Breaking: U.S. forces launch largest air assault since invasion

[Boetie]

The timing is suspect. It's obvious the Iraqi parliament was to get together. Just before the parliament got together 87 bodies were found around Bhagdad, this didn't sit well with the US. So the bombing begins.

The reason a civil war is in the makings is because the Sunnis did not show up for the Constitution election, because the Consitution is very weak on centralized goverment. The reason the Sunnis showed up for the election selecting a Representative is because they hoped that their Representitatives will change the Constitution. It was after that election the Shittes told the Sunni Representatives the Constitution will not be changed no matter what the Sunni Representatives think.

Without a change in that Constitution a possible civil war make break out. So the bombings is a way of trying to stall on the inevitable.

[rmnunez]

Rick, I'm astonished at your cite from the International Herald Tribune:

The US military usually describes insurgents as "terrorists," so Iraqis netted in the raids could have just been ordinary farmers from rural areas near Samarra.

It doesn't logically follow that if the US military says insurgents are terrorists, people caught by them must be ordinary farmers.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp From this morning's International Herald Tribune. Sounds like the operation has managed to round up 30 or so farmers.

logical connection between farmers and insurgents? you provide as much evidence for your view as can be found in a pile of cow manure. if they are truly farmers, then they will be released, for one. for another, were you there? if not just stuff a sock in your mouth and shut up.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Rick, I'm astonished at your cite from the International Herald Tribune: It doesn't logically follow that if the US military says insurgents are terrorists, people caught by them must be ordinary farmers.

Why am I not atonished that you are astonished? The IHT is a very good newspaper.

It follows that if the US rounds up large numbers of people, calling them terrorists, then determines that 95% are indeed innocent bystanders, as has so often been the case in Iraq, that the next time one might look with scepticism at similar claims. Obviously you wouldn't, but a reasonable person might.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 logical connection between farmers and insurgents? you provide as much evidence for your view as can be found in a pile of cow manure. if they are truly farmers, then they will be released, for one. for another, were you there? if not just stuff a sock in your mouth and shut up.

Speaking of cow manure, your insults are just that.

No I wasn't there. Were you? I guess not. The quote from a reporter in Iraq was:

The US military usually describes insurgents as "terrorists," so Iraqis netted in the raids could have just been ordinary farmers from rural areas near Samarra.

In case you haven't noticed, it looks like the insurgents slipped away in advance. Surprise, surprise.

[rmnunez]

Rick, I was astonished because I thought the IHT was a good source, usually it seems pretty reliable, its contents culled from some of the best periodical journalists of global circulation. The statement that since the US calls insurgents terrorists and they caught 30 or 50 "insurgents", doesn't logically lead to the conclusion these captives must be farmers. That conclusion would make sense if the US normally refers to farmers as insurgents -which seems to be your conclusion too.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Rick, I was astonished because I thought the IHT was a good source, usually it seems pretty reliable, its contents culled from some of the best periodical journalists of global circulation. The statement that since the US calls insurgents terrorists and they caught 30 or 50 "insurgents", doesn't logically lead to the conclusion these captives must be farmers. That conclusion would make sense if the US normally refers to farmers as insurgents -which seems to be your conclusion too.

Both the Red Cross and the US Reservist Army guards at the prison agreed that at least 9 out of 10 prisoners in Abu Ghraib had absolutely nothing to do with the insurgency but were just rounded up in street sweeps. Based on that history alone, it seems likely that most of those rounded up were just residents of the area and not necessarily tied to any insurgent activity. It is telling that of the 50 intially rounded up, 17 were released immediately. Given all the bluff and bluster associated with the 50 helicopters and 1,500 troops, they have to capture somebody. Chances are it was anyone still in the area. Based on the relative lack of reported combat, it appears that the insurgents left the area in advance of the exercise.

[rmnunez]

That the insurgents left the area before it came under attack more strongly suggests the captives, though labelled "terrorists" were farmers, than any US practice of calling insurgents "terrorists" (presuming farmers didn't leave the area too).

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Speaking of cow manure, your insults are just that. No I wasn't there. Were you? I guess not. The quote from a reporter in Iraq was: In case you haven't noticed, it looks like the insurgents slipped away in advance. Surprise, surprise.

key word: "COULD". remember, there was an order for no cameras on the field. unless you have CONCRETE evidence that they were farmers, please leave the subject alone. that reporter wasn't on the field unless he was there illegally.

[rmnunez]

I think its a typo, the reporter meant that since the US refers to farmers as "terrorists", therefore the captives must be farmers.

The fact that all insurgents or terrorists (though curiously, not all farmers) are believed to have left the area, would suggest the captives are farmers. Unless all insurgents or terrorists did actually leave the area, it is not known whether all captives are farmers. The certitude of those conclusions is without regard to favoured US military terminology characterizing battlefield detainees.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 key word: "COULD". remember, there was an order for no cameras on the field. unless you have CONCRETE evidence that they were farmers, please leave the subject alone. that reporter wasn't on the field unless he was there illegally.

Leave it alone? You were the one casting around the manure. You obviously don't have the first clue what is going on yet you are giving orders to others. So please be so kind as to cut out the crap. Based on recent performance the comments by the reporter seems reasonable.

And I guess you haven't gotten the news - Swarmer Fizzled.

On Scene: How Operation Swarmer Fizzled

Four Black Hawk helicopters landed in a wheat field and dropped off a television crew, three photographers, three print reporters and three Iraqi government officials right into the middle of Operation Swarmer. Iraqi soldiers in newly painted humvees, green and red Iraqi flags stenciled on the tailgates, had just finished searching the farm populated by a half-dozen skinny cows and a woman kneading freshly risen dough and slapping it to the walls of a mud oven. The press, flown in from Baghdad to this agricultural gridiron northeast of Samarra, huddled around the Iraqi officials and U.S. Army commanders who explained that the "largest air assault since 2003" in Iraq using over 50 helicopters to put 1500 Iraqi and U.S. troops on the ground had netted 48 suspected insurgents, 17 of which had already been cleared and released. The area, explained the officials, has long been suspected of being used as a base for insurgents operating in and around Samarra, the city north of Baghdad where the bombing of a sacred shrine recently sparked a wave of sectarian violence. But contrary to what many many television networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact, there were no airstrikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What’s more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

[rmnunez]

Hillarious, thought it was parody! Maybe there was something going on behind the scenes, the press crew dropped off in a suitably safe area while the real action went down elsewhere?

Also, this air-assault/airmobile business seems confusing. If its involving ranger-types, is this how the media was deployed into the heart of the operation, i.e., down ropes? If they got there once the landing zone was cleared (with enough time for the Iraqi cops to get there in their shiny new units) maybe they missed something? One good thing is that if not a shot was fired it is unlikely there was much collateral damage, but how about those loud earth-shattering detonations reporters heard in the distance?

[Zeebadee]

It was not clear from the 101st Airborne's initial statement exactly what it meant by characterizing the attack as the largest air assault operation since the beginning of the Iraq war. It could refer to the number of aircraft involved or the amount of weaponry involved or some other measure of size.

I think by "largest air assault" they meant the amount of hot air produced by this charade.

[rmnunez]

Ha! I think Zee got it, "air assault" in militarese has to do with baloney or BS.

[jose]

Quote by: jose on the news here we have film of troops wandering about in the desert operation shawarma :)

shawarma is an arabic food like a wrap, some of the troops ate the bread, but wheres the beef?

[bishop]

i agree with pedro here... this attack was designed to make the iranians pay attention.. and on a lesser scale, it's fodder for more dumbassed recruits.

i would think that after 3 years of guerrilla war, that the insurgents don't have any large headquarters that would justify a big air campaign.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop i agree with pedro here... this attack was designed to make the iranians pay attention.. and on a lesser scale, it's fodder for more dumbassed recruits. i would think that after 3 years of guerrilla war, that the insurgents don't have any large headquarters that would justify a big air campaign.

Might have given the Iranians a chuckle. Not much of a show of force. Completely ineffectual.

[Osborn F Enready]

Looked like a big live fire training op to me, to test co-ordination and communications between troops and support.

I think they are trying to use anything for positive PR anymore.

[bishop]

chalk it up as more flailing from bush, his administration, and our military..

article

The offensive is focused on villages where insurgents are believed to be based, according to Iraqi security sources.

bombing villages... how fucking noble. this is definitely a PR stunt, no doubt about it.. bombing villages is going to do absolutely nothing towards ending the insurgency (which i don't believe we can defeat).

[Sonart]

.

Whatta surprise...

Massive operation...

encounters little resistance...

insurgency basically nowhere to be found...

been there, done that.


.