where we are on the development of the Iraqi security forces and we are going to redouble our efforts so that our eventual goal, which is an Iraqi security apparatus capable of defending itself and providing public security is met. That will take some time, it will take some equipping, but that's why the coalition forces remain here and will remain here for a long period of time.
Q Just a quick follow-up: Who's in charge of safety and stability on July 1st? Who do these troops answer to on July 1st?
GEN. KIMMITT: The same people who are responsible for safety and security on June 15th, which is the coalition forces, alongside the Iraqi security partners. We will continue to work side by side with the Iraqi security forces as long as we're needed here.
Q Sorry, just to clarify, General Kimmitt, so the security portfolio stays with coalition forces and doesn't get turned over as part of sovereignty?
GEN. KIMMITT: That's correct.