| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| General: 3-6 GIs die each week in Iraq | |
| 2003-10-03 | |
| An average of three to six Americans are killed each week in Iraq and another 40 are wounded by a foe that has become more lethal and sophisticated since the fall of Baghdad in April, the commander of coalition forces said. U.S. soldiers are facing 15 to 20 attacks a day, including roadside bombs, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said Thursday. Seven to 10 attacks a day involve small groups of fighters. Most attacks occur in Baghdad and the surrounding Sunni Muslim stronghold to the west and north of the capital, although it is unclear whether Iraqi or foreign forces account for the majority. A little of both would be my guess. "The enemy has evolved — a little bit more lethal, a little more complex, a little more sophisticated, and in some cases, a little bit more tenacious," Sanchez said. A total of 317 Americans have died since the war began March 20, according to Central Command and the Pentagon. On Wednesday alone, three Americans were killed: • A soldier who was shot while on patrol in the al-Mansour district of Baghdad.While most wounded Americans are treated at two military hospitals in Iraq, those with more serious injuries are evacuated to the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. Landstuhl has been receiving an average of 40 to 44 patients a day from Iraq, about 10 to 12 percent of whom are classified as having "battle injuries," said hospital spokeswoman Marie Shaw. Since the start of the war, the hospital has treated 6,684 patients — 5,377 after May 1, she said. "What we don’t see a lot of, though we see some, is gunshot wounds," Shaw said. "We see a lot of shrapnel wounds, some amputations, some burns — mostly from individual explosive devices." Sanchez blamed the increasingly sophisticated resistance on the addition of foreign fighters entering Iraq from Syria and northern Iran. "We believe there is in fact a foreign fighter element. There is a terrorist element focused on the coalition and international community in general and the Iraqi people to try to disrupt the progress being made," Sanchez said.
In Thursday’s violence, about 10 U.S. soldiers came under fire in Fallujah, 30 miles (48 kilometers) west of Baghdad, in front of the mayor’s office. No Americans were hurt, but one Iraqi bystander was killed and four people, including a mother and her 4-year-old daughter, were wounded, hospital officials said. Shortly before the attack in Fallujah, a fuel tanker in a U.S. convoy near Amiriyah, southeast of the city, was hit by a mine or roadside bomb, according to Mohammed Hamid, who lives nearby. He said a soldier in the passenger seat of the cab pulling the tanker was killed and the driver was wounded. The military had no information on that attack. In nearby Khaldiyah, a roadside bomb exploded as a U.S. convoy was passing, but did not damage the American vehicles. Elsewhere, a U.S. soldier and an Iraqi bystander were wounded in an ambush in Mosul, U.S. officials and Iraqi police said. I’m not one to scream quagmire, but what I don’t understand is why can’t this mission be carried out a little more intelligently. Why put our guys at risk unnecessarily? For instance, if most of the attacks occur in and around Baghdad, why concentrate our forces there? Unless it’s for combat action, what else are combat troops doing there that can’t be done by the Iraqi police? I don’t have a problem with accepting a certain number of casualties for any given mission, but why make it this easy for the bad guys? | |
| Posted by:Rafael |
| #14 Evolution in action, the stupid and reckless ones die early, the smart and careful ones live and pass on their knowledge. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-10-3 3:32:45 PM |
| #13 Hiryu, not a chance in hell of a general insurrection. The Sunni triangle might heat up, but the Shia and the Kurds are still living large on their new freedom. I think what the general meant to convey was that the terrs that have survived so far have learned from the mistakes of others. As always happens. So, they get more effective in some respects. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2003-10-3 2:48:53 PM |
| #12 What bothers me is the sense the general gives of the attacks ramping up. Little is being done to prepare the public for an attempt at kicking off a general insurrection after Ramadan is over. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-10-3 1:42:11 PM |
| #11 Steve, This is a brandnew weapon introduced on the Idef defence expo in Ankara, it's a joint Israeli/American developed weapon called 'corner shot', I have not seen any details on the web yet. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-10-3 9:41:30 AM |
| #10 Murat, cool weapon, got any more details on it? Unfortunatly, I believe most of our casualties are caused by the inital contact, bomb on the side of the road going off, RPG into the vechicle from ambush, etc. After that, the bad guys run or our forces take them out with return fire. Same as when your forces are going after the Kurdish terror groups in Turkey, you have to go after the bad guys, you can't abandon the area just because you are taking casualties. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-10-3 9:01:53 AM |
| #9 Go look at the graph: Dale Amon (Belfast, Northern Ireland) on Samizdata or on my blog. I'd post it, but don't want to eat Fred's bandwidth. Suffice it to say that the trend is down. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2003-10-3 8:42:02 AM |
| #8 Stabilization of the area will take a while but it will happen. There are no quick fixes to this unfortunately. As we fix their infrastructure and keep building their local Iraqi forces up things will get better. However, this is not a McDonald's run-in grab your chow and get out op. We need to remember this situation is unique and will continue to be a work in progress. None of us has the intel of what the boys on the ground have nor are we in the planning rooms. I'd hate to Monday morning QB this. However, from prior experience I would bet Green Berets are working w/the locals setting up training and contacts. The Army probably has several sweep opeations either underway or in the works. I understand how the media makes this look but I just talked to some of my buddies who came back (Corps types not Army) and they said the place is not as bad as the media portrays it. We can't leave now though. If anything we need to keep sweeping through the "hot areas" and use the local Iraqi police forces to do this whenever possible. I'd also revisit our mine and counter-obstacle SOPs as this seems to be causing half of our casualties. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-10-3 7:38:25 AM |
| #7 Use of more sophisticated high tech weapons such as the ‘corner shot’ weapon could reduce urban casualties too. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-10-3 6:52:44 AM |
| #6 Local population? I didn't knew that Saudis and Syrians were local to Iraq. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-10-3 6:26:33 AM |
| #5 One, the forces are not consentrated there, that is just where the bad guys are killing folks. And two, abandoning the position is not an option, it send exactly the wrong message to the bad guys, as well as the Iraqis. Its a sure way to see Saddam back in power. |
| Posted by: Ben 2003-10-3 6:19:14 AM |
| #4 Rafael Your strategy would not be the solution, besides there is no need to invent the wheel again. Those insurgents (for the biggest part) are members of the local population, there is simply no other successful manner to fight the local insurgent than using the local population against the insurgents. How? Insurgents in the cities are not the main problem, with a restored police force they can be tackled. The main problem are the sub urban insurgents on the countryside, in villages and hamlets where there are practically no troops to hinder them. It may sound as a controversy, but to tackle the sub urban insurgents village guards are needed, that could be members of tribes who are paid to fulfil the duty of protecting their villages by the US army. You may feel that such would be a bribe, which is but it is the only way to have also a security coverage on the country side, the alternative would be to send a force of 500.000 reservists to occupy every village and hamlet. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-10-3 5:41:40 AM |
| #3 I think there should be more raids on these snakes--make possession of RPG's and AK 47's a death penalty--Disarm the Iraqi polpulace NOW so our boys don't have to worry about the citizenry--anyone firing a rifle in the air/toward our soldiers is DEAD--Screw the NRA |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-10-3 2:21:43 AM |
| #2 My guess is the Special Ops are already too busy. My 2 pennies would be to pull out of Baghdad and that triangle area altogether and concentrate on the border regions using the troops that we already have. Baghdad is more or less in the centre. Anyone wanting to get there would have to cross thru our guys anyway. But atleast there would be less opportunities for hit-and-run guerilla tactics outside the urban areas (or atleast it would be more difficult). Military strategist I'm not, but I hope someone is thinking about these things. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-10-3 2:06:38 AM |
| #1 What I wanna know is: where is Special Forces? Those are the people that can clandestinely work with the population to identify and root out the Saddam sympathisers, so put them to work. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-10-3 1:18:17 AM |