Attack May Signal the Future Use of Guerilla Tactics

NYTimes ^ | March 29, 2003 | STEVEN LEE MYERS

[RJCogburn]

WITH THE THIRD INFANTRY, Central Iraq, Saturday, March 29 — A Iraqi suicide bomber killed five U.S. soldiers today by luring them to his taxi cab at a checkpoint north of Najaf and then detonating an explosive, an army spokesman in the region said.

The attack occurred north of Najaf on a road west of the Euphrates River. The victims were all members of the division's First Brigade, which has been involved in significant fighting around the city since last weekend.

Capt. Andrew J. Valles, the civil affairs officer for the First Brigade, said the attack occurred just after noon when the taxi pulled up to the checkpoint and called to the soldiers, who approached the car cautiously in a security drill that put two of them in front of the car and three on the side.

"As they approached the vehicle the driver detonated a bomb killing all five of the soldiers and himself," Capt. Valles said.

It was the first suicide bomb attack on United States soldiers fighting in Iraq, and signaled a potentially disturbing turn of events as irregular forces loyal to Saddam Hussein have been seeking to employ guerrilla tactics to slow the advance of an 80,000 member army on Baghdad.

An earlier suicide car bombing occurred this week in northern Iraq at a civilian checkpoint at Girdi Go, in the Kurdish controlled region. That blast killed four people, including an Australian television cameraman. It followed American military attacks on Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group allied with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization.

The checkpoint near Najaf was part of the cordon that the Third Infantry has been enforcing around the holy city, where Ali, the spiritual leader Shiite Muslims is buried in a major shrine visited by pilgrims from around the world.

"I don't know what motivated this guy to kill himself. To me this is not an act of war," said Capt. Valles. "It's terrorism -- a man in a civilian vehicle killing himself at a checkpoint."

[goldstategop]

NYT idiots. Not Guerilla but rather terrorist tactics. One would think the NYT was smart enough to figure out the difference between the two.

[Mister Baredog]

NYT idiots. Not Guerilla but rather terrorist tactics.

They know the difference and would have called them terrorists if Clintoon were still in office.

[VoteHarryBrowne2000]

Your assumption is that the NYT wants to report objectively. It would appear that they do not wish to be objective, but rather have a political ideology to promote.

[libertylover]

It followed American military attacks on Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group allied with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization.

Notice how the liberal press just casually mentions this little fact after denying for the last year that there is any connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

[nathanbedford]

Whatever label you stick on it, the New York Times got this much right:

"potentially disturbing turn of events"

[goldstategop]

Notice how they don't label it a terrorist group, just an "extremist" organization. The bias is blatant.

[meyer]

Frankly, I'm sure that this kind of activity was expected. That doesn't make it any nicer, of course, but its how these people work. It'll happen again, but our troops will be guarding against it.

[wgeorge2001]

"I don't know what motivated this guy to kill himself. To me this is not an act of war," said Capt. Valles. "It's terrorism -- a man in a civilian vehicle killing himself at a checkpoint."


And 5 U.S. soldiers. Terroism strikes again; and the P.C. leftist rag New York Times reports:


"Attack May Signal the Future Use of Guerilla Tactics"


And once again creates the delusion of the communist/totalitarian loving liberal left that these murderers are freedom fighters!

[chainsaw]

The Al Queda terrorist influence.

The military will have to tell locals that no travel is permitted at this time, or risk being blown off the road by 125mm fire. No exceptions will be allowed. This could save both american and Iraqi lives, and at the same time take out the Al Queda, which we know are now fighting with the Iraqis

[goldstategop]

By makeshift formations of guerrilas operating under recognized authority. I wouldn't ascribe the honor of guerrila to a group of thugs who violate every rule of warfare in the process while they sow carnage.

[dennisw]

Terrorists kill 5 Americans. Tommy boy Daschle loves it. He's salivating for a "quagmire" and a Democrap victory in 2004.

[poindexter]

"Not Guerilla but rather terrorist tactics. One would think the NYT was smart enough to figure out the difference between the two."

The NYT thinks George Bush is the terrorist.

[goldstategop]

The pro-Saddam wackos actually believe the greatest threat to world peace is President Bush.

[Feckless]

"Attack May Signal the Future Use of Guerilla Tactics"

Attack may signal the end of accepting surrenders. This and other actions (faking surrenders, executing POWs, etc) is going to get a hell of a lot more Iraqis killed than would otherwise die.

As an NCO, I would never order or permit my soldiers to commit war crimes. I would, however, make it clear in their minds that their safety and that of their troops depended on erring on the side of caution and that 1000 dead Iraqis was better than 1 dead GI.

1SG, USA(Ret)
Desert Storm

[AAABEST]

We should stop being indignant (as the British were during our revolutionary war towards our guerillas) and realize the enemy for what he is.

Sorry, but it's not a terrorist attack to go after an kill invading troops, regardless of how you feel about the integrity of our cause.

We obviously have a very determined and strong willed enemy who's playing for keeps, and should be treated as such. Indignation accomplishes nothing except inspiring anger. Angry people make mistakes.

[AAABEST]

I agree. If you remember correctly in GW-1, we were instructed to take no chances. Our orders were if someone is sniping at you from a building, take the who effen building out.