Battle of NAJAF - almost 1,000 enemy killed, captured or wounded.

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Battle of NAJAF - almost 1,000 enemy killed, captured or wounded.
HYPOCENTER 1/31/2007 4:45:39 AM

Najaf engagement details: -The official counts from Sunday’s extraordinary fighting near Najaf stands at 263 alleged Soldiers of Heaven fighers killed, 210 wounded and 502 arrested. A video released by the government shows prisoners being taken away in blindfolds, and another video shows stacks of bodies of militia fighters allegedly killed in the battle. -They report that Iraqi officials are still piecing together details of the Soldiers of Heaven movement, including its beliefs, motivations, financing and leadership. One Iraqi official claimed that al-Qaeda in Iraq had provided funding. Others said that the group had planned to travel under cover of the `Ashura pilgrimages to Najaf to mount an attack on Tuesday on the Shi`i religious hierarchy there. Apparently, from what I can piece together : The ING (Iraqi National Guard) and Iraqi police were passing through an area minding their own business (just after dark)... when they are suddenly engaged by a terrorist force of unknown strength. A fierce and intense 12-hour battle then ensues against an apparent well-equipped enemy. The IGN and police determine they're in over their heads and US support is called in. When it was all said and done we'd lose one helicopter with its 2 crew with the IGN and police taking a number of casualties. I am both dumbfounded and amazed at what took place here. Firstly, there is the sheer dumb luck of this engagement. On a total lark, almost by random chance, by a quirk of fate -- the ING ran into this large enemy force and by doing so they unwittingly de-railed a serious plot which was to take place THE VERY NEXT DAY! Does anyone else realize the significance of this event?!? The plot, which if it had succeeded, would have assassinated the entire religious hierarchy of the Shia--the consequences would have been extreme on every imaginable level. Aside from that, also significant about this event is that almost 1,000 terrorists all gathered into one place (an extremely rare event in itself). As far as I am aware, this is the largest engagement since the battle of Falluja. The field where this battle took place was apparently more than just a staging area, it was also a base. A whole network of tunnels and trenches was built in. Further adding to the defensive capability was how shockingly well-equipped this group was. They had all kinds of toys, from small arms to heavy weapons-- you name it and they had it (in spades). Whatever their motivation may have been -- whether they were just a cult acting wholly on their own, or were Al Queda, or were part of an organized Iranian plot (or any combination of the three)-- one thing remains true: they were very well equipped and ready for serious business. No matter how you cut it, a suspiciously well organized plot with far reaching consequences was almost carried out. We got lucky here, REALLY lucky.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

reefdiver 2/1/2007 1:12:20 AM

The following e-mail to home was written on Jan 11th by a US soldier from the 2/5 Cav, 1st CBIraq. The e-mail has undoubtly gone viral so I've removed his name. The e-mail gives a clear view from the ground of those causing the problems and how the Iraqi's - both Sunni and Shia feel about it. We've heard most of this before but its always nice to hear guys in Iraq telling it. (Note that I added the boldface emphasis):

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:17:06 -0800 (PST)
From: (name and e-mail address removed)
Subject: My view of Iraq

Following the article I sent about Bush's national address and troop increase, I thought it was a good idea to let you all know what the perspective is over here. I'm tired of hearing the media's skewed version, the politicians squabbling over what they read in a report, and the average ill-informed American ranting about things he knows NOTHING about.

I've been over here a couple of months now, and I've learned more about this country than a year's worth of watching CNN. I've sat in mission briefs with Colonels, talked with village e lders, had tea with Shieks, played with the kids. And I agree with the President. We need more troops and we need to take greater action.

There are 3 major factions here. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The Shiites are in the majority, but Saddam was a Sunni, so he kept the Shiites in check. Everyone hates the Kurds, who are Christian and in the vast minority. The Kurds received the brunt of Saddam's murderous tyranny. Now that Saddam is gone, the Shiites have taken control of Baghdad. The largely peaceful Sunnis are now the victims of radical Shiite terrorism. So the young Sunni men, who can no longer go to work and support their families, do what all young men would do. They join the Sunni militia and battle the Shiites. And thus the country sits on the brink of civil war.

But this war is between them. They largely do not concern themselves with the U.S. troops. The insurgents who battle the Coalition Forces are from outside the country. And the biggest problem down here isn't the insurgents. Its! the pol iticians. The local politicians. Even though the country is controlled by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, downtown Baghdad is controlled by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The Shiites follow al-Sadr and thus the Prime Minister does what al-Sadr says. Think of it as if a warlord controlled New York and blackmailed the President into diplomatic immunity.

When 1st Cav (mainly 2/5 Cav) came here in 2004, they took downtown Baghdad (known as Sadr City) by force. It cost many lives, but after a year, we held an iron grip on the largest insurgent breeding ground in Iraq. The insurgents were afraid of the Horse People, and rightfully so. But when 1st Cav left, al-Sadr influenced the Prime Minister to kick out the Coalition forces from that area of Baghdad. He said the Iraqi military forces could hold the city. But all that happened was al-Sadr regained control of his cty, and it is now a heavily guarded fortr ess. A place where insurgents and terrorists can train and stockpile arms. And we cannot go back in becuase the Prime Minister won't let us. Our hands are tied.

So where does al-Sadr get his backing? From Iran and Syria. Iran supplies him with money and Syria supplies the terrorists. The insurgents that battle the Coalition Forces are from Syria, Somalia and dozens of other places outside of Iraq! . Iraq is literally a terrorist breeding ground. They have terrorist and sniper schools here. Why not? They train by teaching them to attack the military forces here. And they have an endless supply of these training tools. They have factories in Sadr City to build bombs. Both Iran and Syria have openly proclaimed their number one goal in life is to destroy the great Western Devil and the little Western Devil (America and Britain). ! Iran wants to control Iraq to further this purpose. Al-Sadr will get to "run" the country and live like a king, but in reality Iran wil l pull the puppet strings. Iran will have access to thousands of radical Shiites who will do whate! ver al-S adr tells them to. And Iraq will be used as a breeding ground for terrorism. Terrorism that will be targeted directly at America and Britain. The Iraq Study Group advised we should let Iran and Syria help with rebuilding? Bravo to President Bush for striking that idea down and vowing to keep those two countries out of Iraq.

So how do the Iraqi people feel about everything? Of course they don't want the Americans here. But they would far rather have us here than the Iranians. My platoon visited an average Sunni village on a patrol a fe

Quote Reply

S-2 Reefdiver Reply 2/1/2007 2:24:27 AM

Real good to hear from the troops, but this guy sorta lost me right away when he called the Kurds "christian". Really? ALL of them? Next, the notion that shiite Sadr gets money from Iran but people/recruits from Syria is damn near laughable. He's a slum full of personnel at his fingertip but he counts upon the Alawite Assyrians to man Sadr's forces. Not ferkin' likely.

Quote Reply

jbapk 2/1/2007 12:54:40 PM

I would bet money that email is either modfied from the original or a fake.

Quote Reply

shek 2/1/2007 1:29:03 PM

Re: Reefdiver letter

1. The Kurds in a particular localized area may be predominantly Christian, but across Iraq as a whole are nearly all Sunni Muslims.

2. The vast majority of insurgents are Iraqi and not foreign fighters

I haven't read through it all, but it's potentially a fake, and it definitely is wrong on the facts in some areas.

Quote Reply

HYPOCENTER Back to topic 2/1/2007 3:05:07 PM

Lets keep this discussion to the topic at hand, the battle of NAJAF. Of what strategic/tactical significance is this battle? If this plot would have succeeded, how would it have changed things?

With 1,000 terrorists cocked, locked and ready to rock if they succeeded in their plot... Najaf very well could have become the next Falluja (at the worst time militarily & politically for us). We would have had to clear that city out just like we did Falluja. No question about it. We almost saw a mini "Tet Offensive". 1,000 terrorists massed in a city for a specific strategic goal, essentially murdering the religious hierarchy of the 'other side' and then occupying that city. I also need not mention the political consequences.

Instead, the Iraqi forces ran into them and confronted them (successfully -- with UK and US help). I'm telling you guys, we dodged a bullet here, this would have been a disaster for us... but as fate would have it, the reality is it couldn't have come out better for us: The Iraqi forces now have cut their teeth and are clearly gaining more confidence. 1,000 terrorists are either killed or captured... either way they're off the streets (and so are their weapons).

Quote Reply

sofa 2/1/2007 9:40:19 PM

Hurray for our side.

What can we do to get more of them to bunch up again?

Quote Reply

shek 2/1/2007 10:26:12 PM

It would never be a Fallujah. The cult could have stirred things up into an uncontrollable frenzy by knocking off al Sistani, but it would have never taken a single US soldier to have eliminated every single member of the cult. The Shia militas would have completed the job within 48-72 hours, if not sooner.

Quote Reply

HYPOCENTER 2/2/2007 12:32:54 AM

No way, the US would HAVE to respond to an event as significant as this. Think about it. With a determined 1,000 man force as well equipped as they were (armed to the teeth), and the amount of planning that they put into this operation (with this many people involved the plan was still kept secret, no small feat, plus they had a huge 'secret' base!). No one knew this was coming, the Shia wasn't preparing for a fight because they had no clue... They would have been steamrolled and left scratching their heads after it was all over, trying to figure out what just happened to them (as would the rest of the world). The terrorists plan wasn't to simply slaughter al Sistani, it was to eradicate the entire religious hierarchy of the Shia. It would be as if someone didn't just assassinate the Pope, but every one of the bishops and clergy as well.

You're right they would have caused an uncontrollable frenzy, but US troops would have to be the ones to eventually go in to clear the place out.... just like we did in Falluja. This would be seen by everyone as "our problem". Plus, if we just leave it, it becomes a sanctuary city.

The attack on the Shia would have happened so fast and unexpectedly that they wouldn't have time to recover. It would take them weeks just to figure out what happened and how -- and even longer to organize operations against them. By that time I'm sure these terrorists would have gained more support from the major coo they managed to pull off .. resulting in large numbers of fighters coming in from all over to support and reinforce them.

Updated body count from a news report: 300 terrorists killed, 650 detained and 121 wounded, while 11 Iraqi soldiers were killed and 27 wounded. Also, the plot thickens: "Regarding documents discovered at the camp, Abu Gilel said that they found British and Arab passports and documents, proving the involvement of “a certain neighboring Arab country.”"

Quote Reply

Plutarch 2/2/2007 8:51:32 AM

I don’t think that a mere 1000 terrorists could get even close to Sistani or the entire Shiite clergy. The Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades both have fighters stationed in Najaf, and Sistani is well protected. If one of the main clergy had been assassinated there would have been a lock-down of Najaf and anyone not believed to be a Shiite would have been rounded up quickly.

The attack on the Shia would have happened so fast and unexpectedly that they wouldn't have time to recover. It would take them weeks just to figure out what happened and how -- and even longer to organize operations against them. By that time I'm sure these terrorists would have gained more support from the major coo they managed to pull off .. resulting in large numbers of fighters coming in from all over to support and reinforce them.

The Shiites have proved to be pretty quick in responding to Sunni violence and aggression; Baquba, Sadr City explosions, etc. If Sistani were at some point to ever be assassinated it would touch off a huge conflagration and the Sunnis, any Sunnis, would be blamed as the clergy in Shia Islam are highly revered, and Maliki’s government would probably sanction the militias to go after the Sunnis.

Updated body count from a news report: 300 terrorists killed, 650 detained and 121 wounded, while 11 Iraqi soldiers were killed and 27 wounded. Also, the plot thickens: "Regarding documents discovered at the camp, Abu Gilel said that they found British and Arab passports and documents, proving the involvement of “a certain neighboring Arab country.”"

I’m assuming you are referring to either Syria or Saudi Arabia, but finding documents does not “prove” complicity in the attack, unless you are also prepared to state that the British were behind the purported attack. Abu Gilel or whomever is jumping to conclusions without vetting the evidence.

Quote Reply

shek 2/2/2007 9:05:03 AM

Hypocenter,

Every single Iraqi household has an AK-47 with at least one magazine. Najaf has nearly 600K people living there, with 1000K living in the governate. It would be a death match between 1000K and 1K within 12 hours (meaning that you'd have nearly every male in the fight on the way within those 12 hours), with plenty of legal weaponry to easily take care of 1000 cult members. I'm going with the side with 1000K.

Also, the ability of the cult to get all of their heavy weapons into Najaf undetected, undestroyed, and into a defensible position is pretty much zero. They may have beefed up their base camp defense, but you are dreaming if you think they could have moved it all into position inside Najaf.

Quote Reply

1 2