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

[dthmstr254]

(AP) BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces, joined by Iraqi troops, on Thursday launched the largest air assault since the U.S.-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the military said. The U.S. military said the air- and ground-offensive dubbed Operation Swarmer was aimed at clearing "a suspected insurgent operating area" northeast of Samarra and was expected to continue over several days. Residents in the targeted area said there was a heavy U.S. and Iraqi troop presence in the area and large explosions could be heard in the distance. It was unclear if the blasts were due to fighting. The military termed the operation the largest air assault since the 2003 invasion, but it was not clear if any U.S. aircraft opened fire during the operation or if there had been any insurgent resistance. "More than 1,500 Iraqi and Coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation," the military statement said. 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.

this is evidently some kid of results. now the question is: is this evidence that our troops are training the Iraqis? I think it is.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 now the question is: is this evidence that our troops are training the Iraqis? I think it is.

We won't know till we leave. The sooner the better.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp We won't know till we leave. The sooner the better.

true, but what needs to be done is to have train troops and have them act as our troops replacement. we leave as more and more Iraqis make it into the army over there. we leave, and they can defend themselves. that way, everybody is happy.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 true, but what needs to be done is to have train troops and have them act as our troops replacement. we leave as more and more Iraqis make it into the army over there. we leave, and they can defend themselves. that way, everybody is happy.

Sure. We trained the Army of South Vietnam for close to decade. That didn't work out too well.

So far we have trained primarily a Shi'a and Kurdish Army and police force. All trained armed and ready for the civil war. Not sure anyone will be happy then.

So far "Operation Swarmer" looks like an elaborate photo-op. (It coincides nicely with Bush's campaign tour to justify his illegal war.) So far they have captured a few ammo stockpiles. Be interesting to see if they actually locate insurgents.

[rmnunez]

I suspect "Swarmer" is for Iranian consumption.

[jose]

Having lost sight of our goal, we must redouble our efforts!
Saul Gorn

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp Sure. We trained the Army of South Vietnam for close to decade. That didn't work out too well. So far we have trained primarily a Shi'a and Kurdish Army and police force. All trained armed and ready for the civil war. Not sure anyone will be happy then. So far "Operation Swarmer" looks like an elaborate photo-op. (It coincides nicely with Bush's campaign tour to justify his illegal war.) So far they have captured a few ammo stockpiles. Be interesting to see if they actually locate insurgents.

well, CNN has Situation Room at 7 PM Eastern. the episode is going to weigh in all the factors and a live something or other about the operation. at least 1500 Iraqis are participating or have participated in this operation.

PS: if they were looking only for insurgents, they could have stuck around Baghdad. I hear news about a new car bombing or firefight (gun battle) in Iraq near to once a week. what would be really interesting is if they found one of the HQs.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rmnunez I suspect "Swarmer" is for Iranian consumption.

hmmm, interesting. how so?

[jose]

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/even...5hdg--?sp=3000

[rmnunez]

The BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad says the operation - which was carried out in daylight and so did not rely on surprise -may have been more about making a show of strength than crushing specific targets. The Pentagon may also have been trying to highlight greater co-operation with the Iraqi forces, who made up most of the troops involved, he adds. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4814094.stm

I think it may be aimed at Iranian consumption because we are drawing close to confrontation with Iran over their nuclear programme and many speculate the Iranians would counter attacking US forces in Iraq. Demonstrating a well-integrated and effective coordinated military operation using Iraqi forces would suggest the enemy Iran would face in Iraq would be larger and more difficult to tackle.

[bugsbunny04]

Quote by: dthmstr254 now the question is: is this evidence that our troops are training the Iraqis? I think it is.

Um, yeah...Captain obvious, thanks. Of course our troops are training the Iraqis, thats there job, this is common knowledge.

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.

What you have to understand is what is meant by an Air Assualt. Air Assualt refers to troops that are deployed from helicopters, by means of, for example, fast roping or rappelling (refer to the movie blackhawk down for fast roping example). The 101st Airborne is the Air Assualt division, and they are generally deployed from blackhawks, one way or another.

My guess is what they meant is that involved the greatest number of troops. I dont know how many it could have been, the information is inadequate. It depends on how many of the air craft were assault air craft and how many were support (ie, apaches, A-10s, etc.)

[RickSp]

To keep it all in perspective, the entire operation involved a total of two battalions, one Iraqi and one US, for a total of about 1,500 men, at least based on US military statements. It provided the opportunity for lots of rousing footage of helicopters taking off . If the insurgents were taken by surprise or got warning well in advance remains to seen. So far, based on news reports it appears to be mostly a photo op for Bush's campaign tour to justify this disastrous war to the American people who are increasingly less willing to listen to his endless spiel of lies.

[Osborn F Enready]

What is MOST interesting to me about this, is from what they have said, NO media was allowed along for the ride to report. Perhaps this is not true, but that is the official story so far. WHY would they not want reporters? I can understand the unit commmander, saying no TRANSMITTING GEAR, but why no reporters, no cameras, no witnesses?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What is MOST interesting to me about this, is from what they have said, NO media was allowed along for the ride to report. Perhaps this is not true, but that is the official story so far. WHY would they not want reporters? I can understand the unit commmander, saying no TRANSMITTING GEAR, but why no reporters, no cameras, no witnesses?

They have been showing lots of great stock footage of soldiers in helicopters. Looks like an Army recruiting commercial.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rmnunez I think it may be aimed at Iranian consumption because we are drawing close to confrontation with Iran over their nuclear programme and many speculate the Iranians would counter attacking US forces in Iraq. Demonstrating a well-integrated and effective coordinated military operation using Iraqi forces would suggest the enemy Iran would face in Iraq would be larger and more difficult to tackle.

so, you think they are sending a message to Iran that we have more power than they think we do? I wouldn't mind that, but it shouldn't be a primary objective. perhaps they found something out there.

[rmnunez]

dth, yes, there must've been something out there they went after, but the sense I got from Gen. Abizaid's remarks was that this was nothing remarkable, something that they'd observed developing, aking to Fallujah, involving several hamlets near a road in a predominantly insurgent-controlled region within the Sunni traingle drawing closer to the capital. Why now? "Swarmer" isn't over yet, they are cleaning up which involves mostly searching for weapons caches, have recovered some, probably rousted the bandits and they've moved farther afield. Likely the army had a multiple agenda; they could hit a good solid target established in a specific area, this could be used as a good training exercise for the reconstituted Iraqi army, would provide a good estimation of how effective the Iraqi military actually are, could help their CiC's sagging numbers and deliver a pointed message to speculating Iranian military comanders looking for targets in the event they get rapped for those nukes.

So the Iranians took notice:

"To resolve Iraqi issues, and to help the establishment of an independent and free government in Iraq, we agree to (talks with the US*)," Larijani told reporters after a closed meeting of parliament Thursday. He added that negotiators would be appointed for the talks, but declined to give further details. His statement marked the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that Iran had officially proposed dialogue with the US. Analyst Davoud Hermidas Bavand, a professor of international relations at Tehran's Imam Sadeq University, said Larijani's call was a genuine offer that could have significant consequences. "This could be the beginning of a major breakthrough, ending more than two and a half decades of estrangement between Tehran and Washington," Bavand said. He said some clerics within the ruling establishment are convinced Iran will be harmed by a head-on collision with the world over its nuclear activities. How much support such views enjoy is unclear, but it is known that there are clerics who disagree with the foreign policy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who takes a hard line against dialogue with the United States. Bavand said when Iran's nuclear program was reported to the UN Security Council last month, Russia and China sent messages to Iran saying that if it wanted a face-saving solution, it had to talk to America. "Iran needs America to calm the growing tension over its nuclear program," Bavand said. At the same time, Washington wants to restore stability to Iraq, "and Iran has sufficient weight and influence to help it out." Another political analyst, Saeed Leylaz, also said Tehran would be prepared to trade progress on Iraq with movement on the nuclear issue by Washington. "Continued instability in Iraq is hampering America's plans for the Middle East. Iran is ready to use its Iraq card to protect its nuclear achievements before it is too late," Leylaz said. The proposal to hold direct talks on Iraq came a day after the senior Iraqi Shiite politician, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, called for Iran-US talks.

(*) I think the term used was “The Great Satan” http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060316/D8GCTJMO0.html

[jose]

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

[bugsbunny04]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What is MOST interesting to me about this, is from what they have said, NO media was allowed along for the ride to report. Perhaps this is not true, but that is the official story so far. WHY would they not want reporters? I can understand the unit commmander, saying no TRANSMITTING GEAR, but why no reporters, no cameras, no witnesses?

Because air assault is high speed/low drag, and Geraldo ISNT. Unless you can show me a reporter that is air assault qualified, and I dont mean took a guided tour of Fort Campbell, I mean actually was in the army and graduated AA school and continues to maintain his qualification (ie a reservist keeping up his AA badge). Sliding down a rope, unsecured, from a helicopter, carrying god knows how much gear is dangerous stuff. Even men who are proficient get injured sometimes (again, I refer to the Blackhawk Down incident, the first casualty was such an accident, and those guys were Rangers, the best AA troops we have) because AA is just that risky. Reporters are not going to be fast roping with the 101st, theyt arent going to be droping with the 82nd, and they sure as shit arent going to be doing ANYTHING with the 75th or any of the SF groups. Why? Because none of those men want some dumb ass to get them killed or get killed/injured themselves and be extra baggage.

Personally, I wouldnt even want reporters tagged to my infantry unit, because if he breaks his leg or gets shot, I'll probably be the one that has to carry his dumb ass.

[RickSp]

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

U.S. military spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, said that U.S.-led forces were searching a 10- mile-by-10-mile, or 16-kilometer- square, area for guerrillas and that no casualties had been reported by American or Iraqi forces. He said that 50 people had been detained and 30 remained in custody. The U.S. military usually describes insurgents as "terrorists," so Iraqis netted in the raids could have just been ordinary farmers from rural areas near Samarra. The offensive comes at a time when U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has been trying to narrow differences among Iraqi politicians still struggling to form a government three months after parliamentary elections. A leading Sunni Arab politician criticized the U.S. assault, saying it would send a discouraging signal at a time when Iraqi leaders are seeking a political solution to the country's woes. "This large operation that used airplanes is sending a signal to Parliament and Iraqis that the solution is military and not political," he said.

[Osborn F Enready]

Bugs said: Because air assault is high speed/low drag, and Geraldo ISNT. Unless you can show me a reporter that is air assault qualified, and I dont mean took a guided tour of Fort Campbell, I mean actually was in the army and graduated AA school and continues to maintain his qualification (ie a reservist keeping up his AA badge). Sliding down a rope, unsecured, from a helicopter, carrying god knows how much gear is dangerous stuff. Even men who are proficient get injured sometimes (again, I refer to the Blackhawk Down incident, the first casualty was such an accident, and those guys were Rangers, the best AA troops we have) because AA is just that risky. Reporters are not going to be fast roping with the 101st, theyt arent going to be droping with the 82nd, and they sure as shit arent going to be doing ANYTHING with the 75th or any of the SF groups. Why? Because none of those men want some dumb ass to get them killed or get killed/injured themselves and be extra baggage. Personally, I wouldnt even want reporters tagged to my infantry unit, because if he breaks his leg or gets shot, I'll probably be the one that has to carry his dumb ass.

I say:
It is easy to observe and create reasons media should not be in the war. That is obvious.

The hard part is trying to figure out how to inform the American people, without creating this situation, which would be to have "independent, objective" military reporters in field. Is this happening? No. That is why we are now facing this problem.

I would like to ask why a seperate helicopter, can't be used specifically for media, and its soldier protectors, and why can't it touchdown one the main assault force has secured a small area for this touch and go to take place?

The media has an obligation to inform the people, though in situations like this it should be AFTER the fact, or AFTER the operation so as no information could be damaging to those IN the operation.

I am always leery of attempts to remove the public eye from the scope of the entire factual episode in question.