December 9, 2003	Tuesday	Shawwal 14, 1424

WASHINGTON: On one point, all sources appear to agree: what

happened in Samarra last Sunday could tell us a great deal about whether US forces are likely to succeed or fail in pacifying and stabilizing Iraq.

The problem is there is an almost total lack of agreement about what happened that Sunday in Samarra, where US soldiers insist they battled dozens of Iraqi guerrillas for some three hours.

Sensing the importance of the ‘Battle of Samarra’, what actually happened has quickly become the source of considerable controversy and a growing mountain of analysis both in the mainstream media and on Internet websites.

The military at first claimed US forces had killed no less than 46 of the paramilitary ‘fedayeen’ whom they could identify from their black uniforms and checkered ‘khafiyas’ or head scarves. That toll rose to 54 within hours on the basis of debriefings of each unit.

Briefing officers said the battle began when two convoys entering the city from opposite sides were ambushed by more than 60 ‘fedayeen’ who lay in wait for them at either end of the city. The convoys, which included Bradley fighting vehicles and Abrams tanks, were on the way to deposit new dinars in a bank located in the centre of town, and the fighting raged through the streets alleys of the city all the way in and all the way out.

Eleven prisoners were taken, they insisted.

And, despite the high ‘fedayeen’ death toll, only five of the 100 US soldiers involved in the battle were wounded, leaving top officers to claim a “significant victory”, indeed, in terms of body counts, probably the most significant since President George Bush announced an end to major hostilities in Iraq May 1.

War enthusiasts, meanwhile, told reporters that the fact that so many guerrillas were involved and that they were obviously intending to ambush the convoys in order to get the bank money was a sure sign of their “desperation”; indeed, that the resistance was growing short of men and cash.

Other analysts who accepted the basic outlines of the military’s version of events came to a somewhat more worrisome set of conclusions: that the number of guerrillas showed a new stage in their organization, sophistication, and recruitment; that their uniforms bespoke a growing confidence; and their apparent knowledge of when and how the money was to be delivered meant that their intelligence remains light years ahead of the occupation.

But when reporters began swarming to Samarra, the scene was not as they had expected. Nor were the accounts of the townspeople, and, after a day of interviews, an entirely different picture of the Sunday battle emerged.

Doctors and hospital personnel reported only eight Iraqi dead, including one or two elderly religious pilgrims from Iran, a child, a mentally disabled man who was sitting in a taxi, and a woman leaving the drug factory where she worked. The hospital staff said it had treated a total of 54 people for wounds.

“Luckily we evacuated the kindergarten five minutes before we came under attack,” said Ibrahim Jassim, a guard interviewed by the London-based Guardian. “Why did they attack randomly? Why did they shoot a kindergarten with shells?”

Indeed, townspeople interviewed by name described the “battle” more as indiscriminate firing from the tanks, other armoured vehicles and random shooting by US soldiers.—Dawn/The InterPress News Service.