Warplanes attack Basra column

BBC ^ | 3/26/2003 18:24 GMT | Clive Myrie

[Forgiven_Sinner]

British troops are in position around Basra

Coalition warplanes are attacking a huge convoy of tanks and armoured personnel carriers which are heading south-east from Basra towards the al-Faw peninsula.

BBC correspondent Clive Myrie is close to the area and says the battle has been raging for more than an hour.

He says the movement of Iraqi armour may be a counter-attack to recapture ground lost over the last two or three days, or possibly a tactical retreat from Basra because of the possibility of an uprising in the north of the city.

British radar spotted the column of between 70 and 120 vehicles following the coast road along the Shatt al-Arab waterway and a number of fighter jets were scrambled to engage the column.

British troops are positioned along the coast road as well as around Basra, amid reports of an uprising in the city. Those reports have been dismissed by the Iraqis.

Earlier, 14 civilians died and another 30 were injured in Baghdad when a shopping area was hit during an air raid by US-led coalition forces, the Iraqi authorities say.

The BBC's Andrew Gilligan, at the scene in the northern Shaab district of the city, says it appears that two missiles hit a busy parade of shops, several hundred metres from any military buildings.

An angry crowd of several hundred people gathered in the area following the strike, waving the shoes and clothes of victims.

If confirmed as a coalition attack, correspondents say it will be a blow to attempts by the US-led forces to minimise civilian casualties during their drive to unseat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Key military developments

* Republican Guard units in the outskirts of Baghdad continue to be bombed

* Coalition forces fire intense artillery barrages towards the city of Nasiriya - about 370 kilometres (230 miles) south-east of Baghdad

British forces continue to report surprise resistance in Basra, which they had hoped would welcome them.

They said most resistance came from paramilitaries loyal to Saddam Hussein, using guerrilla tactics inside the city, rather than from the regular army.

But UK troops have been reluctant to enter the city aggressively to combat the paramilitaries, because of the risk to civilians.

IRAQ CAMPAIGN

Map: Military operations Iraq's Republican Guard

They have been halted again - this time at the town of Ash Shatrah, about 40 km north of the city of Nasiriya.

The Marines responded by calling in artillery strikes on Iraqi positions in the town.

The Iraqis say that about 200 houses in the city have been destroyed, and about 500 people wounded.

Further north, the US 7thCavalry has been involved in the largest battle of the war so far, near the central town of Najaf.

An American intelligence officer has said that up to 650 Iraqis who attacked the armoured column were killed.

That contrasts with an earlier estimate by the Pentagon of between 150 and 300 Iraqi dead.

In other developments:

* A large convoy of Republican Guards is reported to be moving south of Baghdad for what could be a major confrontation with coalition forces, Associated Press news agency says

Iraqis vow revenge after the blasts An angry crowd gathered at the scene * The US is sending another 30,000 troops to join the campaign in Iraq

* Arabic television channel al-Jazeera broadcasts a video of what it said was two dead British soldiers and two British prisoners of war

* US President George W Bush speaks of "steady progress" in the war and warns the Iraqi leadership that the "day of reckoning" is getting nearer. Mr Bush is to meet UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on Wednesday to discuss the immediate future of Iraq if Saddam Hussein is deposed

[Toskrin]

In GW1, all our soldiers, from generals on down, all commented on how incompetent the Iraqi tactics were. One tank commander said that even if the US had been in T-72s and the Iraqis in Abrams, we still would have beat them.

[Fury]

BBC says about 100 vehicles have left Basra, some are coming under artillery fire.

[AntiGuv]

Also, check out the expanded CNN report:

Iraqi forces charge south from Baghdad

[curmudgeonII]

They got some warriors alright. Got to grant that.

You could make the same statemet about the Japs in World War II.

[info_scout]

Still bad conditions for aviation, especially rotary wing. Even if they retake the penninsula, I don't see how they can hold it. Perhaps more an effort to score big propaganda points. To this point in the conflict, they appear to have learned the lessons of GW1.

[chiefqc]

Heard a Marine commander on Fox this morning describe them as being willing to die for their cause, "which a lot of them have done today."

I guess they're finding out that some days it's just not worth getting out of bed.

[San Jacinto]

it could be Saddam's blowing his whole load on a coordinated counter-attack gamble.

Of the various speculations raised, this is the one which seems to bear some logic, but, if so, who is this column 'attacking'? By moving south, they will be cut off from any future manuevers, even if they somehow reach whatever objective it is that they are headed for.

[Toskrin]

I suspect they realized they were encicrled, and are trying to break out. They went in the direction where enemy forces were lightest. There's a reason they were light towards the south - there's nowhere to retreat.

[Azarona Joel]

A-7C&E had the M61A 20MM Gattlin guns on board. I got to go to Bombing range 18 near Fallon ,Nevada once to watch them practice with guns and 500lb bombs. 5 miles away from a 500pounder is as close as I would want to be! The concusion at that distance took your breath away when it hit your chest!

[info_scout]

Attempt to retake Umm Qasr. Either a one-shot propaganda booster, or they feel they can move enough reenforcements down to redirect our reserve forces that are needed 200 miles north.

[bobsacamano]

A friend and I were discussing this...

he believes it is motivated by one of these factors:
1) to surrender (I highly doubt this)
2) in order to strike back at US units that have killed 100s of Iraqis in the last 24 hours
3) because they have positioned WMD in Baghdad and Basra which they will release/detonate at a predetermined time to cause a humanitarian and diplomatic disaster for the US.

[Tamaqua]

Alright. In the last 24 hours, I've heard:
1) 3D Inf. Div. in largest battle of the war
2) 7th Air Cav. in largest battle of the war
3) Iraqis moving toward Najef
4) Iraqis moving toward Naseriya (sp?)
5) Iraqis moving toward Basra
6) Iraquis moving out of Basra
I don't care if I know the facts. It only matters that the war commanders know and properly deploy the forces in the field. But I wish to God Almighty that Reuters, the Beeb and MSNBC would cut the crap. It's like listening to a ballgame on the radio when all the play-by-play guy will talk about is what the third base coach is doing.

[wildbill]

A friend of mine worked with the company that built the A10s and lost his job when they were taken out of production.

He said at the time that the Air Force was embarassed by the A10 because it was sub-sonic and so ugly. They envisioned all future needs of close ground support would be met by the sleeker jets flown by their hot dog jet jocks.

Poor old Warthogs just keep trashing those ideas.

[jerri]

That's what I'm thinking.

[SierraWasp]

"A-10 Warthog is a Beautiful Airplane! Bitchen"

More bichenerthan$hit!!!

[Coop]

3. The intel is faulty and they're actually moving north to retreat out of Basra. Other options?

4. They know they can drink alcohol if they can just make it across that bridge to Bahrain!

[houstonian]

[Darksheare]

I was in field artillery and got to watch the A-10's and F-16's go after dead trucks and such in the impact zone.
The concussion from a 500 pounder doesn't feel like all that much once you've been close to a howitzer as it fires.
(I got stuck doing RTO and keeping track of the 4513 record of fire sheets, so I pretty much was closest to the muzzle brake. Ouch, even for a little M119A1 105mm.)

Got told we'd started a small fire in the impact area which we put out with the next round.

[wildbill]

A friend of mine worked with the company that built the A10s and lost his job when they were taken out of production.

He said at the time that the Air Force was embarassed by the A10 because it was sub-sonic and so ugly. They envisioned all future needs of close ground support would be met by the sleeker jets flown by their hot dog jet jocks.

Poor old Warthogs just keep trashing those ideas.

[Doctor Stochastic]

No I don't. It is proper not to target civilians. One tries to minimize civilian casualties while winning as quickly as possible (which does minimize all casualties in the long run.)

What bothers me is comments like the one I responded to. The poster seems to be more interested in killing civilians than in liberating. Much (if not most) of the world belives that we are involved in a war of conquest rather than liberation. The post shows that to some Americans, this is true.

It is the attitude towards civilians that distinguishes military operations from terrorism. The 911 hijackers were terrorist in their attack on the World Trade Center as are the Palestinean suicide bombers. The attack (911) on the Pentagon was an act of war rather than terrorism (as was Pearl Harbor.) For that matter, Guderian was not executed but Jodel was for actions during WWII. The bombings of Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were acts of war in that the target was the war-making infrastructure of the Axis; that war was clearly going to be a long war wherein the means of production were important. A similar targetting of cities (rather than military installations in cities) would be terrorism in this war (and we are not doing that.)

Another good example is the Iraqi Irregulars: it is an act of war to shoot at American tanks; it is an act of terrorism to shoot surrendering Iraquis.