Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "B3 reader asks timely but loaded question..."] [Archive Index] [>>"Wait a second..."]
12/01/2003 Archived Entry: "About that Big Battle on Sunday...."
About that Big Battle on Sunday....
Much was made of that big battle in Samarra, Iraq on Sunday - you couldn't turn on the TV or radio without hearing about the 54 Iraqi insurgents killed after they attacked a supply convoy.
But there are a couple of problems with the story. A couple of big problems.
Military spokesman Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told a Baghdad news conference that 54 "enemy combatants" were killed in firefights that raged for most of Sunday afternoon in Samarra, 62 miles north of Baghdad."In this engagement, an estimated 54 enemy personnel were killed, an estimated 22 enemy were wounded, and one is in captivity," he said.
Colonel Frederick Rudesheim, commander of the U.S. 4th Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team, earlier told reporters at the U.S. base in Samarra that 46 guerrillas were killed and 11 captured.
Police said eight civilians had also been killed, including an Iranian pilgrim. Doctors said they had only seen six bodies, but Rudesheim said this did not mean U.S. forces had misjudged the number of insurgents killed.
"The adversary we face in this area will not bring all the casualties to the local hospitals," he said.
One policeman in Samarra, Captain Sabti Awad, said American troops fired randomly, killing and wounding civilians, after the U.S. convoys were attacked while they delivered money to banks. Rudesheim said troops only fired aimed shots.
And we'll have to get a definition of 'supply convoy.' According to an email from a US combat leader onCol. David Hackworth's web site, those weren't just any supplies...
The convoy which was attacked while driving through Samara was not a supply convoy as reported, but was carrying large amounts of new Iraqi currency to stock local Iraqi banks and US greenbacks used to pay for goods and services the US forces need to accomplish their missions in Iraq. This convoy was heavily guarded by Abrams Tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. It was akin to a huge Brinks Truck delivery.[...]
Hack, most of the casualties were civilians, not insurgents or criminals as being reported. During the ambushes the tanks, brads and armored HUMVEES hosed down houses, buildings, and cars while using reflexive fire against the attackers. One of the precepts of "Iron Hammer" is to use an Iron Fist when dealing with the insurgents. As the division spokesman is telling the press, we are responding with overwhelming firepower and are taking the fight to the enemy. The response to these well coordinated ambushes was as a one would expect. The convoy continued to move, shooting at ANY target that appeared to be a threat. RPG fire from a house, the tank destroys the house with main gun fire and hoses the area down with 7.62 and 50cal MG fire. Rifle fire from an alley, the brads fire up the alley and fire up the surrounding buildings with 7.62mm and 25mm HE rounds. This was actually a rolling firefight through the entire town.
Seems the entire story is yet to be told.
Replies: 2 people speak up
I would agree that reliable enemy body counts will be problematic at best. Since it would appear that we are bogged down in a Vietnam-style guerrilla war, we'll be fed a constant stream of overblown enemy casualty statistics.
Another angle to this disturbing story is our habit of throwing heavy ordnance in the general direction of hostile fire. This virtually guarantees numerous civilian dead and wounded. That, in turn, will lead to more popular resentment. Resentment becomes resistance. Resistance becomes insurgence. More civilians killed and wounded. It's frighteningly easy for things to spriral out of control.
Posted by Metropolitan99 @ 12/02/2003 12:39 PM NY
dont be silly, its not important who we kill, its just important that we are killing people (as long as they are arab anyway)
that method has been working in israel for decades now. if you think there might be an enemy in a building, just blow it up, how could that go wrong? after all israel has its terrorism completely under controll, dont they? (by controll, i mean that they allow just enough terrorism to happen to allow them to continue their anti terrorism policies)
after all, isnt that what this war is all about?
Posted by justin @ 12/02/2003 01:49 PM NY
