Skip to comments.Terrorists Can't "Face Our Forces in Battle," So They Use IEDs, Bush Says
Posted on 03/13/2006 5:49:15 PM PST by SandRat
WASHINGTON, March 13, 2006 Terrorists in Iraq resort to using improvised explosive devices because they lack the ability to engage in conventional military operations, President Bush said here today.
"After the terrorists were defeated in battles in Fallujah and Tal Afar, they saw they could not confront Iraqi or American forces in pitched battles and survive, and so they turned to IEDs, a weapon that allows them to attack from a safe distance without having to face our forces in battle," Bush said during a speech at George Washington University's Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
The president also made the point that the "principal victims" of these roadside bomb attacks are innocent Iraqis. "The terrorists and insurgents have used IEDs to kill Iraqi children playing in the streets, shoppers at Iraqi malls and Iraqis lining up at police and army recruiting stations," he said.
Bush said a Defense Department organization called the IED Joint Center of Excellence was established to deal specifically with the IED issue in a three-pronged approach.
"The first part of our plan is targeting and eliminating the terrorists and bomb makers," he said. "Across Iraq, we're on the hunt for the enemy, capturing and killing the terrorists before they strike, uncovering and disarming their weapons before they go off and rooting out and destroying bomb-making cells so they can't produce more weapons."
The second part of the plan involves specialized training so that U.S. troops can identify and clear IEDs before they explode. Nearly half of all IEDs found in Iraq are now disabled before they can be detonated, he said, and in the past 18 months, the casualty rate per IED attack has been reduced by 50 percent.
The third leg of the plan is to develop new technologies to defeat the IED threat.
The president called out Iran for supplying the components for some of the most powerful IEDs used in Iraq. Tehran, he said, has been responsible for at least some increasingly lethal anti-coalition attacks by providing terrorists with the capabilities to build improvised bombs.
"Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran," Bush said. "Such actions, along with Iran's support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, are increasingly isolating Iran."
Bush also spoke about the importance of spreading democracy around the globe and he praised the Iraqi security forces for their improved performance.
Democracy replaces resentment with hope and its spread not only helps people in other countries, but also is also vital to U.S. national security, he said.
"On September the 11th, 2001, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country," he said. "We saw that dictatorships shelter terrorists, feed resentment and radicalism, and threaten the security of free nations."
The Iraqi security forces are stepping up in a big way to quell sectarian violence, especially following the bombing of the Shiite Golden Mosque in Samarra Feb. 22, he said.
"After the Samarra bombings, it was the Iraqi security forces, not coalition forces, that restored order," he said. "Having Iraqi forces in the lead has been critical to preventing violence from spinning out of control."
Bush said the Iraqi security forces play an essential role in ensuring a free and prosperous Iraq.
"From the outset, Iraqi forces understood that if they failed to stand for national unity, the country would slip into anarchy," he said. "And so they've stood their ground and defended their democracy and brought their nation through one of its most difficult moments since liberation."
President calls terrorists in essence Craven Cowards --- that ought to make the TSM (Terrorist Support Media) flipping mad!!!
ummmm,... that Texan was referring to something else that the Terrorists lack in the manhood department if you get my drift.
Well that and we massacre their butts each and every time we go up against them....
Stop the never ending supplies and killers from Syria and Iran.
they haven't been getting "killers" from Iran in the first place.
There WERE some Syrians at first, but we've secured much of the Iraqi border and where we haven't, the Iraqis have.
It takes time.....things are going well in Iraq, despite what the press would have you believe.
It's all a fraud.
Not enough dead/death benefits to warrant technological solution to IED's.
HP just spent One Billion US to redesign it's printers and inks.
For 50M I could totally defeat IED's using a 360-degree
solution to detect their planting.
I'm just sick of it, and pray for those whos sons and daughters have already been damaged in lieu of a nice family of printers and inks.
"It takes time.....things are going well in Iraq, despite what the press would have you believe."
We know, and thank you for your service to protect our way of life. Take care and God Bless You.
Just a thought: during our own War of Independence, the British troops called the Americans cowards because they would not stand in rank and file, according to the prevailing tactics of the day. Instead, the Americans fought "asymetrically", ambushing, targeting the British officers, attacking supply lines. Here in Iraq, we are faced with an enemy who also fights "asymetrically". Calling the enemy "cowards" didn't win the war for the British, nor will it win the war in Iraq. IEDs are a deadly, effective way to kill American troops. Calling the insurgents "cowards" only displays the frustration on our part and signals our weakness at neutralizing this tactic. Better that we just admit that they are "clever" and get on with the task of killing them all.
If your enemy is superior, evade him; if equally matched, fight him; Sun Tzu.
It has nothing to do with lacking in the manhood department, it's just good strategy.
The point is that our enemies cannot confront our professional military. We should expect them to target our civilians, to target our infrastructure, to attack us in places that we wouldn't attack. Our preparations should deny them unimpeded access through unprotected borders. We should be profiling. We should be preparing.
Hey, wait a minute, I'm supposed to be cheering you up.
Thank you for your service and please tell all you can that WE ARE BEHIND ALL YOU SERVICE PEOPLE.
Bill in Hershey
well I've been home since January of 05 :)
things aren't that bad out there honestly. I mean sure it sucks to be away from home for that time, but for some reason (almost entirely attributed to the MSM) Iraq has a dark cloud over it.
My bet is that the numbers of IED's would quickly drop
Exactly! It would be suicidal for the terrorists to engage any modern military ......quick suicide. Thus they resort to other types of attacks.
With that said though, I wish the terrorists feel 'offended' and try to engage our forces directly (and thus get mowed down). Who knows, these terrorists are not exactly brain-scientists! They may fall for it (I doubt it, but one can hope).
President Bush said on March 13, 2006
(8th paragraph before end of speech)
"Earlier this year, a newspaper published details of a new anti-IED technology that was being developed. Within five days of the publication -- using details from that article -- the enemy had posted instructions for defeating this new technology on the Internet."
Chris Plant on WMAL 630-AM just said that this refers to a Los Angeles Times article from February 12, 2006 titled "Bomb Buster For Iraq Hits Pentagon Snag"
Could a Freeper with more experience than me check and see if this is on FR yet and is getting out on the internet?
Too bad the licenses of most of the MSM can't be revoked. They serve no useful purpose to this country.
We did fight differently, but we also fought in ranks. You may recall that Roger's Rangers fought for the British in the French and Indian war, and they certainly didn't fight in ranks.
There were British officers who fought assymetrically. Notable were Tarleton, who was famous for not granting quarter, or respecting surrender.
The British army was very interested in the use of rifles by the Colonials. They considered the lower rate of fire to more than compensate for the higher accuracy. They had Grenadier companies in each battalion, as well as light infantry companies. They would often group together these flank companies as skirmishers.
In the Massachusetts battles after Lexington and Concord, these flank companies provided screen and security for the line companies marching back to Boston after accomplishing their mission. The American militia was often shot in the back by the flank company security elements as they tried to get close enough to take a shot at the line companies marching up the road. The Americans in those battles lost many more than the British.
American tactics were actually very similar to the British, with most American Generals having received British army training, At least until Valley Forge. Only after that did Baron von Steuben develop his distinctively American drill regulations.
The British used the command "Ready! Present! Fire!" and the soldiers would close their eyes or avert their faces to protect them from the powder flash.
Baron von Steuben's drill changed that to "Ready! Aim! Fire!"
The Battle of Oriskany during the crucial year of 1777 was fought with both sides taking cover behind trees. St. Leger's force had quite a few Indians.
The southern campaign of Cornwallis was in response to successful American operations that used normal siegecraft to include digging three parallel saps to approach under cover to where the walls of the fort could be breached. That ruined the usefulness of one fort after another in the same methods as the British would have used.
A British line company was like a machinegun with a crew of 77 men that could convert to a sudden assault with spears. One could not stand up to it, but one could delay, screen, or defend from cover. Both sides used cover when the opponent was superior. Both sides used elite units (Morgan's riflemen, for the US, the flank companies of the light and grenadier companies, or the indian allies for the British.
It was a successful revolution. We were truly one nation before the Revolution, and the similarity of the two Armies tactics in battle after battle showed that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.