I have been reading a book by the Australian Major General Jim Molan called ‘Running the War in Iraq’.

As Chief of Operations through 2004 he oversaw a force of 300,000 troops including 155,000 Americans.

It is naturally a soldier’s perspective and, it must be said, a reasonable read. However there were some passages that have pulled me up rather abruptly.

One describes the battle in Fallujah two weeks after the attacks began;

“We had killed 2175 and wounded an unknown number. The total number we killed would rise past 3000 (that was the number of bodies recovered). In the first two weeks of fighting, we had detained 1801 insurgents, so not every member of our opposition was a martyr. Of those we had detained, about half were released for various reasons; we had 974 on hand by 23 November.”

By December 10 “The price we had paid in lives so far was now 72 dead and 648 wounded, of whom 293 were lightly wounded and would return to duty. I noted that we found the body of one person identified as a ‘civilian’ and 66 ‘civilians’ who had been wounded. The exact status of these civilians was always difficult to determine. If they were not armed they were considered ‘civilians’. Wounded or displaced civilians were detained for some time and questioned, and if no case could be made against them they were released.”

So of the 3000 dead only one could be identified as a ‘civilian’? Even though Molan describes dropping 500lb bombs on houses? There seems to be little doubt in his mind that 2999 were insurgents, but the implication of the ‘’ marks around the word civilian shows he is skeptical about assigning that status to even one of them. Remember this was fought in a town.

Yet before the battle had concluded they released about half of those detained, even though by Molan’s definition they must have been caught with weapons.

Perhaps I am missing something vital but I have found it hard to reconcile some of the figures.

I am open to an explanation.

Just bought the same book myself yesterday.

You'd probably need ask him yourself, which is usually more than doable seeing as I've approached various authors in the past. They usually like some sort of feedback. As long as it's constructive.

IF you want a companion book get "House to House", by David Bellavia. HIGHLY recommend it. He was in the US Army in the Battle for Fallujah, as a grunt.

Looking at the battle from that POV I'd be willing to suggest that houses weren't just randomly bombed as you insinuated with, "Even though Molan describes dropping 500lb bombs on houses?".

Fallujah was HIGHLY fortified and it is possibly a worthwhile suggestion that if they weren't fighting, they were complicit in some way. Maybe they counted weapons against dead. But I know for a fact that if my town was being fortified and whole buildings were turned into IED's with aircraft fuel tanks it would be a fair assumption that if you were looking for me, I wouldn't be here.

I'm looking forward to the book though. Now, I'vejust got to find the time.

Dear StG,

I'm not wanting to give the impression that there was random bombing of houses and Molan is very careful with his wording using either 'building' or 'structures', hardly ever the word houses, eg "we hit two targets from the air with four 500lb bombs; they were buildings occupied by insurgents."

My problem is I want to accept the veracity of his writing, knowing I will have to filter some of the military 'speak', but to expect us to believe that only one 'civilian' perished is a big ask.

This is important because as a people with some sway (albiet very small) over our government's actions overseas we need to be informed truthfully about such things. It is topical at the moment because of the high civilian death rates in Afghanistan.

From Wikipedia "The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that 2,118 civilians were killed as a result of armed conflict in Afghanistan in 2008, the highest civilian death toll since the end of the initial 2001 invasion. This represents an increase of about 40 percent over UNAMA's figure of 1,523 civilians killed in 2007."

"On the other hand, according to NATO forces only about 1,000 civilians were killed during the whole year."

I note here that less than half the casualties were from pro-government actions but why the huge discrepency in figures? Whose numbers are the more accurate?

Obviously the definition of a civilian must be an issue as it was in Molan's book. Does the military consider everyone an insurgent unless proved otherwise?

Hope you enjoy the read. Would be interested in getting your impressions.

I guess it's near impossible to get accurate figures considering the type enemy. If it was a conflict involving an enemy with uniforms then it'll be easier.

As far as Molan's concerned, he'll only know what the blokes on the ground tell him, and I guarantee they won't be telling him about civilians dying because he's the one who has to answer to people like the President of the United States, if you get what I'm saying.

The US Marines were responsible for at least half the battle and they have a reputation of killing anything that moves, and if it isn't moving, they shoot it till it does. Kill it and blame someone else later if you've screwed up.

I don't know how anyone could come up with accurate figures until everyone is accounted for. Nearly impossible, I think.

Dear csteele,

For another perspective on Fallujah
simply google:

'John Pilger - Fallujah.'

You'll find quite a few interesting websites.

Dear Foxy,

The wide gaps between different accounts of the battle in Fallujah are quite revealing. The city was suppose to be occupied by over 1000 foreign troops but only 18 were captured. The civilians supposedly left in the city before the battle numbered anywhere from 1,000 to 90,000.

I was hoping for a more definative account from Jim Molan's book, possibly because he is an Australian. But I do not feel I have received it.

If our governments are deferring to the versions of civilian casualty numbers presented by the military then we have a real problem.

When the Americans say we have killed over 7,000 Taliban this year with under 500 civilian deaths then logic should prevail. It is not possible, nor are Jim Molan's figures, but we just seem to believe it all.

Why are they not taken to task over the manipulation of figures therefore public perception? Lazy journalism?

Dear Stg,

So whose figures are you more inclined to accept? UNAMA or NATO?

Well, neither. Just because someone has good intentions doesn't mean they are right. How's the UNAMI going to know how many civilians were killed in a battle like Fallujah?. The only chance they've got of having an idea is from intel from embedded journos, and those journos - I bet you anything you like - aren't going to have their heads high during a contact.

You just CAN'T a have figure like 2185 when there's just SO MANY variables in a battle. What's to say 'Abdul Dead Guy' on a push bike didn't have a hand grenade that was seconded by his mates after he blown apart?.

If someone came up with figures of 1000 +/- 200 (for example) dead civi's then I might start believing them.

Dear csteele,

People quote stats for a multitude of reasons.
Eventually as history has shown - the
truth does out. Though it often takes decades.

I haven't read the book you're quoting - but
now I'm tempted to, to see what it's
all about.

I'm reading "Mao's Last Dancer," at the moment -
(having just seen the film).

Dear StG,

Why is it that we don't question these UN based organisations when they report on tsunami or earth quake victim numbers. Often the counts are achieved through reports from families and neighbours when there is no body to be recovered, or attending morgues and hospitals etc when there is.

However when the military quotes a figure it is often given far more credence.

There was one news organisation in Fallujah at the time, Al Jazzera. They challenged the position of the US military that 95% of the casualties were military aged males. The editor-in-chief Achmed Al-Sheik was interview by CNN he was asked;

""Isn't the story, though, bigger than just the simple numbers, with all due respect to the Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives-- the story bigger than just the numbers of people who were killed or the fact that they might have been killed by the U.S. military, that the insurgents, the people trying to cause problems within Fallujah, are mixing in among the civilians, making it actually possibly that even more civilians would be killed, that the story is what the Iraqi insurgents are doing, in addition to what is the response from the U.S. military?"

Wow!

From Jim Molan's book:

"we were approached by the Middle East news network al Jazeera who told us through central command in Qatar that they had journalists with the insurgent forces and asked us to respect them"...."Rather optimistically, we suggested it would help us respect them if al Jazeera could just tell us where in Fallujah they were! It was a long shot and probably worth a go, but al Jazeera were obviously not stupid and we heard no more about it."

What do you think Jim Molan would have done with that information if it were given?

Dear Foxy,

Reading the book AFTER the movie, tut tut.

Jim Molan's book is worth a read but probably more for what it doesn't say. I found it very interesting.

I don't think the military figures are given more credence by anyone other than the patriotic voter.

Propaganda didn't start with the Nazi's, and it sure as hell didn't end there. We all know - or should know - how edgy the government is with the idea of body bags and body parts of their constituents on the 6pm news.

Do the government need Al Jazeera telling their preception of the truth?. Hell no.

War is ugly and sh*ty. There is nothing nice about it and there will ALWAYS be contention over the details.

Do civilians die in conflict?. Of course, they've been fodder since warfare began 10's of thousands of years ago. It's SO MUCH easier to forget what's it's all about when we're sitting on the other side of the world thinking Islam 'is responsible' for all that's evil. The soldiers doing the killing HAVE TO believe their enemy is somehow less than them for the purpose of making the slaughtering easier. A soldiers first job is to kill the enemy. Their second job is not to kill the population.

American soldiers, ESPECIALLY the Marines, are brainwashed into hating everything in the area they are going to do the killing. It's just their psyche and how they function.

Civilians just don't understand this concept, and never will. Fortunately our military encourages free thinking and compassion, moreso. They aren't perfect, that's for sure. The 1991 Gulf War was a classic exmaple when Au pilots refused some missions because the Yanks couldn't guarantee civilians weren't in the area of operation. An American pilot would NEVER do that.

I guess what my point is that the story is a miriad of truth and lies depending on who's telling the story. But one thing it isn't, is black and white.

Dear StG,

You said;

"The 1991 Gulf War was a classic example when Au pilots refused some missions because the Yanks couldn't guarantee civilians weren't in the area of operation."

Which was exactly the reason I was drawn to this book. I expected an 'Aussie' sensibility from a person operating at the highest levels in the conflict.

You might see it when you read the book but I didn't. Jim Molan could have just as easily been an American.

Some lines are quite telling; "To prepare for attacks from hostile media..." and "We decided that the outside broadcast truck, if that's what it was, was not part of any known media organisation, so we waited until it was unoccupied, then destroyed it with a missile." He seemed to me to be totally embedded.

Hell I might be reading this all wrong, and he does go into the measures taken to limit 'collateral damage', but my admittedly civilian sensibilities had me asking questions constantly through the book.

To give a case in point (sorry if I'm doing any spoiling), pre-assault (pg207) Molan talks about his hunting, through air strikes, Umar Hadid a suspected terrorist leader. "I made a sustained effort to kill him and launched several strikes as the taskforce delivered the intelligence".

Four times Molan ordered strikes on four different houses and three times Hadid walks clear of the rubble (the first one kills his brother). It was only on the last when Molan used several 'JDAMs" that he finally succeeded. My thoughts were for the others in the buildings including one would assume families. There is no mention of collateral damage.

My question would have been how many other deaths occurred and at what point do you stop? Ten, twenty more houses?