Falluja Under Fire

As of when this newspaper went to press, American troops had taken control of 70 percent of the Iraqi city of Falluja. In some of the most intense sustained combat since Baghdad fell, this week American and Iraqi troops have wrenched block after block from a web of snipers and insurgents. The success of this mission is imperative, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the thousands of American troops and Iraqi soldiers and civilians whose lives are on the line daily.

But the chaotic cross fires of Falluja must not obscure the larger struggle continuing to develop in the battle for Iraq. Some recent news reports have suggested that the insurgent leadership actually escaped from Falluja days ago and has begun coordinating a new wave of violence elsewhere in Iraq. If accurate, asserting control over Falluja will likely have little beyond symbolic importance.

While we hope victory in Falluja lays the course for a reversal in America’s troubled occupation so far, we have serious concerns about the manner in which these operations have unfolded. In the first place, it remains unclear what effect Falluja will have on the hearts and minds of Iraqis—a strategic stronghold more secure than any sniper’s nest. Previous severe crackdowns have unfortunately led to disproportionately negative consequences in terms of souring Iraqis’ attitudes toward the American presence. The attempt to shut down al-Sadr’s newspaper, for example, provoked a massive rebellion, which was surely not worth the price. Attacking Falluja has provided the Muslim Scholars Association, an influential group of Sunni clerics who have threatened to boycott upcoming elections, new ammunition for criticizing the occupation. This is not a propitious sign.

On top of these pragmatic concerns, we fear for innocent Iraqi citizens. If the civilian toll of the actual fighting in Falluja remains extremely low, this is largely because the city is abandoned; but the preparatory bombardment of the city seems to have killed a number of innocent Iraqis. A recent study from researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimated the civilian toll in Iraq since March 2003 may be upwards of 100,000. Although there are many valid criticisms of this study’s methodology, from the standpoint of maintaining moral legitimacy in this fight, there is little question that America must do a better job consistently treating peaceable Iraqis as free and valuable.

Indeed, safeguarding Iraqi civilians is the expressed purpose of America’s continued presence in Iraq. Ever since the U.S. invaded Iraq, one by one the rationales for war have crumbled. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no plausible terrorist ties, no yellowcake, no turkey farms. The liberation of the Iraqi people from tyranny, originally the icing on the cake for the war’s promoters, is now the sole remaining rationale for American involvement in Iraq. And while this rationale remains a worthy and noble cause, if the freedom of Iraqis is to be the guiding principle of American involvement in Iraq, the manner in which the military conducts its operations must better reflect that aim.

Killing a citizen of a sovereign nation in order to bring him freedom is morally abhorrent. To be sure, such calculations usually occur in a context where soldiers’ lives are at stake, but if America is to be true to its stated goals of bringing security and stability to the Iraqi people, it is necessary that forces err on the side of civilian safety. At the very least, America must demonstrate a stronger public commitment in this area. In the run-up to these operations, American commanders complained that Falluja General Hospital, an early target of the operation, disseminated false statistics on civilian casualties. But such complaints fall on deaf ears in light of the fact that U.S. forces do not bother providing an alternate count of civilian fatalities. In fact, the U.S. silence on this issue—arguably to the extent of willful denial—implies a callous determination that non-American casualties are somehow unworthy of attention. If America cannot protect the lives of those it intends to liberate, it should at least honor and respect their sacrifices.

Prime Minister Allawi’s recent declaration of a state of emergency—and martial law—adds further doubt to the state of the occupation. Iraq is in shambles; unless security is restored soon—and we hope it is—the nation may cease to exist as a modern state. No doubt many of the measures in Allawi’s declaration were needed to ensure the short-term safety of Iraqi civilians, but we wonder what this forebodes for a democracy that as yet exists only in the minds of American geopolitical strategists. No truly free society will develop under martial law.

We firmly support the coalition troops in Iraq. We hope they are successful in liberating Falluja from the grip of insurgents; a clear and lasting victory will bring Iraq one step closer to democratic liberty. To that end, U.S. military actions must reflect the promise of America’s honorable aims—both for the sake of maintaining the moral high ground and for the practical strategic reason that America must not alienate the people it has undertaken to free. After such hellish times, the people of Iraq, the citizens of the United States and the world as a whole deserve at least that much.