Yeah!!!! Stick it to those mother$%^& and break it off!!!!

[Ned]

The reason for the large scale attack on the two convoys was that they were carrying a very large amount of cash. The US convoys apparently included 100 GIs and tanks. The enemy wore fedayeen uniforms, which probably made them easy targets. They apparently knew the convoys were carrying cash - which indicates an intel problem.

But the overwhelming victory by the Americans is remarkable by itself!

Bravo!

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Ned
But the overwhelming victory by the Americans is remarkable by itself!

Yes it is

But it's a good thing

[Zylka]

How's Chechnya been lately there bud?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


You sound like Goebbels 1945.

Wow, you actually Godwinized a thread.

[DinoDoc]

It's apparently his MO when he has nothing of worth to say.

[JohnT]

Really? I haven't noticed - imo, Hersh has always (well, more than the average 'polytoner ) been thoughtful, knowledgable and well-reasoned.

I'm kind of surprised, that's all.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hersh:

Best case is that you don't have Iraqis firing at you, but what do you do when they decide to take potshots at you?

As for a civil war, if you are concerned about civilian casualties, and Iraqi casulties, a civil war will vastly increase the deaths of both.

Therefore you should be hoping that the US continues to put a real commitment to make sure that this does not happen.

[ravagon]

As I generally look at cnn before coming here I was 99.98% sure what this was about as soon as I noticed the identity of the thread starter.

I wonder if those 'convoys' were a planned op. to lure in and wipe out those same enemy forces. The casualty ratios would seem to indicate that US forces were expecting trouble, even in spite of the day-to-day attacks on convoys. It also mentions US armour which isn't widely advertised as present during most convoy runs.

[Guynemer]

Perhaps it is a defect in my character, but I have a hard time celebrating when human beings are killed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Perhaps it is a defect in my character, but I have a hard time celebrating when human beings are killed.

What percentage of US soldiers in the field do you think would prefer that nobody was shooting at anybody and nobody was dying?

Unfortunately, armies deal in a harsher reality, which is that the enemy casualties you inflict now generally reduce the casualties you'll inflict and receive later.

[Guynemer]

I don't disagree with that, Michael. But I don't think death is something to be celebrated under any circumstances.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by ravagon
As I generally look at cnn before coming here I was 99.98% sure what this was about as soon as I noticed the identity of the thread starter.

I wonder if those 'convoys' were a planned op. to lure in and wipe out those same enemy forces. The casualty ratios would seem to indicate that US forces were expecting trouble, even in spite of the day-to-day attacks on convoys. It also mentions US armour which isn't widely advertised as present during most convoy runs.

It's a possibility, although I'd expect a genuinely "planned" op to have helos and possibly AC-130's on call just over the horizon. US doctrine is to pile on mass firepower, and going into an ambush on the ground only is a bit dicey, even with a lot of forces. It's a question of when and where the ambush is triggered, and how quickly you can deploy (and what casualties you take when the enemy triggers the ambush).

Tanks slow you down, chew up the roads and are fuel hogs, but if you consistently expect trouble, they can be real useful, so I'd expect them to be a common feature to important convoys, or ones moving through likely trouble spots. I don't think anybody over there is operating under the illusion that we don't have a dangerous and active enemy who wants to fight.

The large casualty count seems to me most likely to be due to the enemy being Saddam Fedayeen, as opposed to real troops - ambushes are nervewracking, and you have to let the enemy get real close, and ideally let point and lead forces get beyond you, to have the maximum effect. Any movement, talk, miscommunication or premature triggering can just blow the whole thing apart if the force you're trying to react keeps it's head together and gets into the fight.

I also expect there's been a lot of review and training of our units in counterambush tactics and a lot of analysis of how the enemy tries to operate, and that's being used to help form our countertactics.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I don't disagree with that, Michael. But I don't think death is something to be celebrated under any circumstances.

I'd much rather have live prisoners, because they're a lot more informative than dead enemies, but that's not a feasible outcome.

Death is incidental to victory. I'm more interested in the fact that we decisively and overwhelmingly repelled their attacks and what effect that may have on their morale and will to fight. The key is breaking their will to fight, and every victory like this heads us in that direction. If they don't quit, they don't give us, or the rest of the Iraqis, many alternatives.

[Nubclear]

MTG...The title breaks the rules

Originally posted by Zylka
How's Chechnya been lately there bud?

**** you too.

[Ted Striker]

How stupid were these guys ambushing a convoy that has tanks???

DUH