Posted on 06/18/2005 4:34:58 PM PDT by LSUfan
KARABILA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces launched their second major offensive in western Iraq in as many days on Saturday, ratcheting up the hunt for rebels and weapons in the Euphrates river valley that stretches to the Syrian border.
Faced with slipping poll numbers, President Bush asked Americans to show patience, saying that since U.S. troops overthrew Saddam Hussein, Iraq had become a "central front in the war on terror" and a "vital test" for U.S. security.
Around 1,000 U.S. Marines and soldiers, supported by Iraqi troops and backed by fighter jets and helicopters, launched Operation Dagger in the desert about 75 km (50 miles) northwest of Baghdad early on Saturday, the military said.
"Dagger is focused on locating hidden weapons caches and denying insurgents sanctuary," said Captain Jeff Pool.
The new offensive comes after Friday's launch of Operation Spear around the towns of Karabila and Qaim, about 20 km (12 miles) west of the Syrian border, an area U.S. forces believe has become a conduit for foreign militants and weapons.
The military said about 50 insurgents had been killed in air strikes over the past two days, with three Americans wounded.
Iraq's al Qaeda group, led by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, said no insurgents had been killed in the strikes. "They are lying ... their bombs fell on the Muslim public," the group said in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site.
U.S. commanders blame foreign Islamists like Zarqawi for some of the deadliest attacks of the insurgency.
They say he may be hiding in the western desert, a stronghold of Saddam's Sunni Arab minority, where there have been four major military operations since the beginning of May.
BUSH CALL TO ARMS
"Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power," Bush said in his weekly radio address, after a poll showed 51 percent of Americans now thought invading Iraq was a bad idea. "But all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror."
General William Webster, the U.S. commander for Baghdad, and Brigadier General Jaleel Khalaf, commander of the first Iraqi army brigade given charge of its own section of the city, said a month-long sweep known as Operation Lightning had succeeded in halving the number of car bombings in the capital.
Some 1,200 suspects, of whom about 50 were foreigners, had been detained, they told a news conference.
But Webster said the operation would go on, as insurgents remained capable of mounting deadly assaults. "Certainly saying anything about 'breaking the back' or 'about to reach the end of the line' or those kinds of things do not apply to the insurgency at this point," Webster said.
Generals on the ground have spoken recently of "cyclical" violence, as U.S. offensives cause rebels to lie low or move from one area to another.
"It's like hunting birds," said Colonel Steve Davis of the U.S. Marines as he surveyed the ruins of what he said was an insurgent base in Karabila. "You shoot a few, the rest fly away. You shoot a few again, the rest fly away again."
DESERTED TOWN
General Khalaf, whose brigade U.S. officers say is a model for the Iraqi army they hope can relieve them, criticized U.S. politicians calling for a timetable for a troop withdrawal, saying U.S. firepower would be needed for some time.
"Those who want a date have no understanding of military issues," said Khalaf, once a general in Saddam's army.
In Karabila, a town of 60,000, several buildings were damaged by shelling but there was little sign of residents, apart from some white surrender flags flying from homes.
The U.S. military command blames Zarqawi for a surge in violence since the Shi'ite- and Kurdish-dominated government took power in April, since when more than 1,000 Iraqis and some 120 U.S. troops have been killed in rebel attacks.
A car bomb blast in Baghdad wounded six Iraqi soldiers, and a roadside bomb near a U.S. convoy killed a young child and wounded two other civilians, police and hospital officials said.
Gunmen also shot and seriously wounded a correspondent for Arabic television channel Al Arabiya during an apparent kidnap attempt in central Baghdad, the station said.
In Tuz Khurmatu, 200 km (120 miles) north of Baghdad, clashes on Friday killed two U.S. soldiers and two Iraqis, the U.S. military said. The rising U.S. death toll, now at least 1,718, may help explain mounting concern in the United States. (Additional reporting by Luke Baker and Alastair Macdonald in Baghdad)
Seems to me killing and capturing them in our operations while sustaining few casualties is a significant underscoring of the problems the insurgents face.
Suiscide runs to blow up Iraqis to alienate the population or get slaughtered in operations we initiate, great tactical choices for the terrorist.
But let me see if I can grasp the Reuters take:
Every time we go on the offensive, it is bad for us, I guess because it shows that we needed to go on the offensive. good grief
In 1968, the problem was that the media misread Tet, which was a tactical disaster for the NVA and a militarily strategic disaster for the VC. Our media portrayed it as a major communist victory, and thus emboldened our enemy and encouraged them to hang on. War protesters picked up on it too.
But this spin from Reuters takes it to a whole other level. WE go on the offensive, incur few casualties, inflict many casualties, take prisoners, and operate with impunity and it is BAD news for OUR side.
Yeah. Tet. Wherein Fonda, Kerry, some in congress and the MSM managed to pull defeat out of victory.
Another thing:
Why does reuters insist on calling the insurgents or terrorists "rebels?"
Seeing as a large percentage of them are not even Iraqi, but, rather, Saudi, Yemeni, Syrian, Chechan, Bosnian, etc., how can they be "rebels?"
Whatever.
Killing them 50 at a time is going to take forever.
..or put another way, Pelosi is an idiot.
Rebels?
Alternative?
"Killing them 50 at a time is going to take forever."
You're right. Why bother? We should just pull out of Iraq immediately. This is just gonna be TOO hard and take TOO long.
Beats killing them one at a time.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21419,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Terrorism's Silent Partner at the United Nations (snip)
By Joshua Muravchik
Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004
ON THE ISSUES
AEI Online
Publication Date: October 21, 2004
This essay is also available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.
With the Organization of the Islamic Conference defending any act committed on behalf of "national liberation," the United Nations cannot even issue an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism, let alone join the struggle to eliminate it.
This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn terrorism. The resolution was introduced by Russia, still grieving over the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, and perhaps the unanimous vote will give it a measure of solace. But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning the war against terrorism. For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the UN still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.
Terrorism As a Right
The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which comprises fifty-six of the UN's 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.
After the Security Council vote, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth tried to put the best face on the resolution. He said it "states very simply that the deliberate massacre of innocents is never justifiable in any cause. Never."
But in fact it does not state this. Nor has any UN resolution ever stated it. The U.S. delegation tried to get such language into the resolution, but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan, the two OIC members currently sitting on the Security Council. (They have no veto, but the resolution's sponsors were willing to water down the text in return for a unanimous vote.)
True, the final resolution condemns "all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation." This sounds clear, but in the Alice-in-Wonderland lexicon of the UN, the term "acts of terrorism" does not mean what it seems.
read more....
"Killing them 50 at a time is going to take forever."
Your right. But I have a question. Why after 2 years in Iraq are we only now hearing about enemy body count. It seems like only recently do I remember reading ANY source note body count. Am I mistaken or has anyone else noticed that?
You're not mistaken. The media seemed to stop giving enemy body counts shortly after Saddam was caught.
Still waiting for an accurate talley - well, a good estimate - of the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the "insurgents" since military action began. We've lost about 1,500 soldiers. While the death of any of our uniformed soldiers is a tragedy, I believe the number of Iraqi civilian dead at terrorist hands is higher.
The main thread within Islam is to hate and kill all of those who not believe in the same Islam as you do.
The main variable within Islam is how to do it---by being a direct bullet-firer, by being a suicide-bomber, by being a financial contributor, or by standing aside and doing nothing.
Islam covers all the basics except one---the human impulse for self-determination. Islam is the supreme "Group Rule".
The body counts are there - on the CENTCOM and Iraqi government sites. The media won't mention them because that would mean listing the accomplishments of Allied forces as opposed to the enemy. If the media can't help the enemy there's no point writing a story.
Thats 50 less dirtbags that will harm our soldiers..
I'm still looking for Turban Durbin's comments about the non-military Americans taken in Iraq and beheaded, also the ones that were killed and tied up on that bridge.
I'm finding squat out there on that.....
The Ole Miss Rebels? When did they start playing their games in Iraq?
Infiltrated, foreign born, jihadist terrorists would be more fitting.
Reuters has been doing everything it can to undermine America's effort from the very start. They are giving encouragement to our enemies to fight on.
"You're right. Why bother? We should just pull out of Iraq immediately. This is just gonna be TOO hard and take TOO long."
I hope you are kidding! Things will get better. Each insurgent killed takes away from the enemy the manpower which has come at a huge cost. We also take away their willingness to fight. You just do not know military matters.
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.