It would seem that we've managed to avert a disaster in Fallujah, at least for the time being. Yesterday, L. Paul Bremer--who leads the American occupation--said that the situations in Fallujah and Najaf were
coming to a head:
With no sign of a breakthrough in talks with rebels in Falluja and Najaf, the leader of the American occupation appeared to move closer on Sunday to a military showdown, saying that the rebels' failure to submit to American demands would require decisive action against those who "want to shoot their way to power."
"They must be dealt with, and they will be dealt with," the administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, said, breaking a week of silence on the confrontation with Moktada al-Sadr, an anti-American Shiite cleric, in Najaf and Sunni Muslim insurgents in Falluja. Mr. Bremer spoke of the need to bring an early end to the standoffs, to return Iraq to the political path the United States has mapped out, starting with the formal return of sovereignty on June 30.
Luckily, today seems to be a different story. According to
this Washington Post article, there have been some breakthroughs in Fallujah:
U.S. officials have reached a new agreement with local Iraqi leaders aimed at defusing the crisis in the besieged city of Fallujah.
As part of the deal, U.S. authorities agreed to loosen the tight military cordon established around Fallujah and relax a curfew there.
They also said they would give an Iraqi court the legal responsibility for arresting and prosecuting those responsible for the killing and mutilation of four American contractors last month.
Officials did not say who would actually arrest the suspects, once they have been identified. A stated reason for the Marines entering Fallujah was to capture the killers.
Local Iraqi leaders, in turn, said they would try to organize a general surrender of heavy weapons in Fallujah, including machine guns, mortars and rocket propelled grenade launchers.
The article is a bit tempered, stating that community leaders might not be able to convince the insurgents to back down. However, it certainly sounds hopeful. And let's hope indeed that this stand down takes place, because the alternative is a terrifying prospect. Bremer's talk about "decisive action" suggested that a disaster was in the making. If U.S. troops went hard into the two cities, it could cause the situation in Iraq to breakdown even further and give big support to the insurgents and their attacks against our troops.
If we can calm and secure Fallujah, that would be a big win for both the Iraqis and our troops. We need to keep in mind that the vast majority of those in the city are good people that had nothing to do with the atrocities that took place there on March 31. Just as we cannot condemn the citizens of New York for the murders that occur there every year, we cannot condemn the citizens of Fallujah either because of the acts of extremists within the city. If we cannot grasp the simple fact that an entire population is not responsible for the acts of a few, then we will fail in Iraq.
Therefore, this agreement gives me some hope. We need to secure the city and win the trust of the population. Raiding the city and killing many innocents in our search for the extremists would only fan anti-American hatred.
However, there is no mention in the Washington Post story about Najaf. Information on Najaf can be found in this Reuters article. From the second page:
On the other front, where coalition troops around Najaf have been fighting Sadr's Mehdi Army, two American soldiers were wounded in an ambush, Major Neal O'Brien said.
But, with the American military wary of enraging Iraqis by sending troops into one of the most sacred cities in Shi'ite Islam, the U.S. commander said no assault was imminent.
"Because of where negotiations are right now, we can wait," Colonel Dana Pittard said. "We still want Iraqis to solve the problem."
The U.S. army has said it wants to kill or capture Sadr, who is holed up in Najaf, and destroy his militia.
A senior coalition official said it was unclear how far negotiations by various Iraqi intermediaries had progressed.
"It's difficult to get a sense of what's real and what isn't," he said.
So we're waiting outside Najaf and hoping for the best. It must be remembered that Najaf is a holy city and any sort of bloody offensive within the city could spark a widespread revolt against U.S. troops. If we go into Najaf after Sadr, it could easily lead to the deaths of many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. It's a terrible situation and we would do well to avoid Bremer's "decisive action" if at all possible. We need a compromise here, not an assault.
Iraq is on the brink. We don't need to do anything to push it over the edge.
(Originally posted on my blog, Nightmares For Sale)