Sadaam's army.......still undefeated
-
... ... ...
-
If it bleeds, it leads. . . .
If US forces are killed or wounded, the SIGACT might start like this:
Blam, Blam, Blam! . . . explosions . . . followed by a roar of small arms. So many weapons firing from so many directions, tracers bouncing off roads, zinging off buildings, rooms exploding, dust and smoke, a soldier cries out, “I’m hit!” and his buddies run across a road to help him and another is shot, “I’m hit!”
Then someone makes the radio call:
“Deuce Main, Apache Six, Contact, over.” [Deuce Four headquarters, this is the Alpha Company Commander]
“Apache-Six, Deuce-Main, send it.”
“This is Apache-Six. Heavy small-arms and RPGs vicinity 4-West. Three friendly casualties, one is litter-urgent. Still in contact. We are in pursuit trying not to lose contact. Estimate 25 AIF [insurgents], all dismounted. Request QRF, over.”
“Apache-Six, Deuce-Main, QRF spinning up. Warmonger is en route and fast movers in vicinity. Bulldog Company has a platoon two kilometers west en route to you. They are under your control time now. Don’t let the AIF break contact. Over.”
“Roger, at least four enemy KIA. All Apache elements remain in contact and we have them isolated in a four-block area, over.”
“Apache-Six, Deuce-Main, keep up the good work, don’t let them get away. More combat power is on the way to assist in isolation.”
“Deuce-Main, Apache-Six, roger, out.”
Within seconds, someone will be typing up a SIGACT that might look like this:
SECRET
TACREP: XXXX
Subject: Smalls Arms Engagement
Time/Date: 2120 L 24 May 05
Narrative: Alpha Company 1-24 INF reports small arms and RPG, vicinity. . . . Reports 3 friendly WIA (1 litter-urgent, 2 routine). 4 Enemy KIA. . . .
When this SIGACT is translated by a PAO, this might come out: “3 US soldiers were wounded by small-arms in Mosul, Iraq. The soldiers were assigned to Task Force Freedom.” News agencies that call or request information will get some variation of this report.
Such reports flow from all over Iraq to a place in Baghdad called the CPIC (Combined Press Information Center). The CPIC is like the Uber-PAO for Iraq, serving all branches of the military, and other nations in the Coalition. The CPIC collects those reports and makes a release that might go like this:
“3 US soldiers were wounded in a small arms engagement in Mosul. 3 US soldiers from Task Force Baghdad were wounded by a car bomb in Baquba while conducting convoy operations in Diyala Province. 1 US soldier was slightly wounded by an IED while conducting combat operations in Baghdad. 2 US Marines were killed in a Humvee accident in Anbar Province. A Blackhawk helicopter made an emergency landing near Ramadi. No injuries were reported.”
This will hit pages all over the world, but in a newsier voice:
“A US helicopter made an emergency landing near Ramadi under unknown circumstances. An insurgent website claiming affiliation to Al-Qaeda in Iraq says they shot down the helicopter with a surface-to-air missile. A US military spokesman would not comment. Elsewhere, one US soldier and two Marines were killed and seven other service members were wounded in Iraq, along with at least 18 deaths from a suicide car-bomber near the Syrian border. This brings total Coalition deaths in Iraq to 1,800. In other news, photos of the former dictator of Iraq in his underwear have infuriated the Arab world and angered the Pentagon, which promised a full investigation. . . .”
Not Newsworthy: This medicÂ’s attention was significant for this little girl after a car bomb in Mosul, but it didnÂ’t make the SIGACTs or media releases.
But news of a baby girl with a circulatory condition who needed surgery getting medical help from US soldiers and a concerned nurse did not become a SIGACT, nor will it be included in a media release. So, unless a reporter was embedded with that unit at that time–and decides to tell the story–no one will ever know this one small, but powerfully important detail. There are a thousand such details falling like trees in a forest, but no one is listening for those kinds of sounds.
I write about them when I can, but there’s an irony to all of this that is hard to escape. Most of the acts of kindness I witness are done from an instinctive altruism that almost always seeks anonymity. And there is that other problem with catching people doing good–the cynical media is quick to ascribe cheap motivations to soldiers who reveal their humanity through their decency. And does anyone really care about the soldiers who, after having arrested a suspected insurgent, then spent the next twenty minutes trying to find a home for the two little puppies he was keeping? -
If the USA did not attack Iraq in the first place, there would not be any injurred kids that the US soldiers so lovingly care for in your photos.
Sadam Hussain would have ensured peace in Iraq. He would also have killed any al-Qaeda terrorists that dared to appear in Iraq.
He gassed the Kurds because they wanted to split away......would you let Bedok spilt away to join malaysia?
Sadaam was a tyrant, but he allowed his people to wear miniskirts.....he even allowed Christian churches to exist unlike in Saudi Arabia.
It was the USA which attacked an independent country which posed no threat to anyone at all...........
US navy attacking Iraq with missiles -
Iraq was attacked on the basis of faulty intelligence.......and the fact that Bush wanted to take revenge for an attempt on the life of his daddy allegedly by sadam hussein........so sadaam must die...... -
As I said, military nuts is a forum for grunts' and the grunts life. If you want to discuss politics, please head on down to speaker's corner where there will be people more then willing to discuss your views on the Iraq war.
But right here we are mainly focused about the grunts and what they do on the ground. And so far they have conducted themselves well in general. -
I don't know why some people choose to blame the US military for the ongoing fighting in Iraq when those insurgents are the ones who ought to be blamed instead.
It is the insurgents and terrorists who are responsible for bombings that kills American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. They are the ones who cower and retreat into crowds of civilians when contacted.
Stop blaming and directing all you hate at the soldiers on the ground. Most of them didn't ask to be sent to Iraq in the first place, and majority of them still don't know what they are fighting for.
Show some degree of respect for them as soldiers in a uniform and under a flag. They fight under tight rules of engagements against bastards who'd use children as human shields and high explosives where civilians gather.
If you wanna question the reason for the whole war itself, please direct your anger at the politicians. They are the ones responsible for this mess. Not the military, not the grunts. -
A lot of iraqis don't want the Americans there. So maybe they should call for a vote to see how many are for or against having US troops.
-
You guys should read Michael Yon's dispatches.
-
Actually if you understand a bit of Iraqi culture, they can be quite a confused bunch.Originally posted by chino65:A lot of iraqis don't want the Americans there. So maybe they should call for a vote to see how many are for or against having US troops.
It does not help that the factions are often working towards contradictary objectives with all the tribal feuds and politics.
They don't want the Yanks around and support the insurgents (to an extent), but at the same time they care little for the kind of regime that the insurgents want to impose, and of course at the same time desire the benefits international aid brings but are unwilling to create the safe environment that makes it possible.
On the other hand, some have no choice but to play a balancing act. If they appear to support the Yanks, trouble will certainly come from the insurgents on them and their families.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. -
There's always 2 sides to any story. Ppl who choose to focus on just one & then run their mouths off based on that are either (1) gullible or (2) politically motivated.
-
Let's add the Saudis to the fun!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?pagewanted=printJuly 27, 2007
SaudisÂ’ Role in Iraq Frustrates U.S. Officials
By HELENE COOPER
This article was reported by Helene Cooper, Mark Mazzetti and Jim Rutenberg, and written by Ms. Cooper.
WASHINGTON, July 26 — During a high-level meeting in Riyadh in January, Saudi officials confronted a top American envoy with documents that seemed to suggest that Iraq’s prime minister could not be trusted.
One purported to be an early alert from the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr warning him to lie low during the coming American troop increase, which was aimed in part at Mr. SadrÂ’s militia. Another document purported to offer proof that Mr. Maliki was an agent of Iran.
The American envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, immediately protested to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, contending that the documents were forged. But, said administration officials who provided an account of the exchange, the Saudis remained skeptical, adding to the deep rift between AmericaÂ’s most powerful Sunni Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, and its Shiite-run neighbor, Iraq.
Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi ArabiaÂ’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.
One senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Maliki. He declined to say whether that support was going to Sunni insurgents because, he said, “That would get into disagreements over who is an insurgent and who is not.”
Senior Bush administration officials said the American concerns would be raised next week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates make a rare joint visit to Jidda, Saudi Arabia.
Officials in Washington have long resisted blaming Saudi Arabia for the chaos and sectarian strife in Iraq, choosing instead to pin blame on Iran and Syria. Even now, military officials rarely talk publicly about the role of Saudi fighters among the insurgents in Iraq.
The accounts of American concerns came from interviews with several senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they believed that openly criticizing Saudi Arabia would further alienate the Saudi royal family at a time when the United States is still trying to enlist Saudi support for Mr. Maliki and the Iraqi government, and for other American foreign policy goals in the Middle East, including an Arab-Israeli peace plan.
In agreeing to interviews in advance of the joint trip to Saudi Arabia, the officials were nevertheless clearly intent on sending a pointed signal to a top American ally. They expressed deep frustration that more private American appeals to the Saudis had failed to produce a change in course.
The American officials said they had no doubt that the documents shown to Mr. Khalilzad were forgeries, though the Saudis said they had obtained them from sources in Iraq. “Maliki wouldn’t be stupid enough to put that on a piece of paper,” one senior Bush administration official said. He said Mr. Maliki later assured American officials that the documents were forgeries.
The Bush administrationÂ’s frustration with the Saudi government has increased in recent months because it appears that Saudi Arabia has stepped up efforts to undermine the Maliki government and to pursue a different course in Iraq from what the administration has charted. Saudi Arabia has also stymied a number of other American foreign policy initiatives, including a hoped-for Saudi embrace of Israel.
Of course, the Saudi government has hardly masked its intention to prop up Sunni groups in Iraq and has for the past two years explicitly told senior Bush administration officials of the need to counterbalance the influence Iran has there. Last fall, King Abdullah warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against IraqÂ’s Shiites if the United States pulled its troops out of Iraq, American and Arab diplomats said.
Several officials interviewed for this article said they believed that Saudi ArabiaÂ’s direct support to Sunni tribesmen increased this year as the Saudis lost faith in the Maliki government and felt they must bolster Sunni groups in the eventuality of a widespread civil war.
Saudi Arabia months ago made a pitch to enlist other Persian Gulf countries to take a direct role in supporting Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, said one former American ambassador with close ties to officials in the Middle East. The former ambassador, Edward W. Gnehm, who has served in Kuwait and Jordan, said that during a recent trip to the region he was told that Saudi Arabia had pressed other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council — which includes Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman — to give financial support to Sunnis in Iraq. The Saudis made this effort last December, Mr. Gnehm said.
The closest the administration has come to public criticism was an Op-Ed page article about Iraq in The New York Times last week by Mr. Khalilzad, now the United States ambassador to the United Nations. “Several of Iraq’s neighbors — not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States — are pursuing destabilizing policies,” Mr. Khalilzad wrote. Administration officials said Mr. Khalilzad was referring specifically to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates, as well as Mr. Cheney and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, have in recent months pressed their Arab counterparts to do more to encourage IraqÂ’s Sunni leaders to support Mr. Maliki, senior administration officials said.
“This message certainly has been made very clear in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi,” a senior administration official said. “But there is a deep reserve directed both at the person of the Maliki government but more broadly at the concept” that Iraq’s Shiites are “surrogates of Iran.” Saudi Arabia has grown increasingly concerned about the rising influence of Iran in the region.
A spokesman at the Saudi Embassy in Washington did not return telephone calls on Thursday. But one adviser to the royal family said that Saudi officials were aware of the American accusations. “As you know by now, we in Saudi Arabia have been active in having a united Arab front to, first, avoid further inter-Arab conflict, and at the same time building consensus to move toward a peace settlement between the Arabs and Israel,” he said. “How others judge our motives is their problem.”
Even as American frustration at Saudi Arabia grows, American military officials are still cautious about publicly detailing the extent of the flow of foreign fighters going to Iraq from Saudi Arabia. Earlier this month, for instance, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the top American military spokesman in Iraq, detailed the odyssey of a foreign fighter recently captured in Ramadi.
In his public account, General Bergner told reporters that the man had arrived in Syria on a chartered bus, was smuggled into Iraq by a Syrian facilitator, and was given instructions to carry out a suicide truck bombing on a bridge in Ramadi. He did not identify the manÂ’s nationality, but American officials in Iraq say he was a Saudi.
The American officials in Iraq also say that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia and that about 40 percent of all foreign fighters are Saudi. Officials said that while most of the foreign fighters came to Iraq to become suicide bombers, others arrived as bomb makers, snipers, logisticians and financiers.
American military and intelligence officials have been critical of Saudi efforts to stanch the flow of fighters into Iraq, although they stress that the Saudi government does not endorse the idea of fighters from Saudi Arabia going to Iraq. -
On the contrary, they said, Saudi Arabia is concerned that these young men could acquire insurgency training in Iraq and then return home to carry out attacks in Saudi Arabia — similar to the Saudis who turned against their homeland after fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
The Bush administration’s relationship with Saudi Arabia has deteriorated steadily since the United States invasion of Iraq, culminating in April when, bitingly, King Abdullah, during a speech before Arab heads of state in Riyadh, condemned the American invasion of Iraq as “an illegal foreign occupation.”
A month before that, King Abdullah effectively torpedoed a high-profile meeting between Israelis and Palestinians, planned by Ms. Rice, by brokering a power-sharing agreement between the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the militant Islamist group Hamas that did not require Hamas to recognize Israel. While that agreement eventually fell apart, the Bush administration, on both occasions, was caught off guard and became infuriated.
But Saudi officials have not been too happy with President Bush, either, and the plummeting of AmericaÂ’s image in the Muslim world has led King Abdullah to strive to set a more independent course.
The administration “thinks the Saudis are no longer behaving the role of the good vassal,” said Steve Clemons, senior fellow and director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The Saudis, in turn, “see weakness, they see a void, and they’re going to fill the void and call their own shots.”
Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad. -
the problem is trying to unify em.... theres like 4 races ther n to make it worst they hate each other....so to win i suppose US got to help 1 of the races and kill the other i suppose or to get em to make peace.... kinda like suppressing the other race to join em .... the 1 to blame is Bush he is the one behind the attck in the first place. ppl say he attck because his father didnt capture baghdad in 1991 so i guess he wanted to help his father do tat.
btw nice pic of the battle ship last few surviving ones in service -
i like pictures when medical forces are involved...those forces does the most "hearts n minds" in any battle
-
As one said, if you throw politics into the mix it just a mess.
But in terms of the grunts, they have conducted themselves well... in general. We tend to focus on the bad stuff that happens but leave out the majority of the good stuff that they have done during their time there. -
Bleh.. Iraq War.. And peacekeeping in Afghanistan.. Hard to win a war when the people are killing/kidnapping people that are volunteering to give themselves up of their comfy life back home and go to a living hell to help them...
For e.g the 23 koreans.. They can just sit at home back at korea and watch K-Drama.. instead of going to afghan and get captured while one of them is killed.
If the Allied forces in Iraq doesn't have any ROEs.. Lets see who will have the last laugh. o_o Allied forces are fighting under strict ROEs while terrorist can do whatever they want.. IEDs, suicide bomb, attack civilians, run and hide among civilian for cover knowing the Allied Forces won't fire into the crowed. Hide weapons, food, ammo into Mosque knowing that they aren't allowed to search/bomb places of worship.. So how to win this kind of $hit war?