INTRODUCTION
The first and second battles of Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004, offer important insights into the complexities of urban warfare and the importance of strategic patience, planning, and adaptability. The First Battle of Fallujah, also known as Operation Vigilant Resolve, was a U.S. military operation prompted by the brutal murder of four American contractors. The assault, which began on April 4, 2004, faced intense resistance from insurgents entrenched within the city. Under the command of Major General James Mattis, the Marines encountered severe urban combat and significant media scrutiny, which influenced public perception and political decisions. Despite initial advances, the operation was halted due to mounting political pressure and negative media coverage, leading to a negotiated settlement and the withdrawal of U.S. forces. This premature end to the battle underscored the need for a comprehensive, well-prepared operational approach and highlighted the critical role of media and public opinion in modern warfare.[1]
The aftermath of the first battle and the establishment of the ineffective Fallujah Brigade allowed insurgents to strengthen their hold on the city, necessitating a renewed military effort. The Second Battle of Fallujah, from November 7 to December 23, 2004, demonstrated the successful application of lessons learned from the initial conflict. This operation, known as Operation Phantom Fury or Operation al-Fajr, involved extensive intelligence preparation, careful planning, and a coordinated assault by a significantly larger and better-supported coalition force. The coalition employed thorough shaping and deception operations to mislead the insurgents and evacuated civilians to minimize casualties. The integrated information campaign successfully countered insurgent propaganda and garnered international support. These operational and tactical adjustments enabled coalition forces to secure the city more effectively, resulting in a decisive strategic victory.[2]
The experiences in Fallujah illustrate the importance of strategic patience, comprehensive intelligence gathering, and the integration of political and military planning. They also highlight the necessity of robust information operations and protecting and winning over civilian populations in urban conflict zones. These lessons are vital for understanding past engagements and provide crucial guidance for current and future military operations in similar environments.
THE FIRST BATTLE
Lieutenant General Conway and the 1st Marine Division’s commander, Major General James Mattis, recognized the event as a ploy by insurgent forces to provoke an aggressive coalition retaliation and that a large-scale operation would send the wrong message, unnecessarily endanger civilians, and ultimately fail to achieve the primary objective of locating the individuals responsible for the murders. Instead of an immediate massive response, Mattis wanted to allow time for a methodical intelligence preparation of the battlefield, followed by a deliberate plan to take the city. However, senior political leaders in Washington, including the president and US media organizations, had an immediate, public, and heavy response.
Lieutenant General Conway and Major General Mattis objected strenuously as they believed that any operational counterattack seemingly based on revenge would play directly into the insurgency’s strategic goals. Moreover, there had been little time for the Marines to do the methodical intelligence preparation of the city or to conduct other steps of the military planning process. These arguments were overridden, and the Marines were directed to execute the mission within seventy-two hours. On April 2, checkpoints were emplaced around the city to ensure no military-age males could not leave the city, with only those escorting families allowed out. On April 3, the 1st Marine Division was directed to conduct an offensive operation against Fallujah. A frustrated Major General Mattis requested but was denied US Army units from the theater reserve, an additional Marine regiment, and a tank unit, forcing him later to strip forces from other areas of al-Anbar province to conduct the operation. In retrospect, the denial of these additional forces was more than likely because the Americans as a whole had to contain the counterinsurgency due to fighting that appeared to be spinning out of control and spreading to nearby Ramadi, as well as Mosul, Baghdad, and Najaf in early April.
Before the First Battle of Fallujah in April 2004, the American presence in the city had been sporadic, with various US Army units, including the 82nd Airborne Division, rotating through since the 2003 invasion. These units attempted a "carrot and stick" approach, offering reconstruction contracts and civic actions while conducting aggressive raids against insurgents. Despite these efforts, the lack of sufficient American forces and the unwillingness of local Iraqi police to engage with insurgents led to increasing violence and insurgent control over Fallujah.
On March 24, 2004, the 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, handed over responsibility for Fallujah to the 1st Marine Division. Lieutenant General James Conway and Major General James Mattis sought a more nuanced approach, hoping to win over the civilian population and discreetly eliminate insurgent leaders. However, the situation deteriorated rapidly. Within weeks, insurgent attacks escalated, culminating in the brutal killing and public display of four American contractors on March 31, which provoked outrage and calls for immediate retaliation.
Despite Conway and Mattis advocating for a measured response, higher authorities demanded a swift, forceful reaction. On April 3, the Marines launched Operation Vigilant Resolve with the objectives of capturing the insurgents responsible for the contractors' deaths, clearing out foreign fighters, seizing heavy weapons, and reopening Highway 10. The Marines faced fierce resistance as they moved into the city, encountering well-coordinated insurgent attacks and heavy urban combat.
The insurgents effectively used the media to portray the Americans as indiscriminately destructive, significantly affecting public perception. As a result, political pressure mounted, leading to a suspension of offensive operations on April 9. Although Marines were briefly ordered to resume attacks on April 11, they were soon halted again. During a tense two-week ceasefire, negotiations led to the creation of a "Fallujah Brigade" composed of former Iraqi military personnel tasked with securing the city.
On May 1, the Marines withdrew, ending the First Battle of Fallujah. The battle resulted in 39 American and approximately 200 insurgent deaths, with civilian casualties estimated between 220 and 600. Despite the Marines' efforts, the battle highlighted the complexities of urban warfare and the challenges of balancing military objectives with political and public pressures.
The First Battle of Fallujah taught the Marine Corps several critical lessons that shaped their approach in the subsequent Second Battle of Fallujah. Initially, the rushed and haphazard plan of the first battle, driven by political pressures, led to high civilian casualties and a premature withdrawal, demonstrating the necessity of integrating senior political and military leaders into the planning process. This integration ensured a comprehensive understanding of the time and resources needed for effective urban warfare. The battle highlighted the importance of thorough intelligence preparation of the environment, as the lack of sufficient intelligence in the first battle resulted in numerous operational challenges.
Additionally, the Marines learned that urban operations require effective isolation of the battlefield to prevent insurgent reinforcements and resupply, which was inadequately addressed in the first engagement. The need for a robust sustainment and logistics plan became evident, as urban combat demands significantly more resources than other environments. The importance of combined arms maneuver and interoperability among units was also underscored, as the fragmented approach in the first battle hindered operational effectiveness. These lessons collectively informed the more deliberate, well-prepared, and coordinated strategy that led to the successful execution of the Second Battle of Fallujah.[3]
THE SECOND BATTLE
The Second Battle of Fallujah occurred from November 7 to December 23, 2004, during Operation Iraqi Freedom. After the premature end of the First Battle of Fallujah in May 2004, the city fell under the control of the Fallujah Brigade, a newly formed Iraqi security unit. The brigade's lack of motivation to confront the insurgency led to the city spiraling out of control. The insurgency grew stronger, with some personnel deserting or joining the insurgents. The city became a safe haven for insurgents, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was believed to have established his headquarters in Fallujah.
Realizing that Fallujah could not remain a terrorist safe haven, the Iraqi Interim Government and the coalition decided to take action, especially with the upcoming national election in 2005 in mind. Despite debates about the merits of an attack and concerns about collateral damage, the coalition committed to providing humanitarian relief and reconstruction support to address these concerns. The First Battle of Fallujah taught the importance of shaping the political environment to sustain operations.
Once Iraqi and coalition leaders had established the political objectives and the parameters, American forces were finally allowed to begin planning. This second assault was initially named Operation Phantom Fury. Still, it was renamed Operation al-Fajr (“Dawn,” in Arabic) by the Iraqi prime minister before the attack to show that it was an Iraqi-approved operation. The primary objectives of Operation al-Fajr were similar to April’s First Battle of Fallujah: to defeat all opposition forces and occupy the entire city, clear out insurgent caches and the resources that were sustaining them, and eliminate the threat posed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
By November, insurgent fighters in the city had grown to about three thousand. While coalition forces planned their attack, insurgents fortified their defenses, planting hundreds of IEDs made from propane bottles, gasoline drums, and ordnance. They created mouseholes in walls, barricaded doors, and rooftops. They dug trenches and tunnels for escape and maneuvering between caches of weapons, body armor, and ammunition hidden in schools and mosques. Expecting the coalition attack from the south or southeast, they concentrated their defenses on the city's southern and eastern edges.
Coalition forces, learning from the First Battle of Fallujah, waited until November to attack, ensuring time for intelligence gathering, planning, and preparation. Operation al-Fajr involved thorough intelligence preparation, extensive training, a shaping and deception campaign, a logistics buildup, and a careful fire support plan. Over several months, coalition forces identified insurgent positions, disseminated intelligence, and trained together to integrate their procedures. Shaping operations aimed to evacuate civilians and deceive insurgents about the attack direction. Deception tactics included leaflets, a fake military base, and probing attacks.
The coalition worked to maintain information dominance, embedding journalists and running a media campaign to expose insurgent violence and encourage civilian evacuation. This campaign reduced civilian casualties and minimized political pressure to end the battle prematurely. A fifteen-day supply of rations, water, fuel, ammunition, and other materials was staged at the city's edge for quick resupply and evacuation. Maintenance points were established nearby to keep vehicles battle-ready.
On the evening of November 7, the Marines began their assault. Task Force Wolfpack, consisting of units from the Marines, Army, and Iraqi forces, swiftly entered Fallujah from the west, securing the hospital and two bridges to disrupt insurgent command and control. On November 8, coalition forces conducted a twelve-hour air bombardment on the city's south and southeast to mislead insurgents about the attack's direction. Learning from past mistakes, coalition forces isolated the city with extensive coverage, preventing insurgents from entering or exiting.
Attacking from the north, coalition forces avoided the strongest insurgent defenses. They cut the city's power and breached the northern railroad berm, though some units faced delays. Task Force 2-7 and Task Force 2-2 used combined arms techniques to break through insurgent positions. Differences in unit capabilities, such as access to armor, created challenges and gaps in the advance. Despite these issues, by November 9, some units had reached Highway 10, halfway through the city.
Between November 10 and 14, American and Iraqi battalions continued to advance deliberately. There was varying resistance, with some areas being heavily contested. The Americans employed airstrikes, artillery, and combined arms teams to clear buildings. Insurgents typically fought from inside buildings, using small arms, RPGs, and IEDs. The fighting was intense and close-quarters, and American forces used overwhelming firepower to dislodge defenders. Urban operations consumed significantly more ammunition due to the defensive advantages of the terrain. Constant face-to-face coordination was necessary to adjust boundaries, adapt tactics, and conduct forward passages in the challenging urban terrain. Units shared resources, such as armored vehicles or weapons systems, as needed. Bing West noted that American Marines and soldiers systematically cleared thirty thousand buildings, engaging in hundreds of room-to-room firefights.
By November 15, officials announced most of the city was captured, with fighting limited to isolated pockets in the south. American and Iraqi units then methodically cleared IEDs and remained resistant until December 23. The 4th Civil Affairs Group supported reconstruction and humanitarian efforts, and civilians returned through security checkpoints.
The battle cost 38 American, 4 British, and 8 Iraqi military lives, with hundreds wounded. About 1,000 to 1,500 insurgents were killed, 1,500 captured, and 800 civilians killed. Over 60 percent of buildings were damaged, 20 percent destroyed, and many mosques heavily damaged. The battle caused unrest among Iraq’s Sunni population, but elections were held in January 2005. The Second Battle of Fallujah was the heaviest urban combat for the U.S. since the Battle of Hue in 1968.[4]
TACTICAL AND OPERATIONAL LESSONS LEARNED
The First Battle of Fallujah provided important lessons for the American-led coalition, which they documented, analyzed, and used to plan the Second Battle of Fallujah, leading to its success. Key lessons learned include:
Tactical & Operational Lessons:
1. Integrated Planning: Senior political and military leaders must be fully integrated into planning and clearly understand the time and resources needed. Rushing the first battle led to poor outcomes, whereas careful planning for the second battle allowed for domination in nearly every aspect, achieving significant control in just nine days.
2. Information Operations: Effective information operations are vital, especially in urban environments. The coalition’s well-integrated media campaign exposed insurgent violence, leading to international and local support, and encouraged civilians to evacuate, minimizing casualties and political pressure.
3. Thorough Intelligence Preparation: Time is essential for gathering and analyzing intelligence in complex urban environments. From May to November, extensive intelligence efforts allowed coalition forces to understand and overcome Fallujah’s challenges.
4. Isolation of the City: Isolating the city to prevent enemy reinforcements is crucial. The coalition's sufficient forces and checkpoints in the second battle ensured no undetected movement, depleting insurgent resources and shortening the battle.
5. Logistics and Sustainment: Urban operations are resource-intensive. A well-planned logistics strategy, including stockpiling supplies and protecting logistics personnel, allowed continuous offensive operations without resupply pauses.
6. Combined Arms Maneuver: Effective urban operations require fully interoperable combined arms units. The integration and teamwork between Marines and Army units, along with shared resources, led to the successful securing of Fallujah in a relatively short time.
By addressing these operational and tactical lessons the coalition forces achieved a swift and decisive victory in the Second Battle of Fallujah. Given the historical difficulty in this type of operation, the result was impressive.[5]
THE STRATEGIC LESSON
The first and second battles of Fallujah provide clear lessons on the link between tactical victories and strategic outcomes. The First Battle of Fallujah in April 2004 ended in an embarrassing withdrawal for the Marines due to high civilian casualties and international pressure. This failure forced an operational re-evaluation pivotal to the outcome of subsequent Second Battle of Fallujah in November 2004. The Marines adopted a more effective counterinsurgency approach that emphasized separating civilians from insurgents through extensive evacuation efforts and providing humanitarian aid. This change in operational approach transformed a tactical victory into a more sustainable strategic success. This victory did not change the final outcome of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, but it did prove that the counterinsurgency approach could be highly successful if done right.
Fallujah's primary strategic lesson is the civilian population's critical importance in modern warfare. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin noted that the civilian population is often the center of gravity in such conflicts.[6] If military operations drive civilians into the arms of the enemy, any tactical victory can quickly become a strategic defeat. In Fallujah, the U.S. Marines recognized that to defeat the insurgents, they needed to win over the civilian population by minimizing civilian casualties and demonstrating a commitment to their safety and well-being. This involved not only military might but also psychological operations, humanitarian aid, and efforts to gain the local population’s trust.
The lessons from Fallujah are particularly relevant for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). In the context of the ongoing conflict with Hamas in Gaza, the IDF's strategy of heavy bombardment in densely populated areas can result in high civilian casualties, potentially driving more Palestinians to support Hamas. Israel can learn from the U.S. experience in Fallujah by adopting a strategy that prioritizes the protection of civilians as a core objective. This includes providing safe evacuation routes, minimizing the use of indiscriminate airpower, and ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches those displaced by the conflict.
A tactical victory in military terms, such as eliminating insurgents or capturing territory, can be undermined if it leads to greater support for the enemy among the civilian population. This was evident in Fallujah, where the initial heavy-handed approach led to greater resistance and international condemnation. In contrast, the revised strategy that focused on minimizing civilian harm and winning hearts and minds helped to isolate the insurgents and achieve a more durable victory.
The implications for the IDF are clear: to avoid turning tactical successes into strategic defeats, they must implement measures to protect civilians and win their support. This involves military tactics and a broader strategic vision that includes political and humanitarian dimensions. A strategy informed by a counterinsurgency when attempting to seize a city is a moral and strategic necessity. If done well, it can ensure long-term peace and stability.
We can conclude that both battles of Fallujah teach that in modern warfare, winning the peace is as important as winning the war. This is true for any government attempting to assert control over a large group of people in an urban environment. The current battle in Gaza is a great example of how the IDF would apply these lessons by adopting a strategy that protects civilians and builds trust, transforming tactical victories into sustainable strategic successes. The circumstances are different, and the follow-through would be critical in Gaza, but there is likely no other strategy to give peace a chance.
[1] Spencer, John, and Jayson Geroux. "Urban Warfare Case Study #6: First Battle of Fallujah." Modern War Institute, October 28, 2022. Accessed June 22, 2024. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-case-study-6-first-battle-of-fallujah/.
[2] Spencer, John, Jayson Geroux, and Liam Collins. "Urban Warfare Case Study #7: Second Battle of Fallujah." Modern War Institute, July 25, 2023. Accessed June 22, 2024. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-case-study-7-second-battle-of-fallujah/.
[3] Spencer, John, and Jayson Geroux. "Urban Warfare Case Study #6: First Battle of Fallujah." Modern War Institute, October 28, 2022. Accessed June 22, 2024. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-case-study-6-first-battle-of-fallujah/.
[4] Spencer, John, Jayson Geroux, and Liam Collins. "Urban Warfare Case Study #7: Second Battle of Fallujah." Modern War Institute, July 25, 2023. Accessed June 22, 2024. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-case-study-7-second-battle-of-fallujah/.
[5] Spencer, John, Jayson Geroux, and Liam Collins. "Urban Warfare Case Study #7: Second Battle of Fallujah." Modern War Institute, July 25, 2023. Accessed June 22, 2024.
[6] Moulton, Seth. "The Lesson Israel Must Learn From America’s Fight in Fallujah." TIME, December 4, 2023. Accessed June 22, 2024.
