Grenade Attack in Baghdad Kills U.S. Soldier

Reuters ^ | Sun June 22, 2003 09:34 AM ET

[IoCaster]

Grenade Attack in Baghdad Kills U.S. Soldier

Sun June 22, 2003 09:34 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier was killed and another was wounded in a grenade attack on a military convoy south of Baghdad Sunday, the U.S. military said.

A U.S. statement said the two soldiers had been evacuated by road after the attack in Khan Azad, 20 km (12 miles) south of the capital. One was dead on arrival at hospital.

It was the latest in a spate of attacks on U.S. forces in which 19 soldiers have been killed since President Bush declared major combat in Iraq over on May 1.

The assault came less than a day after an Iraqi oil pipeline was set ablaze near the town of Hit, about 140 km (90 miles) northwest of Baghdad, by a late-night explosion blamed by an Iraqi Oil Ministry official on sabotage.

Two U.S. soldiers were wounded in the same area Saturday afternoon when their vehicle detonated a land mine.

[kabar]

Very ambitious goals to be sure. Funny, I don't recall GWB or friends saying anything about including the free flow of oil to fuel the global economy You're not telling me the lefties were on the mark when they claimed...'it's about oil', are you?

It's not all about oil, but it is definitely part of the equation. When you have the world's second largest proven reserves of oil (Iraq) involved, plus the fact that the entire region is the world's largest supplier of exportable oil, our strategic national interests are furthered by keeping an uninterrupted flow of oil.

[fatima]

Bump,That's where my granddaughter Karen is,She writes all the time and spirits are good

[A. Pole]

At the risk of sounding callous, losing one man a day is not a quagmire.

So how many is a quagmire? Ten a day or more? Please give the number, I am curious.

If we cannot stomach losing 365 men a year to pursue a strategic goal of the US, we are in real trouble.

What exactly this "strategic goal" was? To prevent imminent WMD attack? Introducing democracy in Iraq and letting Iraqis to choose their government? Can you answer?

[A. Pole]

So many more American lives will in all likely hood be sacrificed to this chicken shiite war on terror..imo

The present attacks are limited to the Sunni minority area. So far the Shiites remain calm.

[John D]

And what was your rank in the militry? If you know it all you should be in the service advising the president. We have very competent people over there. My son is over there right now and I feel he is safer with this administration than any other since Reagan, (and maybe even longer). I suppose you would rather have the coward from Hope AK, or the inventer of the internet.

[A. Pole]

The solution is?

The solution is very simple and very fair. Facilitate the formation of Iraqi government of national unity by including the representation of all faction in a balanced way (Sunni, Shiites, tribes, regions, Christians, Kurds and even moderate clean Baathists.) Make sure they can function on their own and establish constructive cooperation and get out. One can leave a few well trained troops to protect the stability of the new government. So long as the new government is a real (spontaneous and not pre-made), inclusive representation the population will see it as its own.

[A. Pole]

A "majority" of the Vietnamese were not involved in guerrilla action. For that matter, the same thing could be said about China in 1948, Algeria in the 1950s, or Cuba in 1958.

Or Northern Ireland.

[Hinoki Cypress]

There is. Find them, track them down and kill all of them. No mercy shown or given. Kill them. CIA spooks and Spec Ops need to start kicking butt and killing them, again, wherever they hide.

[A. Pole]

[Captain Kirk:] "If you are looking for the most realistic option, it is to turn over authority to an interim government (before it is thoroughly tainted by nationalist accusations of collaboration) and undertake a fast time table for withdrawal."

[jwalsh07:] Which would make the entire exercise undertaken and seen through by young Americans in uniform futile. No, the jihadists are on the ropes. If Bush can stabilise Iraq with some sort of democracy it may spread seeds.

"Some sort of democracy" means exactly what Captain Kirk has proposed. Military occupation with appointed colaborators has nothing to do with any "sort of democracy".

[A. Pole]

A quagmire is when we see no hope of achieving our objectives and withdrawal is the only reasonable option. We have not reached that point at all in just a scant few months.

A quagmire is something else - it is when the withdrawal is not longer possible without significant cost! A quagmire is a soft wet area of low-lying land that sinks underfoot and which is difficult to extricate from. Afghanistan was a quagmire for Soviets - their withdrawal undermined their government. Algeria was a quagmire for French - it led to the constitutional crisis in France.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

She writes all the time and spirits are good.

Amazing disconnect between the press and reality - also the Freepers who should know better than to trust THIS press over THIS military.

Thank God for Americans like Karen.

You might enjoy this interview w/ Gen. Franks. We have good men leading our troops:

...."there was never a doubt in mind that at the end of the day it would be exactly as our people said it would be: The regime would be gone, the Iraqi people would be free." "A low point in terms of doubting, no sir, I never had it." He added that on a particularly bad day he told his staff and the commanders: "Don't ever, ever second-guess what you are doing. You are doing a wonderful job. Get your heads up and it will turn out just fine." ~ Gen. Franks tells how Iraq war plan came together , June 19, 2003.

[Justa]

"It is a terrible thing that American men are being killed there almost daily but it is a good thing that they are hunting down and killing or imprisoning jihadists."

Imho, it's better to have soldiers confronting the jihadists over there than the jihadists confronting civilians here.

[fatima]

Thanks Ragtime Cowgirl,She says the work is hard and she just follows orders but her spirits are up.They feel they are making a difference and go forward.

[kabar]

If you are looking for the dictionary definition of a quagmire, it is: A difficult or precarious situation; predicament.

There will be significant costs whether you stay or leave. You must choose the lesser of two evils, which is withdrawal if there is no hope of achieving the objectives you originally tried to achieve. No sense becoming bogged down indefinitely lossing lives and national treasure.

[A. Pole]

If you are looking for the dictionary definition of a quagmire, it is: A difficult or precarious situation; predicament.

It is a poor definition (not every dictionary is good). Quagmire comes from quag + mire. Quag is related to guaky (shaky unstable), mire stands for sinky bog. If you step in a quagmire you are lucky if you loose only your shoes. It is hard to withdraw from it.

From the actual dictionary: "a situation that can easily trap you so that you become involved with problems from which it is difficult to escape" ( Cambridge Dictionary of American English on quagmire)

[ContentiousObjector]

when you invade someone elses country, the residents of that country are going to try to kill as many of you as possible, and have every right to do so

It kinda comes with the terriroty, if you can't stomach that, you shouldn't be starting wars.

[BenR2]

Obviously you must since both countries looked far worse at this stage then Iraq and at that time the troops weren't constrained by the PC crap they have to put up with today.

/////////////
Your post begs the question: Just how much organized guerilla hostile fire did our troops encounter in France and Germany after Germany surrendered?

None to very little. Therefore, you miss Archangelsk's concerns completely.

[McGavin999]

Ah, but you're wrong, there was quite a bit. The Germans were stringing wires across the roads and decapitating our soldiers, that went on for months and once it was stopped it started up again the following year. We just didn't advertise every death the way we do now. We were also able to be a lot harsher in our response than we are now.

Although each death is a national tragedy, the cause is noble. Out of the 135,000 soldiers in country there really have been relatively few attacks. NOBODY in their right mind thought this would be a sanitary operation. What we are doing now is harder than the war itself, but it has to be done or the country will be lost, the war will have been for nothing, all those lives lost will have been wasted. If that country falls, THIS country is in serious trouble.

[FreeReign]

...when you invade someone elses country, the residents of that country are going to try to kill as many of you as possible, and have every right to do so

I doubt the few who are trying to kill us are freedom fighters and I believe our actions in Iraq will increase the level of freedom there.

I see no unalienable "right" -- to kill as many of us as possible.

[jwalsh07]

The solution is very simple and very fair. Facilitate the formation of Iraqi government of national unity by including the representation of all faction in a balanced way (Sunni, Shiites, tribes, regions, Christians, Kurds and even moderate clean Baathists.) Make sure they can function on their own and establish constructive cooperation and get out. One can leave a few well trained troops to protect the stability of the new government. So long as the new government is a real (spontaneous and not pre-made), inclusive representation the population will see it as its own.

Inevitably when one leaves a few troops in bad guy country they end up dead. Since a few of those troops are known to me personally and each and every one is an American soldier, I would take umbrage at that.

There are no easy solutions, the right way can many times be the hard way. Waving the magic wand doesn't work.