Posted on 12/01/2005 2:20:57 AM PST by chemical_boy
Insurgents have attacked US bases and government offices in Ramadi, in western Iraq, and then dispersed throughout the city, residents say.
Scores of heavily-armed insurgents fired mortars and rockets at the buildings and then occupied several main streets.
The attack came as local leaders and US military officials were meeting at the al-Anbar provincial governor's office.
Ramadi has been a rebel stronghold for many months.
Residents in Ramadi told the Reuters news agency that hundreds of heavily armed men in masks were patrolling the main streets of the city and had set up checkpoints.
Citizens said leaflets distributed by the men declared that al-Qaeda in Iraq, the group run by Abu Musab Zarqawi, was now in control of the city.
US military meeting with local leaders and Insurgents decide to come out of the woodwork...looks like desperation on their part
We should have cleaned out Ramadi like we did Fallujah a long time ago but General Casey was against that.
Ramadi is long overdue for a full door to door offensive. The cat and mouse strategy is leaving our troops exposed.
The Tokyo Rose media will write this up to look like Tet...the media Tet, not the real Tet.
How does one occupy a street?? It would seem hard to defend against a kid with a BB gun.
"Scores of heavily-armed insurgents fired mortars and rockets at the buildings and then occupied several main streets"
I'm having a hard time understanding this story. So supposedly we have bases (plural) in Ramadi, and "military officials" there, and some bad guys attack us and then just stroll off to roam the streets and set up checkpoints? I'm calling bullshit on this one. I expect that if the enemy engaged our guys then in the end the enemy would be either dead or disappeared. Are we to believe that our troops are hunkered down in their bases taking fire, while our enemy enjoys control of nearby streets? Doesn't sound possible to me. Why wouldn't our guys just go out and kick the enemy's ass and/or call down death from above?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_ramadi_dc;_ylt=AjRVilw3rlQBqJ9bYboFU7Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Reuters report
Iraqi rebels attack in Ramadi, seize some streets
Yes, it sounds like they got this story from Ahmed the Baathist. I think it means they fired, ran on the street, stood for a second and then disappeared. This is the insurgent version of occupied. It's a step up from activate an IED.
It's deja vu all over again! Only this time there's no Uncle Walter to sucker the public.
betcha won't read in the MSM next week when our troops make chopped liver out of them.
You will read about it if one of our troops gets within touching distance of mosque and then the screaming and howling from the media will start.
Round up all of the journalists and photographers and put them in the soccer stadium and don't let them out.
Sounds like our snipers are going to have a field day.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2334662005
US bases attacked in Iraq
snip
US and Iraqi troops launched a joint operation near Ramadi yesterday, sweeping through an area used to rig car bombs.
About 500 Iraqi troops joined 2,000 US Marines, soldiers and sailors in a move to clear insurgents from an area on the eastern side of the Euphrates river near Hit, 85 miles west of Baghdad, the US command said in a statement.
The offensive came as President Bush said he hoped to shift more of the military burden onto the Iraqis as part of a strategy to draw down American forces.
In a statement, the military said the Hai Al Becker region "is suspected to be an al Qaida in Iraq safe area and base of operations for the manufacture of vehicle car bombs, roadside bombs." It described the area as a transit point for foreign fighters and Iraqi insurgents infiltrating from Syria into Iraq.
There were no reports of casualties during the first day of the operation, part of a series of sweeps through Sunni Arab towns along the Euphrates believed to be major insurgent strongholds. Residents reached by telephone said US forces warned townspeople by loudspeakers to stay in their homes for the next three days.
Sounds like there are some Rueters and Washington Post reporters with the terrorists in Ramadi trying to stir things up. They are doing a better job of covering the terrorists than Al Jersey.
Sounds like they are trying a Tet-68 redux...calling Walter Chronkite...call for you on the nearest white courtesy phone.
It's a good thing he wasn't on the air in December 1944. He'd have declared that the German counterattack in the Ardennes was proof that we could never destroy the Third Reich.
I saw Walter at a USMA football game about 20 years ago and he was drunker than me.
Actually, our forces wipe out mosques (used by terrorists) all the time.
Rebels Briefly Control Central Ramadi in Presence of Marines
BAGHDAD, Dec. 1 -- The city of Ramadi and U.S. forces there came under attack from about 250 armed rebels Thursday who then briefly took over the center of the city despite the presence of thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops and Marines.
The apparent target of the attack was a meeting between Marine officers and tribal leaders who support resistance to the U.S. presence, part of a groundbreaking series of contacts that got underway earlier this week.
The armed men reportedly set up roadblocks at roads leading in and out of the city and conducted their own patrols. They fired mortars at the building where the meeting was taking place as well as at U.S. bases in the area.
Authorities said U.S. troops entered the town in force about 11:00 a.m. and many of the armed men slipped away.
Al Qaeda in Iraq, which distributed leaflets saying it was taking over the city, said that about six of its men had been killed. There were no immediate reports on other casualties.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120100271.html
Does anybody have a good web link about Cronkite's and the liberal media manipulation of Tet.
Or any brief explanation of exactly what happened would be appreciated.
So did the armed, masked terrorists appear before our troops were in the city or after they were there? This article implies both scenarios, unless I'm reading it incorrectly.
My thoughts exactly.
It seems to me that the complaint is that our forces didn't know where they were (in the past), and they couldn't just shoot everyone.
Now that they know where they are, its time to use a few "Daisy Cutters".
From what I can tell in post # 22 above, our forces entered the city at 11:00 am and the terrorists slinked away, but we did manage to kill 6 (according to Al Qaeda, which means it was probably more) before they all got away.
I mean #23 above!
Setting up roadblocks? They cannot setup any open fortified positions without being greased by us.
Who wrote this story? Teresa Heinz's drunken douche bag?
I thoroughly agree and believe it's time for Main Stream America to push back.
Exactly. My thoughts exactly.
Sounds like the military equivalent of a bunch of teens mooning a police cruiser.
Check this out -
Ramadi is the last major city west of Baghdad and Fallujah. The only other towns in Al Anbar are smaller ones like Al Qaim, Rutbah, and Hit. Of those, only Al Qaim is still a hotbed of resistance.
Ramadi will the be the last stand of AQIZ and Abu Musab al Zarqawi. They've got no where else to fall back to. It may sound scary that they're taking over streets in Ramadi. It's not. It's a desperate show of force amidst a slow retreat out west. It's especially dangerous for them, because Ramadi is one of the few sanctuaries they had left. If they lose that, then they'll have to fall back to the Syrian border.
So why try something this risky?
With the elections coming up, AQIZ desperately needs publicity and credibility. It may be the start of a mini-Tet offensive, one where they know they're wasting the rest of their strength, but are betting on the media to magnify and inflate their actions.
The first thing I thought when I read the article is 'They can't be this stupid'. The only reason for even trying is because they're in a very bad way, and are willing to waste what little strength they have left on a symbolic attack. If they lose what safety Ramadi once held, then they're finished. They may as well head to the Syrian border, and not stop when they get there.
But that contradicts the article's text and title. I think it was just very poorly written.
Definitely a sharp cry for publicity. I'm sure glad that none of those mortars (apparently) found their intended target.
250 armed rebels could take over Times Square long enough to pass out flyers and shoot a few mortars, even though the New York police department is larger than the entire military of some countries. Ramadi's only got 400,000 people, anyway.
Think about it. If you've got 250 armed guys ready to pop out of vans you can assert temporary control of damn near anywhere. It sounds like they disperesed as soon as we showed up.
Also -
Just because we didn't want to fight them in the middle of the city doesn't mean that we just let them go. We can follow them home, and I'm sure we did.
Exact same thought I had when I read this. Talk show this morning, tongue-in-cheeck, announced, "Terrorists in Ramadi distributed leaflets, fired a few shots, and retreated into a wedding ceremony."
I occupied the street in front of my place for about 15 seconds last night. It was all mine, and I controlled it. Then I relinquished control when I got to the other side.
". . . retreated into a wedding ceremony . . . "
Here comes the bride!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Ramadi is no sanctuary. We sanctioned the government and police. We maintain a presence and patrol the worst neighborhoods in force regularly. But it’s still a very dangerous, unfriendly and lawless city with a large underground insurgency that can get away with this. They can take control of a few streets for a few minutes or a few hours if lucky, once, but that’s it.
They then put out an exaggerated press releases to terrorist friendly media like Reuters, and even Freepers are calling it “Fallujah 2” and a terrorist safe haven. That's nuts.
In a related story, Congressman Jack Murtha announced today that "President Bush's policies in Vietnam have failed. The Tet offensive only emboldened Al Quaida, and if we don't pull out now, the Vietnamese government will never have the incentive to protect themselves from Tojo's armies." Murtha wanted to say more, but he was gently led away from the microphones by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who gave him a pill...
Anything you want to add?? The Reuters article on the same topic was full of Shiite. Assuming this is too.
BBC= Big Bullshiite Coverage
Thank you for being a voice of reason. I really appreciate your posts!
For reference, see this post....
That is a better way of putting it. The city is not under their control, or a safe haven, by any means. Ramadi (more correctly, the areas beyond the outskirts of Ramadi) is a sanctuary for AQIZ only so long as they stay hidden. There are a number of tribal factions that are willing to turn a blind eye or covertly support AQIZ out of percieved self interest. That's not exactly 'sanctuary', but it's better then they have it anywhere else.
The fact that this show of force appeared specifically to attack a meeting between certain tribal shayks and the Marine liasons is telling. If the tribes decide to play ball with the new government and us instead of AQIZ, then AQIZ is going to lose their last best hiding places near an urban area. If that happens, they're going to have to fall back to Al Qaim or worse. That may be the real motivation behind the attack, more so than trying to exert any real control over the streets of Ramaid.
I don't get it.
I think I have it right this time! YIKES!!!
Today is NOT starting off well....
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
