Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Iraq

U.S.: Ramadi battle kills 100-plus insurgents

2006-05-02

CNN -- U.S. and Iraqi troops killed more than 100 insurgents last week in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, a U.S. Army officer said Monday. Two Iraqis also died in the fighting, said Col. John Gronski, commander of the U.S. Army's 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 28th Infantry Division. No Americans were killed. Gronski said Iraqi forces "are doing very well" in the battle against insurgents in the volatile Anbar province city. "The Iraqi army is conducting aggressive operations here based on human intelligence from the people of Ramadi themselves," he said.

Gronski said the Iraqi soldiers' improved capability has bolstered the morale of U.S. troops working with them. U.S.-led coalition and Iraqi forces are trying to shut down insurgent supply routes into the area, setting up checkpoints and sometimes closing streets, he said. Gronski said an airstrike was called Sunday after coalition forces noticed insurgents removing weapons from a train station in the southeastern part of the city.

Posted by:Fred

#15 "U.S. and Iraqi troops killed more than 100 insurgents last week in Ramadi"

It's a start....

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-05-02 17:58

#14 L.H., It doesn't matter. Breaking the will of an enemy is always effective.

Posted by: Mike N. 2006-05-02 17:43

#13 See the Shelby Steele article on just this point and the reasons why. Consider the racist bombings in Serbia.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-05-02 17:42

#12 Bad news from the outset (i.e., spring 2004) is that we've generally decided to skip the war phase and go directly to the pacification phase.

This has been pretty obvious for a long time now. The objective is to take the least amount of damage, rather than inflict the maximum on the terrorists.

Posted by: FYF 2006-05-02 17:36

#11 is this a "real war", "a counterinsurgency" or just "tidying up a few bitter enders"?

Posted by: Liberalhawk 2006-05-02 17:16

#10 So true, Verlaine.

You've just made me depressed, however. This touchy-feely approach gets good people killed. If the Iraqi forces were "there" then it would be far less depressing.

Do you attribute this foolishness to military men who don't get it and won't fight, the State Dept, or who? Obviously those who favor this don't know enough about Arabs to be in decision-making positions.

Posted by: Sheretch Cluling2915 2006-05-02 15:07

#9 Bad news from the outset (i.e., spring 2004) is that we've generally decided to skip the war phase and go directly to the pacification phase. We've chosen not to even try breaking the enemy's will. Many here think that many in our military have out-smarted themselves, breezily substituting civil affairs/development/kiss-up for the killing and intimidation that has settled every real war in history (MNC-I CG Chiarelli has been challenged openly in meetings on this score).

It's all RUMINT, but word is that the very poorly kept secret of a major Ramadi operation in early May has turned out to be inaccurate - pushed back, at the least.

Lotsa folks hereabouts, sadly, just need killin'.

Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2006-05-02 14:35

#8 The one feeds off the other, doesn't it? Whack enough bad boys and the rest might decide to take up auto mechanics for a living. Get some to step away due to a political settlement and it becomes easier to get the remaining bad boys.

Posted by: Steve White 2006-05-02 13:55

#7 The temptation for the insurgents is to gather and attack en masse. Your "rank" in the movement is determined partially by how many fighters you can bring to the table.

The low level IED / sniping campaign hasn't cost the insurgents a lot, and keeps their manpower hidden. But it is not the big show.

And in the big show, the United States always wins. We own the air. We own the night. Everytime the insurgents try to mass for an attack, or to make a mass attack, it turns out very badly for them.

Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2006-05-02 13:26

#6 perf

to some extent it does. Now thats not necessarily wrong all the time. If you put the body counts into a strategic context, unlike what was done in Viet Nam.

Personally I think attrition will become meaningful when a political deal is reached that will sideline the parts of the insurgency other than the AQniks and the Saddamite leftovers. Those two groups will have a harder time getting new recruits than the insurgency does now. Thats why the political events in Baghdad are so important. Then we can attrit away the remainder. Meanwhile, big kills like this at least serve to contain the insurgency. and perhaps to make those elements of the insurgency that are negotiating, more pliable.

Posted by: Liberalhawk 2006-05-02 11:43

#5 One thing is for certain Perf. The MSM does not use ANY indicator relating to success. At least if Americans (aka myself) think hard boyz are being whacked and there is enemy attrition, then we are eliminating our problems one neighborhood at a time.

Posted by: Rightwing 2006-05-02 11:31

#4 "They're dyin' like rats, Wolf..."

Posted by: mojo 2006-05-02 11:08

#3 I hope that this does not reflect a return to the past of using body counts as the dominant metric of success.

Posted by: Perfesser 2006-05-02 09:20

#2 100 to 2 kill ratio?!?! Holy crap our tactics are getting good! Good to see the Iraqis fighting well. Now if a truely democratic government forms and stays around, the terrorists have fully lost in Iraq.

Posted by: DarthVader 2006-05-02 08:59

#1 The only truly effective way to shut the terrorists' supply lines down in Iraq is to stop them at the source.

Syria.

And Syria's new leash holder, Iran.

Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-02 00:36

00:00