You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
US troops under fire in Iraq
2003-10-20
Two US soldiers have been killed and one injured in an ambush in northern Iraq, the US military has said. A spokesman for US-led forces said they came under fire from rocket-propelled grenades near the city of Kirkuk on Saturday evening. In a separate incident, attackers targeted a US military convoy in Falluja, central Iraq, causing a US vehicle to explode, but no casualties.
We ran this yesterday...
Reports say an Iraqi was killed and at least one other injured when US troops opened fire after the attack which came after the lorry had broken down. Television pictures showed a US military vehicle, believed to be an ammunition lorry, in flames — while a crowd of jubilant Iraqis gathered at the scene.
To the Rantburgers: are you guys sure that Iraqis are happy with the American “Liberation”? It doesn’t look that much!
Obviously some of the bad guys living in Fallujah aren't. Not everyone in Iraq is a bad guy, though...
"Falluja has destroyed the Americans," some men shouted.
Ummm... No. Fallujah has blown up a broken-down truck...
The Kirkuk attack takes to 103 the number of American troops confirmed killed in combat in Iraq since President George W Bush declared major hostilities over on 1 May. After the attack in Falluja, Iraqi police said to be acting on orders from the US military detained a photographer for the French news agency AFP along with a Reuters cameraman, AFP said. The reason for their detention was not clear.
Censorship? nahhhh
Advance knowledge of the attack? Like al-Jizz seems to have regularly?
The latest violence comes days after the US won support at the United Nations Security Council for a new resolution on Iraq. The resolution calls for Iraq’s interim leaders to submit by mid-December a timetable for new constitution and subsequent elections. The US hopes the UN backing will persuade more nations to contribute troops and money to help stabilise and rebuild Iraq.
Don’t rush, one by one
Posted by:Murat

#15  Tell me straight out Murat: do you want the US to fail in Iraq or succeed?

Don't be shy. The truth is a good thing.
Posted by: R. McLeod   2003-10-21 2:34:48 AM  

#14  I believe the casualities on the first day of the Somme were in the 1000s not hundreds.

21000 Brits were KIA on the first day of the Somme.

Posted by: Zhang Fei   2003-10-20 11:44:11 PM  

#13  I am reading this at a library and do not have my WW I books handy, but I believe the casualities on the first day of the Somme were in the 1000s not hundreds. Anyway the comparision is silly. Rifle.
Posted by: Rifle308   2003-10-20 9:49:08 PM  

#12  Murat, the URL for the 24 year old dentist that anon mentioned is
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/.
A great read.
Posted by: Gasse Katze   2003-10-20 3:19:23 PM  

#11  Murat, we don't expect everybody to be happy. We're not even all happy here. But do you think the typical Iraqi was happier under Saddam? Do you want the world to be a better place, or are you just satisfied with finding glee in ambushes of folks trying to hunt down a tyrant and provide a basis for democracy? Grow up!
Posted by: Tom   2003-10-20 3:18:34 PM  

#10  Sure, while the current casualty counts are exactly the first day on the Somme, this would all be a lot more tolerable if one were convinced that the administration had a more sophisticated strategy.

No amount of strategizing will prevent allied casualties during guerrilla warfare. The sophisticated strategy is to replace American troops acting as glorified security guards with Iraqis, which will take a lot of work, because we have to ensure they are politically-reliable (i.e. not working for Saddam, al Qaeda or the Iranians) and then train them. This will free up US troops to do what they do best - conduct raids against the enemy. We also need to reduce the number of troops in Iraq - this will reduce the number of supply convoys required, and hence, the number of targets presented to the terrorists. (It's our supply convoys that are getting hit, because they are soft-skinned compared to the combat units).
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2003-10-20 12:48:56 PM  

#9  Well, Murat, there is a new Iraqi blogger, his link is via Instapundit and other American bloggers.

He's a 24 y.o. dentist.

I especially like the liar, liar part.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-10-20 12:35:37 PM  

#8  US troops under fire in Iraq

In other news today, the sun rose at 06:20 this morning. Details at 11.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2003-10-20 12:24:53 PM  

#7  Sure, while the current casualty counts are exactly the first day on the Somme, this would all be a lot more tolerable if one were convinced that the administration had a more sophisticated strategy.

It may well be that since they didn't get the expected war, the administration is getting prepared to cut and run.
Posted by: Hiryu   2003-10-20 11:49:23 AM  

#6  So...and why are we letting these guys dance on top of the wrecked ammo vehicle without dropping a 250-lb present on them?
Posted by: mojo   2003-10-20 11:31:28 AM  

#5  are you guys sure that Iraqis are happy with the American “Liberation”? It doesn’t look that much!

Liberating Saddam's supporters wasn't a war aim - liberating those oppressed by Saddam was. Saddam's henchmen are understandably unhappy about losing their meal ticket. When Saddam was deposed, the gravy train came to a screeching halt. Maybe we should turn the country over to the Kurds and the Shiites, who will take care of the unhappiness that Iraq's Sunnis are feeling - permanently.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2003-10-20 11:02:16 AM  

#4  Gee, Murat, I guess you won't be convinced unless we have 100% support like Saddam did. I guess we should just leave and let the whole place go to hell--we couldn't get every Ba'athist and rebuild the entire country in several months, so we should leave to make Murat happy.

Thanks for more anecdotal evidence that proves nothing!
Posted by: Dar   2003-10-20 11:01:06 AM  

#3  To the Randburgers: are you guys sure that Iraqis are happy with the American “Liberation”? It doesn’t look that much!

Of course, it was Fallujah, the most anti-American city in all of Iraq. If you think they represent the attitude of all Iraqis then you haven't been paying attention.
Posted by: g wiz   2003-10-20 10:57:32 AM  

#2  The US hopes the UN backing will persuade more nations to contribute troops and money to help stabilise and rebuild Iraq.

Actually, mostly money, but troops from reliable allies (this may exclude Turkey) would be welcome. Our guys have been there 180 days since the end of large scale combat and suffered just over 100 casualties. That comes to about one every other day. In Vietnam, the average casualty count was 30 per day - unsurprising, since our boys were engaging in combat against regiment- or company-sized units every day. (No real surprises there, given that the North Vietnamese Army and the Vietcong suffered in excess of 1 million KIA over 8 years - this means a NVA/VC casualty rate of 300 KIA per day).

At the end of the day, this guy Sanchez may need to be replaced, especially if he's not learning the lessons of counter-guerrilla warfare. I give him another month before the Pentagon removes him, if we start losing guys in twos and threes.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2003-10-20 10:56:48 AM  

#1  are you guys sure that Iraqis are happy with the American “Liberation”? It doesn’t look that much!

Why is it necessary that the Iraqis be happy? I'm happy.

Posted by: Shipman   2003-10-20 10:52:04 AM  

00:00