| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Ambushed U.S. Soldiers Kill Five Iraqis |
| 2003-07-15 |
| Tue July 15, 2003 08:30 AM ET HABBANIAH, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces killed five Iraqis and captured another Tuesday after they came under ambush while driving out of an ammunition depot west of Baghdad, the commander of the unit said. The clash, between the cities of Ramadi and Habbaniyah about 60 miles west of Baghdad, took place in particularly hostile territory for U.S. troops. The military has blamed a spate of attacks in the predominantly Sunni Muslim area on die- hard loyalists of ousted President Saddam Hussein. "Our unit was making its way out of the ammunitions dump when we were ambushed. Our Bradleys (fighting vehicles) fought back and we killed five attackers," Captain Mark Miller, the commander of the company involved, told Reuters. Sounds like they are missing a few more thugs - good riddance!! There were no U.S. casualties. Kinda of nice to have that armor and some big guns to cut up some "rebel" bastards! Miller said the ambushers had probably been expecting the soldiers to be in soft-skinned Humvee vehicles but instead they were in tank-like Bradleys, which overpowered the attackers. More than 100 Iraqis have been killed in fighting since major combat was declared over on May 1 but the U.S. military has not provided figures. A good start to calming things down - let some more hothead shoot at a tank and see what happens !! |
| Posted by:Fiddler |
| #11 Sounds like now would be a good time to field test the Striker,it is the military's newest armored vehicle.Same punch as the Bradley.It is lighter but the armor is almost as effective,it's also a wheeled vehicle. The army should also consider bringing back an upgraded version of the Sheridan.Sheridan was an air-dropable,wheel mounted,light armored vehicle.This bad-boy mounted a 120mm smooth bore gun. Should be able to research details on both at military.com. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-7-16 9:37:29 AM |
| #10 A point that was missed is that Iraq is being used as a jihadi roachmotel. "Jihadis check in but they don't check out." |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2003-7-15 3:58:40 PM |
| #9 Winning a "convoy war" is a multidimensional problem. Think Battle of the Atlantic. Some of the elements are Reconaissance: Use overflights if feasible. Recon the best routes (no multistory buildings, marshes, etc.) Recon multiple routes between each set of destinations. Security: Convoys should bristle with weapons. Maintain the proper spacing so that the whole convoy doesn't end up in the kill zone at once. Soldiers should keep situational awareness (i.e. know the warning signs). Intelligence: Infiltrate cells. Make friends among the locals. They'll almost always see the ambush prep and when the assault team moves into position. Give them cell phones if need be. Deception: Never keep a fixed schedule. Never take the same route twice (see Recon, above). Use baited attacks (Convoy starts out. Pulls into secure warehouse along the way. Armor/mech team resumes roadmarch on same convoy route. Lots of Jihadis go to paradise). Training: Your truck drivers aren't always your most motivated troops. Train them in ambush reaction drills. Ensure that they know how to use their radios to call for fire and air support. If you do this, they will know that they are being taken care of and morale will increase. A battle of attrition is not a battle of annihilation. Going back to the Battle of the Atlantic example above, Donitz was forced to return the wolfpacks to the pens on May 31, 1943 after losing only about 25% of his total force. He never recovered the initiative after that, but it took two more years to end the war. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-7-15 3:14:16 PM |
| #8 interesting point Ralph - and one might expect discouraging recruits to work better in Iraq, where many of the baddies may actually be in it for cash, than in Afghan, where the core taliban were ideological recruits. OTOH in afghan there is something of a tradition of being a part time soldier, then melting away from superior force. Im not sure Iraq may not have more sticking power - not out of greater bravery than Pashtuns (I very much doubt that) but out of a less supple style of war. Also I dont think we have as much time as in Afghan - not to agree with idiotarians, but the fact that afghan was a direct response to 9/11, with almost unanimous international support, made US sticking power far greater, with discouraging impact on the baddies. Plus we had very tough (as it turned out- despite press bad mouthing) local allies. In Iraq we have a more reluctant US, with no particularly effective local allies (yet) - even steady combat losses may not be as discouraging to baddies as in Afghan - in that sense this MAY be more like Viet Nam. The way in which it is most unlike VN - and the clearest way to win - is that here there is no sanctuary for leadership or protected supply lines. Cutting off supplies and disrupting the leadership should be much more effective (BTW, I think those were important war winners in Afghan as well) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-15 3:07:06 PM |
| #7 interesting point Ralph - and one might expect discouraging recruits to work better in Iraq, where many of the baddies may actually be in it for cash, than in Afghan, where the core taliban were ideological recruits. OTOH in afghan there is something of a tradition of being a part time soldier, then melting away from superior force. Im not sure Iraq may not have more sticking power - not out of greater bravery than Pashtuns (I very much doubt that) but out of a less supple style of war. Also I dont think we have as much time as in Afghan - not to agree with idiotarians, but the fact that afghan was a direct response to 9/11, with almost unanimous international support, made US sticking power far greater, with discouraging impact on the baddies. Plus we had very tough (as it turned out- despite press bad mouthing) local allies. In Iraq we have a more reluctant US, with no particularly effective local allies (yet) - even steady combat losses may not be as discouraging to baddies as in Afghan - in that sense this MAY be more like Viet Nam. The way in which it is most unlike VN - and the clearest way to win - is that here there is no sanctuary for leadership or protected supply lines. Cutting off supplies and disrupting the leadership should be much more effective (BTW, I think those were important war winners in Afghan as well) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-15 3:07:01 PM |
| #6 LH, I don't completely agree. Attrition takes its toll on everyone. The "fedayeen" are NOT super human, and the more they see their buddies killed for no effect the harder it will be to recruit more volunteers. I'm not by that sggesting that we shouldn't be doing more, but it's very easy to see only the stress on our side since that's all that gets reported. Remember when we went into Afghanistan and all of the doom sayers were crying about the vast numbers of fedayeen who would be coming from Pakistan to help the Taliban? I saw one interview of a survivor of such a group (I believe it was on FOX) when he got back to Pakistan. He was bemoaning the fact taht he was the only one of ten to survive, and that it was very difficult to find any others to volunteer for the jihad. We need to recognize that stress of continual combat works both ways. IF they were inflicting serious casualties on us, it would be much easier for them to find more recruits. Strategy Page reports that the "incidents" are now up to 25 a day, so while the tempo of the bad guys has increased, they're results have not. That has to strain their resources. They're not like the 'Cong who were receiving extensive outside aid from the Soviets. So, while I support doing more, and reports indicate that we are, and that our network of informants is improving, I'd not belittle the impact of this type of attrition on the bad guys. All the Best. |
| Posted by: Ralph 2003-7-15 12:44:48 PM |
| #5 LH--I agree with your point on attrition. I think the best solution is to get Iraqi security trained, equipped, and deployed ASAP so we can get our people out. Everytime our people get attacked, we not only risk losing American lives, thereby eroding support at home and morale, but our troops also respond in a way that does not win us any friends. Going house-to-house, searching and interrogating families, and in the process terrorizing and alienating them. I'm not faulting our troops for their response, because they have to respond to these attacks, but the sooner we can get them out and get the Iraqis to handle it themselves, the better. PJ--I can't agree with more tanks and Bradleys as being a solution. Tanks are not suited for police actions, and the maintenance costs for tracked vehicles are horrendous. I would support easing up the ROE restrictions on the Army, as the Marines are not nearly as restricted and they haven't been targeted like the Army has. The Marine convoys and patrols bristle with weapons, while the Army is trying to be "friendlier" and appear less threatening, which is inviting attacks. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-7-15 12:21:23 PM |
| #4 It looks like the Humvees are getting torn up on a regular basis. On one of the earlier raids, soldiers found detailed diagrams of all the US vehicles. Bush should be shipping more tanks and Bradleys to the region. |
| Posted by: PJ 2003-7-15 12:03:26 PM |
| #3 well good for our troops. But we're not going to win this by attrition. The baddies can recruit from a pool of fedayeen, plus unemployed ex- Rep Guards - some died during the war, but some ex regular army types and islamist nut jobs make up for that - so figure a recruiting pool of at least 150,000. If we kill or capture 100 a week thats only 5000 a year - so it could go on for years, during which time we can expect far more recruits. No, we have to target the leaders, the weapons, and the money to win. And/or win the political war to build a new Iraqi regime to takeover the task. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-15 11:44:07 AM |
| #2 Here I am "back on the same horse," but notice the difference between this outcome and that of the attack on the Russians in Chechnya where the Russians lost nine killed. Our people are doing a good job. |
| Posted by: Ralph 2003-7-15 11:18:41 AM |
| #1 Sounds like the Army is learning how to kick some butt in Iraq! Horah! I have a prediction what the NEXT convoy will consist of......BRADLEYS. Hmm I wonder how this will be played out in the U.S. press? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2003-7-15 10:33:18 AM |