U.S. Gunship Kills 7, Foils Iraq Attack

[jimnyc]

** This is what I meant by being on the offensive, or proactive approach. Digging in like this daily will slowly erode the remaining insurgents will to terrorize **

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen killed a U.S. civilian contractor and injured another north of Baghdad, while an Apache helicopter killed seven people suspected of preparing a rocket attack on a U.S. base near Tikrit, the military said Friday.
**
Troops from the 101st Airborne Division also captured 14 "suspected terrorists," including eight who belonged to a Mosul cell whose leader is suspected of plotting to assassinate a top coalition official, the military said. Separately, three suspects were arrested for "conducting attacks on U.S. forces," the military said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

 

[dijetlo]

jimnyc
This is what I meant by being on the offensive, or proactive approach. Digging in like this daily will slowly erode the remaining insurgents will to terrorize

It is also what turns the civilian population against us. If we can get similar results from a future Iraqi police raid (hopefully not too far in the future) then we'll have passed a major hurdle and perhaps their "will to terrorize" can indeed be worn down, but not while an occupying army is the one doing the suppression. There is no parralel in history that I can think of for beleiving we are doing anything but fanning the revolt.
This is a 0 sum game for us (at best). We can only hope we are doing as much damage to the resistance as we are doing to ourselves. I'm somewhat encouraged by GWBs' sudden interest in Iraqi soveriegnity, though.
Historicaly, the approach Iraqis have with conquerors is approximately the relationship a tick has with a dog. Ask the Britts, they will tell you...

I stuck this part of the reffed article in for you 'cause I know Churchill is your guy. He is discussing the British Occupation of Iraq in 1920...

...Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes (to) spread a lively terror _" ...

 

[jimnyc]

It is also what turns the civilian population against us.

I don't think the "civilized" portion of the public will mind too much if terrorists are removed from their neighborhoods. When innocents are included, I agree, but they weren't in this case.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I don't think the "civilized" portion of the public will mind too much if terrorists are removed from their neighborhoods. When innocents are included, I agree, but they weren't in this case.

Preparing a rocket attack on a US miliatry base, if done not to inflict civilian casualties, is not a terrorist act, just like firing upon a vehicle known to be transporting guerrilla insurgants is not a terrorist act. I just hope we didn't commit a terrorist attack in this case, as I hope Iraqi guerrillas do not engage in terrorism. In fact, I don't really see what you're above story says, I don't see how terrorism factors into this; it seems to be an occupying army fighting a guerrilla army, otherwise known as war.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I don't think the "civilized" portion of the public will mind too much if terrorists are removed from their neighborhoods. When innocents are included, I agree, but they weren't in this case.

Your right, we got 4 of the 5,000 hardliners. You can mark off seven more in a second attack.
Sorry Jim, I was reffering to the larger operation "Iron Hammer" which is occuring at the same time in the same area. The infantry is going door to door, with helicopter support to keep the population pinned down inside their houses. Everybody minds that kind of treatment, especially the innocent.
The partisan is not trying to win the love of the Iraqis (far from it). He just wants them to hate the US a little bit more that they hate him. That's enough to acheive his goal (our departure). In that regard, though it probably scrambled a lot of short range operations by the resistance, they would consider "Iron hammer" a victory for their side.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Preparing a rocket attack on a US miliatry base, if done not to inflict civilian casualties, is not a terrorist act, just like firing upon a vehicle known to be transporting guerrilla insurgants is not a terrorist act. I just hope we didn't commit a terrorist attack in this case, as I hope Iraqi guerrillas do not engage in terrorism. In fact, I don't really see what you're above story says, I don't see how terrorism factors into this; it seems to be an occupying army fighting a guerrilla army, otherwise known as war.

Not terror acts, what would you call these:

"In addition, an American civilian contractor was killed and another wounded when gunmen attacked a convoy Thursday near Balad, 45 miles north of Baghdad"

"In the south on Friday, gunmen fired on jeeps carrying Portuguese journalists, wounding one reporter and kidnapping another, Portuguese media reported"

"In the north, soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division captured 14 "suspected terrorists," including eight who belonged to a cell whose leader plotted to kill a top coalition official"

Yes, they are attacking the US military, and anything within 1000 yards. They're also attacking anyone even remotely related to assisting the Iraqi's. Their only reason for doing so is to place fear in the people. They want them against any and all in their country. This isn't the way you fight a wat, this is how you terrorize.

 

[eric]

Jim, you forgot the International Red Cross, and the UN building.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Not terror acts, what would you call these:

"In addition, an American civilian contractor was killed and another wounded when gunmen attacked a convoy Thursday near Balad, 45 miles north of Baghdad"

"In the south on Friday, gunmen fired on jeeps carrying Portuguese journalists, wounding one reporter and kidnapping another, Portuguese media reported"

These are acts of terrorism, as bad as blowing up a Reuters camraman in the Palastine Hotel. Preparing rockets to hit a US military base is not an act of terrorism, just like blowing up a vehicle transporting guerrilla insurgents is not. They may be the same people, of course, in both cases, involved in both terrorism and warfare.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by eric
Jim, you forgot the International Red Cross, and the UN building.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but these are acts of terrorism, as bad as blowing up a Reuters cameraman in the Palastine Hotel. Preparing rockets to hit a US military base is not an act of terrorism, just like blowing up a vehicle transporting guerrilla insurgents is not. They may be the same people, of course, in each case, involved in both terrorism and warfare. Or they could be different people.

 

[SLClemens]

"In the north, soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division captured 14 "suspected terrorists," including eight who belonged to a cell whose leader plotted to kill a top coalition official"

Yes, they are attacking the US military, and anything within 1000 yards. They're also attacking anyone even remotely related to assisting the Iraqi's. Their only reason for doing so is to place fear in the people. They want them against any and all in their country. This isn't the way you fight a war, this is how you terrorize. [/B]

And since you're so fond of documented evidence, what evidence do you have that it's the same people doing both? It may be, but we cannot know. However, we can distinguish between terrorist acts and acts of war. Blowing up the UN compound, for instance, is by any standard a terrorist act. Shooting down a military helicopter of an occupying army is by any standard an act of war.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
And since you're so fond of documented evidence, what evidence do you have that it's the same people doing both? It may be, but we cannot know. However, we can distinguish between terrorist acts and acts of war. Blowing up the UN compound, for instance, is by any standard a terrorist act. Shooting down a military helicopter of an occupying army is by any standard an act of war.

I never claimed they were all one and the same, I just claimed that the acts being committed were terror acts. And again, they might occasionally hit military targets, but they are still terrorists. Today a helicopter, tommorow a journalist, the day after some civilians, then a soldier, then a politician...

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I never claimed they were all one and the same, I just claimed that the acts being committed were terror acts. And again, they might occasionally hit military targets, but they are still terrorists. Today a helicopter, tommorow a journalist, the day after some civilians, then a soldier, then a politician...

And if they hit a helicopter or soldier it will be an act of war; a journalist or civilian, an act of terrorism. And as you rightly point out, no intelligent person can claim they are "all one and the same." We are clearly dealing with both in Iraq at the present.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
And if they hit a helicopter or soldier it will be an act of war; a journalist or civilian, an act of terrorism. And as you rightly point out, no intelligent person can claim they are "all one and the same." We are clearly dealing with both in Iraq at the present.

I wouldn't say "clearly" as I think the Iraqi that fights what he thinks is a justified war solely against opposing military is extremely rare. I think they would like to, but they can't as they don't have the manpower or firepower, so they resort to terror acts.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I wouldn't say "clearly" as I think the Iraqi that fights what he thinks is a justified war solely against opposing military is extremely rare. I think they would like to, but they can't as they don't have the manpower or firepower, so they resort to terror acts.

For once I can agree with you to a point. I'm sure there are a few who are only waging war on military targets, but how rare they are is impossible to know. I also strongly agree that many would like to but instead choose "softer" civilian targets, or targets, like the Italian paramilitary base, that will kill both troops and civilians. But face it, we here in America, and no doubt many if not all of those on the ground in Iraq, don't know who the enemies really are. Whether they're terrorists or guerrillas or a bit of both, the enemies of the US military in Iraq are clearly, yes clearly, involved in both guerrilla and terrorist activies.