I've seen the suggestion a few times that Iraqi civilians living in Fallujah who didn't evacuate deserved whatever they got. " They were warned, " goes the refrain. " They could have left. " And of course there were many protestations that all or "most" civilians had left Fallujah anyway.
Now we have reports that men between the ages of fifteen and fifty-five were turned back as they tried to leave, turned back into Fallujah. Do they deserve what happened to them, those who tried to leave but were prevented? Do their families, who chose to stay with their husbands, sons, fathers deserve what happened to them? Or should the women and children, the aged and infirm have tried to make their own difficult way across Iraq anyway, on foot, without a man to drive, without a man to converse with strangers, without protection.
Some did, of course. But not all, not by any means. No one wants to be bombed. No one stays at home to die if they have a choice - or think they have a choice. For many, there was no choice.
And just where were they supposed to go in any case? To the refugee camps which were too small for the number fleeing, which were already overburdened, where the possibility of decent shelter and clean water was less than staying at home? To visit relatives elsewhere in Iraq, travelling along roads that are mined, that are crawling with bandits and suspicious, lethally violent Americans? Should they have gone toward Baghdad, toward the Americans, toward the center of the government bent on destroying their town? Or should they have headed toward Ramadi, to another town infested with the armed groups who continue to bring their own brand of misery to the people - and whose presence brought the smartbombs and Marines down on Fallujah? Would they have been safe there?
Where were they supposed to go to find safety and security in a country which is now defined by their absence?
Posted by Martial