Aftermath of 1st Battle of Baghdad
| Monday April 7, 2003
Robert Fisk, The
Independent BAGHDAD, 7 April 2003 — The aftermath of battle was everywhere.
Burning trucks and armored personnel carriers, overturned Iraqi field
guns, craters and blackened palm trees and — right in the middle of
the motorway, just to the right of a cloverleaf interchange — the
unmistakable hulk of an American Abrams M1A1 battle tank, barrel
pointing impotently toward the highway, its turret a platform for
grinning Iraqi soldiers. There were five other US tanks destroyed, the Iraqi minister of
information insisted later. So — to the Iraqis who drove through the
streets of Baghdad, firing their automatic weapons into the air in joy
— ‘twas a famous victory. And one with a heavy price to be paid in blood and life. By the time
I turned up yesterday, the more obvious and terrible detritus of battle
— the corpses and the blood and vomit — had been cleared away, but
the Iraqi Army and the Pentagon did their best to cloak this little
killing field with lies. A thousand Iraqis killed, crowed the Pentagon.
Fifty Americans killed, boasted the Iraqis, rather more modestly. Both
sides admitted “casualties” and it must be for the reader to judge
what these might have been. A 106mm Iraqi anti-tank gun, three armored personnel carriers —
again Iraqi — and more than 25 military trucks and Katyusha launchers
— yes, once more Iraqi — were scattered in burning embers on the
plains of dust and earth around the motorway just seven miles from the
center of Baghdad. Even as I clambered over this mass of tortured and still red-hot
metal, the American pilots came back, their invisible jets howling
through the air above the battlefield. Then there was the American tank. It had a neat hole in its armor, almost certainly made by a 106mm gun
— perhaps the very Iraqi artillery piece that I had just seen upside
down in the muck two hundred meters away. I climbed onto the tank’s
sunken turret — the Abrams has a gun almost on a level with its hull
to lower its target profile — and padded around the vehicle, peering
into its hatch. No, there were no dead Americans inside. An Iraqi
lieutenant claimed his men had taken three dead crew members from the
vehicle earlier in the morning but there was no sign of human remains. It was about this time that an American pilot decided to have a look
at us all. The orchestra of high-flying jets above the heat haze suddenly
changed key as the sound of an attack aircraft increasing its speed
turned all our eyes to the sky. I saw Ramseh — an old Beirut
photographer friend from the Lebanese civil war — running for his life
down the road. And I knew that when Ramseh ran, it was time to do the
same. I jumped off the wreckage of the American tank and ran for my life
down the highway, along with more than a dozen Iraqi soldiers and
journalists. The jet thundered over us. Was he just taking a look? Was
he, perhaps, not too keen on journalists prowling over one of his
country’s crippled tanks? But what really happened here? The hole in the tank’s armor was
clearly caused by a small incoming missile. Unwilling to leave their
crippled but perhaps repairable tank to the Iraqis, the Americans then
ordered a US airstrike to destroy it. This would account for the crater
and the massive hunks of tarmac thrown up around the vehicle. Maybe the
crew were not saved. Maybe they were captured, though surely the Iraqis
would have told us. But there were two tactical lessons to be learned
from all this. Firstly, the US mission was a failure. Their tank column
did not “break into” the city as the US/UK headquarters originally
stated. Iraqi resistance turned it back. The US response — air assaults on individual Iraqi vehicles — was
presumably carried out by Apache helicopters, because each smoldering
wreck had been hit by a small rocket at close range. The second lesson
therefore was one for the Iraqis: They should never have brought their
armor and military lorries so close to the front. And even if they did destroy six American tanks as the minister
ambitiously claimed, they did so at a cost of more than five-to-one of
their own vehicles and guns. Artillery pits lay blackened, long-range
guns blown apart and scattered over the mud and dust. I had to drive gingerly around the iron bones of an Iraqi munitions
truck that had received a direct hit, its carcass surrounded by hundreds
of exploded, blackened shell cases. There was no point in asking what
happened to the driver. So in military terms — and despite all the waffle from the
Americans about the “success” of the aborted US incursion — the
Iraqis have so far held their ground in the Battle of Baghdad. But they
must have sustained hundreds of casualties; I saw 15 of their corpses
being carried from the battlefield by a pick-up truck which cut in front
of my car on Saturday, each dead soldier lying with his booted feet over
the tailboard. These are therefore desperate days, something that even the
loquacious Iraqi minister of information, Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf, could
not really conceal from the world yesterday. His afternoon press
conference — a 2.30 p.m. version of Centcom’s own follies — was
conducted against the roar of missile explosions and what sounded very
like shell and mortar fire. “How do you know that is the sound of shellfire,” he asked one
persistent reporter. “It could be the sound of the continued air
attacks by these villains and mercenaries.” There was, however, one
very interesting theme to the minister’s daily peroration: His
constant reference to the American tactic of testing Iraq’s military
defenses, only to retreat the moment the Iraqis counterattacked. “This happened at the airport,” he said. “They came in and we
pushed them back and pounded them with our artillery and they
disappeared back to Abu Ghoraib. But when we stopped, they came back
again.” The American occupation of the airport, he insisted, was “for
filming and propaganda.” But twice more came that intriguing
admission: “They come, we stop them and we pound them and they go and
when we stop they return.” Could US spokesmen have put it any better? There were reports late
yesterday afternoon that the Americans were trying the same tactics
again, this time in the middle class suburb of Mansour. Certainly, air
activity over the city increased to a new intensity at dusk as jets
swept low over Baghdad, dropping ordnance on areas to the west of the
Tigris River, only a few hundred meters from the scene of Saturday and
yesterday’s battles. Indeed, so great was the dust and smoke of explosions that, mixed
with the Iraqi-lit oil fires around Baghdad, visibility was reduced to
only a few hundred meters. But through the city streets, civilian cars could be seen driving,
piled high with bedding, linen, saucepans and boxes. The better-off,
those with villas in other, more peaceful provinces of Iraq, were
leaving their homes. Another sign of more dangerous days was the absence
of Baghdad’s daily newspapers. No-one could explain why
“Qaddasiyeh” and “Al-Iraq” or even the execrable “Iraq
Daily” failed to make the newsstands. Or — far more importantly —
why “Babel”, the daily that belongs to Saddam’s son Qusay, was
never printed. This was indeed a sign of the times. |
Copyright 2014 Q Madp www.OurWarHeroes.org