Skip to comments.
Soldiers Frustrated At Being "Nice Guy" (MUST READ!!)
Chicago Sun-Times (Daily Telegraph) ^
| March 25, 2003
| Oliver Poole
Posted on 03/25/2003 5:07:50 AM PST by Dirk McQuickly
CENTRAL IRAQ--"I lost a scout this morning to sniper fire and my first sergeant was hit by a mortar yesterday. That means I am taking it a little bit personally. How am I meant to protect my men when the generals are denying me the ability to bomb enemy positions?"
On the outskirts of the Iraqi town of Samawah, U.S. Army Capt. David Waldron and his company of tanks are locked in a defensive formation. His men are under intermittent attack. They are also increasingly angry.
From Basra to Karbala, south of Baghdad, allied troops are under attack from soldiers in civilian clothes and Saddam's shadowy Fedayeen paramilitaries.
And yet 50 percent of the coalition's desired targets are being vetoed by high command for fear of hitting a sensitive "no combat zone."
In the latest insight into the resistance, one of Waldron's patrols stopped a civilian car and found an armed Iraqi in the back seat. Only this was not a trained soldier but a 12-year-old boy, his face stricken with terror as he hugged an AK-47.
According to the unit that detained him, the boy said he had been given the weapon by men from the paramilitary forces.
Saddam knows that Washington, worried about alienating public opinion, is eager to avoid inflicting civilian deaths. But there are indications that he has adopted a plan to try to make it appear that the coalition forces are doing just that.
As one of Waldron's tank commanders, Sgt. Robert Byrd, put it: "It's time to stop trying to be Mr. Nice Guy. They are bombing us. Let's start bombing the hell out of them."
Of the more than 300 prisoners taken by Waldron's battalion, most have been in civilian clothing.
"I am meant to be in Karbala by now and instead we are screwing around here," he said. "My sentries were so jumpy last night they were getting nervous about donkeys--and we are in tanks for God's sake.
Daily Telegraph
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: battleforbaghdad; hochiminhtrail; iraq; letsgetonwithit; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-139 next last
To: Dirk McQuickly
Worse, this came from a company commander.
61
posted on
03/25/2003 6:49:04 AM PST
by
Stavka2
(Setting the record straight.)
To: hardhead
Vietnam - all over again. I'm afraid that you may be right.
BUMP
62
posted on
03/25/2003 6:50:03 AM PST
by
tm22721
(May the UN rest in peace)
To: honway
Why? We protect the biggest nest of vipers of them all: Saudi Arabia, only costs us $10 billion a year. We let the bin Ladens be taken out of the country on 911. The administration has been dogging anyone sueing the Saudies. This is rediculous.
63
posted on
03/25/2003 6:50:31 AM PST
by
Stavka2
(Setting the record straight.)
To: Dirk McQuickly
The comments by our soldiers remind one of VIETNAM. We are going to win this, but it will be at a MUCH higher cost for our SIDE, because of this "NO CIVILIAN or CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE" campaign. I will never understand OUR passion for a kinder, gentler WAR. Our enemies are out to entirely destroy WESTERN CIVILIZATION and we play nice, nice. Shameful! God Bless our TROOPS, never give up, never give in and stay the course.
64
posted on
03/25/2003 6:51:16 AM PST
by
PISANO
To: Iconoclast2
From #53
To help weigh those issues, the Pentagon has dispatched dozens of attorneys to command posts in the region. Their job: help keep the United States legal if President Bush unleashes its fury against Saddam's forces
If this continues, it may be soon time for Freerepublic.com to define what is meant by the words, "Support our troops."
65
posted on
03/25/2003 6:52:09 AM PST
by
honway
To: tm22721
Vietnam - all over again I can't believe we are going to f this up. I just can't believe it.
66
posted on
03/25/2003 6:52:21 AM PST
by
riri
To: yoe
No, you're wrong. Always allow surrenders...beat the hell out of them but allow surrenders. The enemy must always believe that surrender is a better alternative then fighting...even a cornored rabbit can be vicious.
67
posted on
03/25/2003 6:52:51 AM PST
by
Stavka2
(Setting the record straight.)
To: BushCountry
US has lost more then 15, it lost 10 marines in one vehicle and so far has not faced the main Iraqi resistence except with airframes.
68
posted on
03/25/2003 6:54:09 AM PST
by
Stavka2
(Setting the record straight.)
To: Dirk McQuickly
What the hell ever happened to the Powell doctrine where you defeat your enemy swiftly by using overwhelming force? This is why they don't need those reporters with the troops. I think punches are being pulled because high command is worried about what gets seen back home. Kick the reporters out. Anyone here actually think the American public is ready to see on TV what a soldier will have to do when faced with a 12 year-old pointing an AK-47 at him? War is ugly, it does not have to have every detail put on live national news. That is what documentarys are for.
Drew
69
posted on
03/25/2003 6:54:15 AM PST
by
patriot31u
(http://www.thedrewview.com)
To: honway
If this continues, it may be soon time for Freerepublic.com to define what is meant by the words, "Support our troops." I have to agree. I can't sit here and watch our guys die because we are trying to win a seat in a popularity contest...
70
posted on
03/25/2003 6:54:22 AM PST
by
riri
To: Wolfie
Absolutely correct...what is it with stars that causes men to forget their roots?
71
posted on
03/25/2003 6:54:53 AM PST
by
Stavka2
(Setting the record straight.)
To: tm22721
Vietnam - all over again. I'm afraid that you may be right.Some of you folks sound more negative than the ninnies in the Dominant Media. Get a grip! If this were WWII we'd only be 20 miles inside Iraq at this point, and the press would be calling it a "Blitzkrieg" advance. The 20 or so dead we've lost so far would be in the hundreds, and that would be considered "light" casualties.
To: patriot31u
is why they don't need those reporters with the troops. I think punches are being pulled because high command is worried about what gets seen back home Exactly. Who came up with that brilliant idea?
73
posted on
03/25/2003 6:57:09 AM PST
by
honway
To: Dirk McQuickly
Screw this. If top brass are going to play these idiotic games and not protect our brave men and women, then we need to get them out of there.
Don't get me wrong, I support our troops and this war, but damn it give our troops whatever they need to do their damn job. If the choice is between protecting our combat troops and maybe hitting some collaterals or not providing firepower because we're scared of Iraqi civilies, then it's a no brainer in my book.
Let our men do their job and protect them or get the them out of there.
74
posted on
03/25/2003 6:59:00 AM PST
by
KingPin
To: Stavka2
How many Americans cheered when they watched Red Dawn...no different Partisan warfare...what Iraq is doing...deal with it, its historically expected.
75
posted on
03/25/2003 7:01:09 AM PST
by
Stavka2
(Setting the record straight.)
To: Stavka2
No, you're wrong. Always allow surrenders...beat the hell out of them but allow surrenders. The enemy must always believe that surrender is a better alternative then fighting...even a cornored rabbit can be vicious.
Thank you. A voice of reason in the bedlam.
The primary agents of this guerilla operation have been the Ba'ath Militia, the Fedayeen Saddam, and the Special Security Organization. They have been sent to stiffen the resolve of the local regular troops. As you are aware, the NKVD was used by Stalin to keep wavering regular Red Army troops (not Guards units, they had pretty good unit cohesion, even in 1941) from breaking in that first black year of the Patriotic War. In addition, the Iraqis are not Russians. There's a big difference, and it shows on the battlefield.
As it begins to look like Saddam's time is up, the score settling will be bloody. The Regular Army has resented the Guard and the SSO for years, and has seen many loyal, patriotic officers executed on the whim of the Leader.
Meanwhile, the arm of decision will make itself felt within the week as 4th ID lands.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
76
posted on
03/25/2003 7:01:50 AM PST
by
section9
(You will all be shot unless you download the Saddam screensaver...)
To: honway
If our politicians and generals are not prepared to wage total war, our soldiers,sailors, mairines and airman will pay the ultimate price for this PC war.Bump
77
posted on
03/25/2003 7:02:14 AM PST
by
muggs
(Rally today at Batavia, OH Court House 7:30PM)
To: KingPin
Their job: help keep the United States legal if President Bush unleashes its fury against Saddam's forces I could save them a lot of money on the lawyers:
If the company commander in the field determines a target is a threat to his men, kill it. End of legal brief.
78
posted on
03/25/2003 7:02:55 AM PST
by
honway
Comment #79 Removed by Moderator
To: Let's Roll
Agree!
80
posted on
03/25/2003 7:03:53 AM PST
by
texson66
(Those who fail to study the past are condemed to repeat it. Those who fail to study the ........)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-139 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson