Posted on 06/22/2003 7:14:41 AM PDT by IoCaster
Grenade Attack in Baghdad Kills U.S. Soldier
Sun June 22, 2003 09:34 AM ET
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier was killed and another was wounded in a grenade attack on a military convoy south of Baghdad Sunday, the U.S. military said.
A U.S. statement said the two soldiers had been evacuated by road after the attack in Khan Azad, 20 km (12 miles) south of the capital. One was dead on arrival at hospital.
It was the latest in a spate of attacks on U.S. forces in which 19 soldiers have been killed since President Bush declared major combat in Iraq over on May 1.
The assault came less than a day after an Iraqi oil pipeline was set ablaze near the town of Hit, about 140 km (90 miles) northwest of Baghdad, by a late-night explosion blamed by an Iraqi Oil Ministry official on sabotage.
Two U.S. soldiers were wounded in the same area Saturday afternoon when their vehicle detonated a land mine.
Sorry, we currently have no openings.
Your opinion counts for nothing when you throw around words like impeachment and incompetence.
You want to offer an informed opinion? Be my guest. A man of your "extroadinary management skills and analytical thinking" must have something more to offer than: I can do anything better than you.
Vietnam is not a valid analogy. The overwhelming majority of Iraquis are not involved in guerilla action.
It is a terrible thing that American men are being killed there almost daily but it is a good thing that they are hunting down and killing or imprisoning jihadists.
Current policy is to stabilise Iraq, search for WMD and neutralise future and cureent terroist including the fedayeen Saddam and remnants of the Ba'athist military.
The solution is?
The Vietnam analogy is much overused but your counterargument is weak. A "majority" of the Vietnamese were not involved in guerrilla action. For that matter, the same thing could be said about China in 1948, Algeria in the 1950s, or Cuba in 1958.
The military believes these fighters are loyalists to Saddam. Others believe they are part of the influx of "outside" men. It's probably both but yes, killing Saddam and his sons will definitely be a start to destroying this group. The tactics the military use to root this problem out will be hugely important as well. We've got to nip this in the bud without taking it out on innocent civilians. These bastards don't care about the people there. They're the same ones that would make a pregnant woman charge a checkpoint for the PR value her corpse will have and the same ones that hide behind civilians while firing.
It's just my opinion but these groups must be made to understand that these attacks will never ever result in us turning tail and running like we did in Somalia. Never. There can be no hope of that happening in their little goat minds at all and the best place to make sure that impression starts is right here at home.
Beam me up Scotty. We have undertaken an enormous task to rebuild a nation that was under one of the most cruel and ruthless despots for over 25 years and make it a democracy (of sorts) worthy of emmulation. We also want and need a permanent presence in the region to start the process of dismantling States that support terrorism, i.e., Syria and Iran, and to protect the energy resources in a region that is so critical to the global economy.
Bush is undertaking one of the most bold and significant foreign policy initiatives in our history. It will take a stiff spine and a oneness of purpose to carry it off. A "fast timetable for withdrawal" is not supportive of these goals. That was Clinton's foreign policy--remember Somalia and Haiti. I also recall that Clinton said we would be in Kosovo for a year--eight years ago.
Answar al Islam uses Islam in their name for a reason. They are being hunted in Northern Iraq as we speak. Neither I nor the admistration claimed that the fedayeen Saddam or the Ba'athists were "jihadists" although their is plenty of evidence that "jihadists" from surrounding countries enlisted in their ranks to kill Americans.
The Vietnam analogy is much overused but your counterargument is weak. No, my argument is fact. Iraq is no Vietnam for a number of reasons, both geography and geopolitics included. There is currently a small "minority" of guerillas or "terrorists" actively involved in hunting and killing American. No equivalence to NVA and Viet COng, none, nadda zip.
A "majority" of the Vietnamese were not involved in guerrilla actiion. For that matter, the same thing could be said about China in 1948, Algeria in the 1950s, or Cuba in 1958.
Yeah, and?
Yes, that was terrific. But now what? It appears that foreigners from several countries are coming in to do jihad against our guys, if the reports are correct. Starting to sound like the Soviets and Afganistan a bit.
So now what?
Okay, when is it?
We must stay and achieve our goal
Which is, in your opinion?
Why not simply throw-in-the-towel now? Spare us, and avoid the wait.
To what problem? The administration is attemtping to solve the problem of the proliferation of terrorism aimed at Americans from the Middle East. Bush is putting it all on the line because he believes that to do nothing is a much more dangerous proposition.
If you are looking for utopia, you will be chasing windmills forever. If you are looking for the most realistic option, it is to turn over authority to an interim government (before it is thoroughly tainted by nationalist accusations of collaboration) and undertake a fast time table for withdrawal.
Which would make the entire exercise undertaken and seen through by young Americans in uniform futile.
No, the jihadists are on the ropes. If Bush can stabilise Iraq with some sort of democracy it may spread seeds. Very difficult I know.
I don't think you can place a specific number on the number of casualties, it that is your point. A quagmire is when we see no hope of achieving our objectives and withdrawal is the only reasonable option. We have not reached that point at all in just a scant few months.
We must stay and achieve our goal Which is, in your opinion?
Our goals are to provide the conditions for the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq; to eliminate Iraq's support of terrorism; to stabilze the region including the free flow of oil to fuel the global economy; and to change the region's political dynamic to promote democratic ideals and institutions. For a start...
First the press said 50, than 41..now 19 casualties since May 1st? Chaos? Nonsense. We have 146,000 Coalition troops and 24 years worth of Saddam regime bad guys w/out a future, newly released criminals and terrorist-wannabes...a nation of over 24 million Iraqis. The death rate is higher in DC and in Austin, TX. traffic.
What the press never reports is the # of bad guys WE take out (FAR more)! Our enemies (including the partisan far-left press) know Americans can't handle "casualties" - they've been insulting the military by hyping each death and "crisis" while ignoring their awesome successes.
Odierno: We are seeing military activity throughout our zone. But I really qualify it as militarily insignificant. They are very small, they are very random, they are very ineffective. I believe there's three groups out there right now. Basically, there is a group of ex-Saddam Ba'ath Party loyalists. In addition, there are some Islamic fundamentalists. And then there are just some plain Iraqis who are poor and are being paid to attack U.S. forces. All of these attacks are uncoordinated. They are very ineffective and, in my mind, really do not have much effect on U.S. forces.
And if you are -- on a daily basis, you will see that 99 percent of the area is free, clear, and the citizens go about every day, doing their business, without interruption.
Q: If I could, the military insignificance -- I believe 11 soldiers have been killed in the last three weeks. So clearly they're having a rather profound effect.
And also, you talk about them not being organized, and yet you say they're just plain Iraqis who are being paid. Who's paying them, if they're not organized?
Odierno: My guess is, they're being paid by ex-Ba'ath Party loyalists, who are paying people to kill Americans.
And I want to make sure -- first, I want to comment on the 11 individuals that have been killed. I will never downplay Americans being killed in combat. It is a very significant sacrifice, especially for their families. And that is significant to an individual's family, and I would never say anything different from that.
But from a military perspective, it is insignificant. They're having no impact on the way we conduct business on a day-to-day basis in Iraq.
Q: General, Jim Mannion from Agence France-Presse. These attacks appear to have escalated or increased in number just in the past few weeks. Is that associated in any way with the decision to ban the Ba'ath Party and to disband the Army? And is there a risk with these raids of increasing opposition to the U.S. forces?
Odierno: I have a little different view of it. I think the raids that we're conducting, we have put a lot of pressure on them, and I think they're feeling the pressure. And I think we're having a significant effect on their ability, which is causing them to come out and maybe increase their attacks even though they have been ineffective. So I think they're desperate. I think they're becoming less and less organized. The more money we seize, the more individuals we take into custody, we continue to really, I think, have an impact on the medium to senior level of the individuals that remain. So I think we are, in fact, having a significant impact on them. I think that's causing them, then, to come out and be a little more desperate in their attacks on U.S. forces.
No, I don't think so either. We shall be more certain in retrospect, which is why I asked my question.......
Is this what a 'quagmire' looks like at its start?
And the answer is...perhaps.
Our goals are to provide the conditions for the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq; to eliminate Iraq's support of terrorism; to stabilze the region including the free flow of oil to fuel the global economy; and to change the region's political dynamic to promote democratic ideals and institutions
Very ambitious goals to be sure. Funny, I don't recall GWB or friends saying anything about including the free flow of oil to fuel the global economy
You're not telling me the lefties were on the mark when they claimed...'it's about oil', are you?
Only an idiot thought this would be easy.
This is starting to look like our version of Chechnya.
Again a faulty analogy. You're a smart guy, surely you understand the difference between Afghanistan, a feudal society, and Iraq, a country of educated people a middles class and vast wealth in natural resources. No, of the two, I would say Afghanistan would be the harder task once the jihadists and fedayeen are sent on their virgin search.
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.