[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[R. Scott]

… among the troops on the ground, no tactic employed by the Iraqi insurgency is as dreaded.

I always disliked mines more than people – there was no way to fight back against a mine.
As for the improvement of the “IEDs”, many are no longer “improvised”. Maybe it’s time to go back to using the term “mines” for some of the devises?

[centurion316]

IED's are a problem because they are the ONLY way that the insurgents can produce U.S. casualties. They can't attack us on the ground, mortar and rocket attacks seldom produce casualties, and they can't shoot straight.

Michael Goldfarb has talked to some sorehead with an axe to grind. Much of what he says just isn't true.

IED attacks have changed markedly in number and character over the last three years. There are more of them, but they are much less effective. Countermeasures have worked well, but the enemy has responded with EFP's, and very large explosives. 500 pounds of explosive will always produce casualties if detonated under ANY vehicle, and the enemy will always be able to pull off one of these type attacks every week or so.

Right now, the press are the most effective weapon that the insurgents have. They can sit in their hotels in the Green Zone and wait for their stringers to bring them video of IED attacks to support their campaign to convince the American people to run away. Its beginning to look like one or two American deaths per day are all it takes to defeat the U.S. anywhere in the world. Certainly, at least one political party thinks so.