Article

2007-05-28 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-05-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Sweet Jesus.. the best gave for the rest of us.. us olde moldy types should be there instead..

RIP brothers..

Posted by RD">RD 2007-05-28 01:14|| 2007-05-28 01:14|| Front Page Top

#2 Makes me very sad.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-05-28 06:09|| 2007-05-28 06:09|| Front Page Top

#3 Rest in peace, with our thanks. May your sacrifice prove to have been worthwhile, and your memory a blessing for those you loved.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-05-28 07:56|| 2007-05-28 07:56|| Front Page Top

#4 God speed their souls and care for their families. This is yet another debt I will never be able to repay.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-05-28 08:42|| 2007-05-28 08:42|| Front Page Top

#5 And the mission they were on? Any news of that?

Or are just US Dead in Iraq the only thing worth reporting, not worth reporting their accomplishments for which their lives were given - and not worth reporting the brave ones that give the last full measure of devotion elsewhere, like Afghanistan?

I've had my fill of this trash.

REPORT THE MISSION! Respect and publicize what they gave their lives to accomplish!

Posted by OldSpook 2007-05-28 10:00|| 2007-05-28 10:00|| Front Page Top

#6 Now is this 10 more in addition to the 8 reported yesterday, or did 2 more die and they just make it a bigger headline by reporting all deaths since Wednesday? If 2 more die tomorrow, will the headline read "12 more soldiers dead in Iraq?" NUTS!

Posted by 0369Grunt 2007-05-28 10:43|| 2007-05-28 10:43|| Front Page Top

#7 0369Grunt is onto something. I've seen them do this several times. They aggregate casualties over a multi-day period and report it each day as if it were a new event.

I hope that's the case here. If not ... can we please start seeing some enemy KIA numbers? They do it in Afghanistan, why not Iraq?

Posted by Moon6">Moon6 2007-05-28 11:45|| 2007-05-28 11:45|| Front Page Top

#8 OldSpook and Grunt are both on to something. While MNF-I press releases often do contain very bare-bone references to enemy KIA, it is very unusual to see US KIA put in any context at all.

Grunt, as I recall, this phenomenon of reporting US military deaths in Iraq so frequently led to confusion (among wire-service subscribers, i.e., the press itself) back in 2004). So much so that AP had to do a note to editors and change their practices. Part of the problem was that web news sites would post as "new" what were updates to wire dispatches - but I think the wires themselves also had a problem with "over" reporting.

On the other matter, this has been a screaming problem for years. The Marines are the worst. Aside from Fallujah II, the mini-campaigns in the western Euphrates valley to secure elections, and of course the Haditha incident, there has hardly been any information about operations that's made its way into mass print. It would not be hard to conclude that the hundres of USMC KIA in Anbar the last two years accomplished nothing - "a Marine was killed by enemy action in Anbar province" - uh, what was he doing? Fishing in a canal and got shoved in? It's been going on literally for years like this.

I had the opportunity to raise these questions directly with relevant folks in Baghdad. Nobody disputed the facts or the possible impact over time, but nobody was willing to do anything about it.

A related matter, of course, is enemy KIA. While you'll see some mention of this in some press releases, it's almost never done in situations where the US loses someone, and I can't discern a pattern as to when enemy KIA is OK to mention, vs. when it's not permitted.

Right there, every morning, on the CG/MNF-I's battle update assessment (BUA) - unless Petraeus has changed things, is an enemy KIA number. A weekly and monthly roll-up slide shows numbers over those periods. Right there - but while it was only a "secret" level bit of info, it was the most secure info around. This bizarre obsession with an imagined concept of "body counts" persists, and it runs deep.

One of Caldwell's predecessors completely agreed with the substance of my point that enemy KIA should be reported (along with other results), but was resigned to it not being possible due to the fixed views of so many at DOD, in and out of uniform.

There were a few illuminating, amusing, frustrating incidents, one involving the Army to the east in Diyala, another with the Marines during a Euphrates valley mini-campaign, in which the local commanders blurted out the results of battle (as they should), including enemy KIA. The Marine got in some kind of trouble, and there was much huffing and puffing in some circles in Baghdad. The Army guy did not seem to get in trouble. But both instances led to more discussions in Baghdad about the bizarre practice of concealing enemy killed (that's what it amounts to).

Some of the most afflicted start by claiming that we don't have "hard" body counts. !!!!! Hilarious. I pointed out that we had more total control over the battlefield in Iraq than in any war in our history, and therefore at the very least hedged ("4 terrorists confirmed killed, possibly others inside the building") language could be used. No real answer to that point, of course.

The American people have been abandoned, from the Oval Office on down, since early in the Iraq saga (aside from Rummy's press conferences, for a while), to fend for themselves in terms of information about the war, what it means, and how to view costs and difficulties. This bizarre, one-sided release of information on casualties has been one part of it. Nice little reminder that while we have the deadliest and most careful military ever to take the field, our broader capability to wage war is pretty feeble.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-05-28 12:19|| 2007-05-28 12:19|| Front Page Top

#9 Moon6, Chuck Simmons has been doing exactly that on his own blog, North Shore Journal. He documents his numbers, too, to avoid exactly the issue 0369Grunt raises. Click on the title in this post to go straight there.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-05-28 12:20|| 2007-05-28 12:20|| Front Page Top

#10 Here's what I can find at the MNF-I site:
May 23 2 dead IED east of Baghdad
May 25 1 dead complex attack Taji
May 26 3 dead explosion Salah Ad Din
May 26 1 dead unk Al Anbar
May 26 1 dead IED western Baghdad
May 26 1 dead explosion Diyala Province

It looks like the press story collects aggregates these. It's been a very bad month for IED deaths, 71 of the 103.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2007-05-28 14:25|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2007-05-28 14:25|| Front Page Top

#11 Hear hear OS.... and

"a Marine was killed by enemy action in Anbar province" - uh, what was he doing?

I thought it was just me. Gives you the idea he was picked off from the herd, which is damn unlikely.

Posted by Shipman 2007-05-28 14:55|| 2007-05-28 14:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Agreed Oldspook.
Very good point. Bless them and their families.

Posted by Jan from work 2007-05-28 20:54|| 2007-05-28 20:54|| Front Page Top

#13 Media gools scream for pics

Posted by Captain America 2007-05-28 22:29|| 2007-05-28 22:29|| Front Page Top

23:53 Rex Mundi
23:42 Jackal
23:41 Jackal
23:30 trailing wife
23:12 anonymous2u
23:08 trailing wife
23:07 Rambler
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:06 Barbara Skolaut
23:03 trailing wife
22:46 DMFD
22:42 Barbara Skolaut
22:37 DMFD
22:33 Abu do you love
22:29 Abu do you love
22:29 Captain America
22:19 Jan from work
22:13 Mike N.
22:12 jds
22:10 DMFD
22:08 jds
22:06 Frank G
22:06 Old Patriot
21:55 Mike