| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Americans Beat Iraqis Near Nasiriya |
| 2003-03-23 |
| U.S. Marines defeated Iraqi forces near the southern city of An Nasiriyah in the sharpest engagement of the war so far, U.S. Central Command said Sunday. But in a separate engagement, Iraqi forces ambushed an army supply convoy and 12 soldiers were missing. I hope somebody's looking for them — and for their captors... Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said about 10 Marines were killed in a faked surrender by Iraqi forces outside of An Nasiriyah. The Marines came under fire while preparing to accept what appeared to be surrendering Iraqis. Same thing happened in Gulf War I, at Khafji. It's a favored tactic... "We of course will be much more cautious in the way we view the battlefield as a result of some of these incidents," said Army Lt. Gen. John Abizaid. But he stressed that coalition forces would continue to place high priority on avoiding civilian casualties. Then we'll continue to take higher casualties... "It was a tough day of fighting for the coalition," Brooks said. Abizaid called the fighting there the "sharpest engagement of the war thus far." It'll get tougher as we get closer to Baghdad, unless they start hitting whoever's in front of us very hard and stop trying to coax them out... "But the Marines were successful," Abizaid said. "They defeated the enemy. First reports indicated they destroyed eight tanks, some anti-aircraft batteries that were in the region, and also some artillery, along with a number of infantry." Iraqi military officials claimed earlier that 25 American soldiers were killed in the operation in An Nasiriyah, a major crossing point over the Euphrates River northwest of Basra. Abizaid, speaking at the Qatar headquarters of U.S. Central Command, said he thought fewer than 10 troops were killed in the fighting and that "a number" of troops were wounded. He said coalition forces encountered significant resistance in the city. I hope to hell they're cleaning it out... FOLLOWUP: In what a defense official called "the sharpest engagement of the war so far," U.S. Marines suffered heavy casualties in fighting Sunday around the key Euphrates river crossing an-Nasariyah. The United States suffered 50 casualties in the ten-hour gun battle over bridges in the area with Iraqi troops — including members of the highly-trained Sedaveen [sic — probably Saddam's Fedayeen] militia. U.S. soldiers east of the city came under artillery fire. At least eight Marines killed in action were seen being taken from the scene. There was fighting in the streets of the city, with some enemy troops shooting from rooftops and the back of pickup trucks. The Marines used tanks and armored vehicles, and called in A-10 "tank killer" aircraft. Iraqis fought to the death in combat that field commanders said was "heavier than expected." |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #7 Hope they were making more than just baby formula for the French in that plant. |
| Posted by: Brew 2003-03-23 22:50:58 |
| #6 Encircled troops are part of a defeated army. Their only purpose if to kill. I would think that civilians would get as far away as possible from fortified sections of encircled "pockets." Is there any reason for tactical restraint? |
| Posted by: Anonon 2003-03-23 21:53:46 |
| #5 It would be better to have these brainwashed Iraqi military dead anyway, or else they'll be a problem in a new Iraq. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-23 20:12:54 |
| #4 Shock the enemy forces hard, then see if anybody sings a different tune, or flies a different flag. Dead buddies will change the tune quickly after a surround and a good pounding. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-23 19:50:22 |
| #3 I'm with El Id. The purpose of war is to DESTROY THE ENEMY. Fighting with half-measures is a sure road to defeat. Another "Highway of Death" is exactly the kind thing we should be hoping for. The Iraqis are prepared to take heavy casualties. So why aren't we prepared to inflict them? |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2003-03-23 19:18:15 |
| #2 This is part of the aspect of mobile warfare. You do leave pockets of resistance in your wake, rather than eat up time reducing each and everyone of them. Because Bastogne was on the critical road junction, the Germans didn't have much of a choice in going around it in Dec. '44. The result was the offensive floundered upon the village and the 101st. If the Germans had a viable alternative, they would have taken it and simply masked the 101st's position. Time was critical. Appearently, it is considered the same here. So we will have fights in the 'rear' areas as the follow on forces 'clean up' the pockets. Unfortunately, those in the pockets can attempt to hamper the critical supply line with hit and run ops out of the pockets. But, you may have a point. Is the administration afraid of another 'Highway of Death' on TV? |
| Posted by: Don 2003-03-23 17:06:32 |
| #1 I'm getting seriously pissed off at Rumsfeld because of today's events.Ditching the Powell Doctrine will cause more needless Allied losses at the expense of protecting enemy soldiers.How the hell are you (I'm not even American,you know) going to fight future wars if the leadership cares more about the enemy than your own GIs? |
| Posted by: El Id 2003-03-23 16:18:44 |