Anybody else here not impressed by the enemy's "ingenuity"? First, I don't like such a positive term applied to our enemies. Second, most of their tactics sounded rudimentary and ineffective.
"Anybody else here not impressed by the enemy's "ingenuity"? First, I don't like such a positive term applied to our enemies. Second, most of their tactics sounded rudimentary and ineffective."
You are right. The media is wowed by by useless tricks like mannequins, but doesnt see how our own troops are crushing the insurgents with a level of ingenuity unmatched?
This article is a good contrast with Bill Roggio/fourth Rail blog article that showed how we won the battle of Fallujah. See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1612742/posts?page=9#9
"The terrorists that got out, later all repeated the same story. Once the Americans were on to you, if was like being stalked by a machine. The often petrified defender could only remember the footsteps of the approaching American troops inside a building, the gunfire and grenade blasts as rooms were cleared, and the shouted commands that accompanied it. If a building was so well defended that the American infantry could not get in, they would just obliterate it with a smart bomb. They used smaller weapons, like AT-4 rocket launchers, many of which fuel-air explosive (thermobaric) warheads. These would use an explosive mist to create a lethal blast, capable of clearing several rooms at once. The defenders could occasionally kill or wound the advancing Americans, but could not stop them. Nothing the defenders did worked, and the American tactics developers want to keep it that way." - Bill Roggio