Talk:First Battle of Fallujah/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reopening "Insurgent victory" (sorry)

I read the previous discussion about labeling the battle a "success" one way or the other or even attaching "tactical" or "strategic" as an adjective. My question is why is the battle not classified here as a "draw" or "inconclusive"? The very inconclusiveness of the engagement and American dissatisfaction with the aftermath of negotiations was precisely what prompted the second battle. It would seem to me that there is seldom a more text book example of an inconclusive engagement. I understand the inclination to want to assign a victor to every conflict but that's simply not always the case.

The insurgents wanted to deny US forces access to the city and the US wanted to pacify (but not necessarily occupy) it. A ways into the battle insurgents realized they couldn't hold out much longer against US military forces and those same US forces were concerned with the mounting civilian losses. It was under these conditions that insurgents gave up access to the city again under the condition that US forces cease their offensive and conduct joint Iraqi/US patrols. This outcome was not really what either side really wanted and its tenuous nature lead to the second battle. How is this not an "inconclusive" result? TomPointTwo (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether the article says it was a victory or inconclusive relies entirely on what reliable, verifiable sources say to support it. Currently a reliable source suggests it was an insurgent victory. Hohum (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Michael Knights was asserting that that changing conditions in Fallujah due to to the aftermath of negotiations started to look "more like" an insurgent victory. He doesn't put forth that the battle it self was. The very nature of his statement says the opposite in fact. If you read the source you'll see he is discussing the political situation in aftermath of the battle. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I take your point that it doesn't say it was an insurgent victory, but the quoted part doesn't clearly say the opposite either - we need to avoid synthesising. Proper, clear citations are going to be needed to put this to rest. Hohum (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To be frank I consider part of the problem to be that Wikipedia editors have chosen to create two separate articles for two separate "battles". This causes there to be a desire to see independent battles that have a clear beginning and end with a declared winner in each event. I always considered the Battle of Fallujah to be a single campaign separated into three phases: Operation Vigilant Resolve (The "first" battle), the Fallujah Brigade period and Operation Phantom Fury (the "second" battle). The three events are all thoroughly intertwined and impossible to really separate as unique and separate events. When considered in unison they constitute a solid block of continuous conflict over control of Fallujah. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The main phases seem to have been separated by months, so I don't think it's possible to call them all one battle. I'd tend to agree that this initial phase was inconclusive, but led to the "second battle". Perhaps just link the second battle as the result? Hohum (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's one possible solution but I'm not sure it will hold over time, the urge to say "team X wins!!!" is pretty strong. I was getting ready to do up a draft of a unified article when I found there already is one: Fallujah during the Iraq War which does a pretty good job of representing the conflict as a single campaign. Most of the material here and Second Battle of Fallujah is redundant material from that article. I suggest the possibility of merge the three with their info boxes. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to label this battle anything other than an insurgent victory...until the United States launched a renewed assault six months later. But if the two were to be combined into a single article, then I agree the outcome would be an American victory. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it would a mistake to label this (part of the) battle anything at all without a good reference to support it, which is currently lacking. Hohum (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that. Examined in vacuum Operation Vigilant Resolve was inconclusive militarily, insurgent forces were close to total collapse when the Marines were ordered to cease their offensive. The last of their critical defensive positions had been lost and they were almost out of ammunition. Only in the greater context of the information war going on in Iraq, and the US mishandling of that, were they saved from annihilation. If anything it was the developing political situation outside of Fallujah that necessitated the US switch tactics in Falujah. Only through the framing of operations within a counter insurgency effort in Anbar in general can a reader really understand why and how the US decided to shift their efforts from conventional military assault to a joint low intensity campaign utilizing the para-military Fallujah Brigade which also marked the end of Vigilant Resolve. With that in mind would you object to an effort to merge the three aforementioned articles? TomPointTwo (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could all of the related articles share a common infobox ? Hohum (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At that point we're running into a lot of redundancy, I'd think it simpler to have one article or even one article with multiple info boxes. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to make a template that multiple articles share. Hohum (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, I was talking more about the actual body of the articles being redundant. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Sherurcij, I noticed you've added another citation for "insurgent victory" over the course of this discussion. I don't really think the second source is viable being that the primary source isn't reliable. Still, I'm not going to argue that there are sources out there that you can use to assert that. I have a source, Operation Phantom Fury: The Assult and Capture of Fallujah, Iraq by Dick Camp, that calls it a "stalemate". I was hoping to avoid getting into a back and forth with competing sources and instead focus on finding a more precise way of detailing the events for the reader outside of Team A or Team B wins. It's controversial and complex so I didn't want to source war. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that one can usually find contradictory conclusions where "both are right"; but I figured since the complaint was made about not enough sources for it being an insurgent victory, I would add another one. Again, I think common consensus amongst recent historians about the April conflict agree it was an American failure, mitigated by the American success six months later. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The recently added source is of terrible quality. One side heralding the battle as a victory is useless. An analysis by an expert is required. It should be removed. Hohum (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Gah, so is an opinion piece by a journalist. I'm removing them both. Hohum (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A financial anaylst to be exact. He even states: "Despite their being beaten, the Fallujah guerrillas proclaimed victory--and in the eyes of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East they are seen as victorious." It was commentary on the greater propagnda war being waged as I've mentioned before. See where I'm going with this? Can we not do this thing? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added the citations, since they are not alone in their analysis, they are a cross-section; we have Iraqis claiming it was an insurgent victory, American magazine publishers declaring it an insurgent victory, and American book authors declaring it an insurgent victory. I believe there used to be a Classified American report also used as a citation; but it was removed since it was classified - I'll look for it. But meanwhile you can raise concerns at WP:RS if you'd like - but please leave the footnotes intact. You can't remove footnotes and claim a fact is unreferenced. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, be reasonable. We're all obviously experienced editors here, we all know how this works. In a perfect world "one side's opinion" is as valid as another but to use the statements of Iraqi insurgents groups blanket proclamations of victory in a controversial situation is obviously not acceptable. Also, citing a portion of financial analyst's take on that same situation, more so when the content of that analysis doesn't even make a clear cut statement, is also overtly inappropriate. If you have a wide cross section of experts declaring that the outcome of Vigilant Resolve was a clear insurgent victory you need to produce those, not do what you're doing now. I'd really, really like to avoid having this devolve into a conflict. I agree with Hohum, the recent additions need to go. As the editor that wants them included you know the burden is on you. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the burden is on the person removing footnotes from an article. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an obvious consensus developed here that they're inappropriate. As the only editor here that whats them included you need to seek out additional opinions. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, this is silly. You've also added two new sources citing American "failure to take Fallujah" which is an entirely different proposition. Will you slow down and include the other interested editors here so we can figure out where you're going with this and the best way to get there? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This morning you proposed we should remove and change the footnoted outcome of the battle; when more sources were added, you removed them, and again called for it be changed from the footnoted outcome that has existed for years. Trying to change history in less than 24 hours, removing citations that support the outcome...I'm not sure the advice "slow down" doesn't apply at least equally to your side. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made a single edit to the article as I found it, instead I discussed my position here first knowing full and well that it's a controversial subject. That's what I mean by slow down. Everyone here is reasonable and there's no reason to start changing things in a manner that could spark an edit war. I expressed my desire to see the "result" change to inconclusive to reflect (as we've already found) that there is more than one source saying more than one thing. I then proposed that the best possible solution might be a single, more nuanced and inclusive, article. Finally the only footnotes I removed are ones that are obviously not adequate and I did so with the agreement of another editor. Replacing unsourced statements with inappropriately sourced statements is not a solution at all. Regardless, I have to go pick up my old lady so I have to take a break for now. Maybe some time to gather new sources and refine positions will be beneficial to the article. Happy editing until then. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To repeat my earlier point, since it seems we're agreed on the entire Fallujah incident, "if the two were to be combined into a single article, then I agree the outcome would be an American victory" Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree and that's the direction I'd like to see the article go as well. In the interim I was thinking we could just get literal. How does "Unilateral American Ceasefire" sound to you? It would clearly lay out the manner in which the battle was brought to a close and additional detail on the greater implications of that ending could be spelled out in a more nuanced way in the body of the text with multiple sources cited for different view points. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Unilateral American Ceasefire" seems a bit ungainly. "Americans forces withdraw", "Americans forces disengage" ? Hohum (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, something along that line of thought. I only proposed Unilateral American Ceasefire because it's precise, reflects the American's political decision independent of the military situation to cease their offensive and is easily sourced in a variety of references. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Having been a few days now with no response I'm going to change it to "Unilateral American Ceasefire" or "American forces withdraw" with proper citations barring objections in the next 24 hours or so. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as the sources unambiguously support the wording, it should put the matter to rest. Hohum (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the discussion and I have to object Tom. I agree with Sherurcij. First of I don't agree that this battle is to be merged with the other one. These were clearly two different battles and in general everywhere they are regarded as the First and Second battles of Fallujah. Second, let's not kid ourselves here, like you said so yourself, the main goal of the US was to pacify the city and the main goal of the insurgents was to stop the US retaking the city. The US didn't manage to pacify the city, outside political factors or not. The US failed in their main goal. It doesn't matter if the reason was the Iraqi resistance or political influance. The US effectivly lost the city, thus the insurgents managed to hold on to it. The US sent in the Fallujah brigade which was mostly made up of former Sadam loyalists who all within less than a month deserted and joined the insurgency. Case - US didn't pacify city, insurgents kept control of the city. Is there anything more clear? Insurgent victory. Yes some of the sources that Sherurcij has produced are not of the best quality but it shows that most of the world regard the first battle as a US defeat, even though the US wants to paint it as a withdrawal under political influence. In this day and age a battle isn't just about the military aspects but about the political aspects as well, they influence on the outcome as much as the fighting on the ground. Draw? Inconclusive? Nothing like that here. Again, the insurgents kept the control of the city for the next six months.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Uruk that there is no consensus to change the historically-accepted outcome of the battle to a retconned US military perspective of "nominal operative success under particular political pressures maximising effectiveness through withdrawal". So long as the article is about the First Battle of Fallujah, it was most definitely an insurgent victory. A "draw" would suggest that both forces withdrew, an "inconclusive outcome" would imply something akin to the Battle of Talavera where one force withdrew from the battlefield, but the battle caused the other force to withdraw from the war entirely. Since the Americans withdrew from the battlefield, and nobody withdrew from the war (in fact the Americans withdrew from the war years later, but I'm hardly crediting it to Fallujah) - it would not seem likely to be an "inconclusive" outcome.Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't George W. Bush tell the American public that the reason for the attack was to bring to justice the individuals responsible for desecrating the bodies of the four "contractors"? Has the USA in fact found the individuals who desecrated the bodies? No? Then it seems to me that is strong argument for extreme caution when citing or paraphrasing any WP:RS that asserts it was a US victory. If the orders to the Marines listed a different objective, fine, cite WP:RS that list those objective(s), and other WP:RS as to whether those objectives were acheived. Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Among other reasons and yes. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WRT whether this was an insurgent victory -- I followed this back in 2004, but not so much since then. Has there been any independent confirmation that there was a well organized resistance infrastructure in Fallujah prior to the US attack? Has there been any independent confirmation that the attack on the blackwater soldiers was an "ambush", that it was organized and not a spontaneous act of retribution against hated bullies unlucky enough to have gotten lost? Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's all information easily avaible and sourced in the articles already written. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On a separate note your NYT cite is broken (44) and the later half of your comments in regard to legality of WP and the obligations of military personnel are unsourced and incorrect. Please source them or remove them. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, a man being arrested and charged with the Fallujah burnings in summer 2009, does not retroactively stop a Spring 2004 battle from being a failure. (Which is to say nothing of the fact that nobody mentioned anything about this guy being involved in the Fallujah burnings until he launched a complaint that he had been beaten in custody, leading to three court-martials of US Navy SEALs...then the papers all began trumpeting that the army believed he was responsible for the burnings) Also, I looked at the relevant articles, none of them support the "ambush" being a planned military operation - they all seem to agree it was an angry mob of people. The Mahdi Army, al-Qaeda in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunnah, none of them ever seem to have "claimed responsiblity", all groups appear to acknowledged it was a violent outpouring of pent-up frustration taken out on a passing convoy. So the criminals weren't brought to justice, the city was not pacified, the insurgency was strengthened and not weakened...all are absolute indicators that our sourced conclusion of "Iraqi victory, American failure" are correct in their summary of the April/May proceedings. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was simply answering some of Geo Swan questions, not trying to draw a link between the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed and Operation Vigilant Resolve, I do not see the two as immediately related. The "outing" of Amed as the principle conspirator only came out after the complaints because up to that time his identity, even capture, were still classified but the cat is now out of the bag so to speak. My apologies for not replying to your latest comments on the "result" but I think both your and UrukHaiLoR's comments deserved a detailed response with relevant citation included and I haven't yet had the time. Sooner rather than later I hope. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom.2, wrote above: "your comments in regard to legality of WP and the obligations of military personnel are unsourced and incorrect". Could you please be more specific about which material you think is unsourced? WRT whether or not it is correct, please review the first paragraph of the policy on verifiability. Our personal opinions on whether material is correct aren't relevant, if they are sourced to WP:RS. I supplied two references, which I believe back up my contribution. In particular, after talking about the obligation not to mix WP with HE, the BBC quotes another reporter:

Evidence that this happened in Falluja comes from an article by a reporter, Darrin Mortenson of the North County Times in California, who was embedded with US marines there. He wrote about a mortar unit receiving coordinates of a target and opening fire: "The boom kicked the dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake 'n bake' into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week." The tactic therefore seems to have been not to flush them out first but to bombard them simultaneously with the two types of weapons.

After re-reading the BBC's account of Darrin Mortenson's description of artillerymen mixing WP and HE I see he too was reporting from Fallujah. So I changed the wording from routine in Iraq to routine in Fallujah. I don't think there is any question that this is a lapse from the USA's obligations, and that the references I supplied say so.

I am not unsympathetic to shock of some of our contributors who are distressed when confronted with WP:RS that documented that US forces violated the USA's international agreements, and were allowed to go unprosecuted. I was a cynical teenager during the long, drawn-out Watergate crisis. I assumed Nixon was guilty from early on. My elderly great-aunt, an American, continued to believe in Nixon, right up until the end. When she finally realized the truth, she perseverated. She kept repeating: "Our President lied to us. Our President lied to us." She never got over this shock. I loved her, and I am reminded of her every time I see someone having trouble coming to terms with WP:RS reports of proof some American forces did not comply with international law, and were allowed to get away with it. So I am not unsympathetic to the shock some of you feel. But we cannot allow that shock to cause us to retreat from neutral coverage of what WP:RS report. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Hashim Abed?

GIs capturing someone, and becoming convinced he is behind a crime, is not very convincing that he is behind that crime. There was that guy beaten in Camp Whitehorse. He was beaten to point of dementia and incontinence, because his captors were convinced he played a role in the rape and torture of Jessica Lynch. Why? They were told he was trying to sell an M-16 in the bazaar with a serial number that showed it had been issued to someone in Lynch's unit. Of course Lynch wasn't tortured. And she has no recollection of being raped. She lost consciousness when her vehicle crashed and arrived in the hospital a few hours later. Gary Pittman drop-kicked him so hard he broke his ribs. Nagem Hatab died of his treatment after only a few days in captivity.

Another GI, a Lisa Girman IIRC, who had served in the same unit as Charles Graner and Ivan Frederick, was discharged after she was caught abusing captives she was convinced had played a role in Lynch's rape and torture. So has any evidence been made public that this Ahmed Hashim Abed played a role in the ambush, or the body desecration? Geo Swan (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, Abed is outside the scope of this article and isn't even mentioned. What exactly is the objective of this? If you want to rant I suggest you join a discussion forum. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you direct my attention to an article about his formerly secret detention coming to light as proof that the attack had succeeded in acheiving George W. Bush's announced goals of rounding up those responsible for desecrating the corpses? If not, then why did you bring it up? And, if you consider it off-topic, then why did you bring it up?

If we think WP:RS assert Abed's capture is related to the attack don't you think he should be mentioned in the article? I suggest that if WP:RS assert it, it merits coverage, even if we, personally, think their assertions aren't credible. Geo Swan (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP again

Tom.2, wrote above: "your comments in regard to legality of WP and the obligations of military personnel are unsourced and incorrect". Could you please be more specific about which material you think is unsourced? WRT whether or not it is correct, please review the first paragraph of the policy on verifiability. Our personal opinions on whether material is correct aren't relevant, if they are sourced to WP:RS. I supplied two references, which I believe back up my contribution. In particular, after talking about the obligation not to mix WP with HE, the BBC quotes another reporter:

Evidence that this happened in Falluja comes from an article by a reporter, Darrin Mortenson of the North County Times in California, who was embedded with US marines there. He wrote about a mortar unit receiving coordinates of a target and opening fire: "The boom kicked the dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake 'n bake' into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week." The tactic therefore seems to have been not to flush them out first but to bombard them simultaneously with the two types of weapons.

After re-reading the BBC's account of Darrin Mortenson's description of artillerymen mixing WP and HE I see he too was reporting from Fallujah. So I changed the wording from routine in Iraq to routine in Fallujah. I don't think there is any question that this is a lapse from the USA's obligations, and that the references I supplied say so.

I am not unsympathetic to shock of some of our contributors who are distressed when confronted with WP:RS that documented that US forces violated the USA's international agreements, and were allowed to go unprosecuted. I was a cynical teenager during the long, drawn-out Watergate crisis. I assumed Nixon was guilty from early on. My elderly great-aunt, an American, continued to believe in Nixon, right up until the end. When she finally realized the truth, she perseverated. She kept repeating: "Our President lied to us. Our President lied to us." She never got over this shock. I loved her, and I am reminded of her every time I see someone having trouble coming to terms with WP:RS reports of proof some American forces did not comply with international law, and were allowed to get away with it. So I am not unsympathetic to the shock some of you feel. But we cannot allow that shock to cause us to retreat from neutral coverage of what WP:RS report. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved these comments to a new section avoid further derailing of the "results" section. My objection is centered around later portion of a sentence: "routinely failing to abide by the USA's obligations under international law not to do so." That is neither undisputed or backed by your sources. Also, I don't really appreciate the patronizing and your soapboxing is getting old. I hate to have to degrade this to the point of "you don't know me" but, well, you don't. Can we please just stick to the relevant topics at hand? TomPointTwo (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

White Phosphorus

The section about the US's alleged use of White Phosphorus seems to "take over" and dominate the "Aftermath and Effects" section. I'd suggest making a new section for it. It's doesn't really fit in that section anyway. The only thing "Aftermath" about it is that it was revealed after the battle.

Maybe a new section "Allegations of Geneva Convention Violations"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephalon1 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nobody commented, so I went ahead and did it. I made it similar to the divisions in the Second Battle of Fallujah article. Sephalon1 (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The document and coverage in question are related to the Second Battle, not the first. I've removed the section. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well-spotted. I didn't double-check the facts. I was more motivated by cleaning up the format of the page than the information itself. Sephalon1 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I had already started working on the section myself before I spotted the dates in the source. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

TomPointTwo, what you've done isn't "work on" the section. What you've done is piece by piece remove and censor all traces and mentions of white phosphorous. You're quite evidently an American with a political agenda. When people talk about history being "re-written by the winners", they're talking about deceitful, lying pricks like you. Fucking Americans...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.103.108 (talk)

You seem to be confused. The provided references for WP usage pertain to the Second Battle of Fallujah, as mentioned previously. Any unsubstantiated accusations of bias and unfounded presumptions of my ideological predilections and nationality should be directed there. Cheers. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)