Hail of Gunfire and Grenades Forces Apaches to Pull Back

nytimes.com ^ | March 24, 2003 | JIM DWYER

[enemy9oclock]

Thanks, that's what I thought. I guess hiding in dark tunnels and bunkers must help develop their night vision.

[Iwentsouth]

The attack lasted 3 hours. people here seem to think the apache can fight without fuel and weapons.

[F16Fighter]

"Carpet bomb the area."

Yep --isn't this an obvious solution??

[HiTech RedNeck]

What they do is strap a pair of binoculars to a cat. When the cat rears up on its hind legs and swats at the air, that's when and where they shoot.

[laz17]

It might be far higher than we think.

Possibly. Remember those Iraqis who changed that human shield's mind about the war? They said they'd commit suicide if the bombing didn't start. I'm sure some would willingly die as collateral damage as long as Iraq was made safe for their children.

It's terrific that the Red Cross says only ONE civilian has died in Baghdad. And we should try to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. But NOT at the expense of our troops or the mission. And if the mission is important enough that our troops are willing to risk their lives to fulfill it, then that mission is more important than the lives of civilians.

[mikegi]

General Freakly said that in an attack like the one on the helicopters, ``you have 10 guys lying on top of a building firing R.P.G.'s and small arms. You can go in and bomb that building and reduce it to rubble,'' but at the potential cost of many civilian lives.

Yeah, but if you let them get away with it at the beginning then they'll do it even more. Better to (possibly) tube some civilians at the beginning to show the IRG that we will kill them regardless of what they do. Be sure to film the entire episode so that when Iraqi TV shows dead civilians, we can show them why (IRG using their civilians as shields is a war crime).

[Diddle E. Squat]

Oh spare me your righteous condemnation. You really think I don't care for all of the killed and injured, and those at risk?

There is a difference between callousness and recognition of reality. Getting emotional is fine, but not when it extends into excessively negative assessment spewed repeatedly that undermines morale. Ever think of how your gloomy and highly critical posts affect the families of soldiers who read it?

My analogy holds. Your posts have been repeatedly way over-reactionary. If you can't handle the numerous up and downs that are to be expected, you might be well served to take a break for awhile.

[hotpotato]

How stupid and credulous can the NYT be? The one Apache shown on Iraqi TV has no apparent battle damage, and looks very much like it made an emergency landing under its own power.

And where is the other "downed" Apache? Why would the Iraqis pass up the other photo op? But the author accepts the Iraqi claim at face value.

I agree. I saw this, too. There does not seem to be any damage to the Apache and they are not showing a second one. They just made this same report on MSNBC now, only one Apache down without obvious damage and no sign of the pilots.

I'm hoping it was a malfunction and possibly the pilots landed the Apache and escaped. MSNBC reporter who was on the scene during the attack said it was impressive with how many Apaches came in and fired upon the Iraqis. He described it as some kind of "Apache dance."

[Destro]

I doubt everything the govt tells me. I learned that from Ronald Reagon.

[wku man]

I would have thought our nation would have learned the lesson of politicians meddling in military operations from Vietnam. Bush, Sr. didn't meddle with Schwarzkopf, and he won quickly and decisively. Bush, Jr. wants to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, so he's not allowing the military to bomb and prep the battlefield as they should, and the result is what we have. Granted, our losses thus far have been light, but to the individual families of those lost, they're far from light.

Screw the civilian losses, our guys should have the leeway to respond with overwhelming violence to any attack they come under, regardless of where the enemy is hiding. The Geneva Convention permits this...if an enemy is using a church, for example, as sanctuary from which to snipe at us, we are perfectly within our rights to reduce that church to rubble. To let politics get in the way of military operations is to endanger the lives of our troops unnecessarily, and to invite disaster. Military force, if it must be used, should be delivered with max manpower and max violence, so as to completely defeat and demoralize the enemy, and any civilian support he may have. If innocents are harmed, well, that's just a sad reality of war.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[over3Owithabrain]

If you don't want to read posts that you find critical or disagreeable, skip by them. Don't respond with insults or demands I stop speaking my mind. I am not alone in being concerned about certain tactics that appear to be endangering our troops in an effort to spare civilians. Overall I support this war fully and our troops and leaders. I feel I can come here and share my doubts and concerns in this "friendly" forum. I must have missed the rule where it says we cannot question the political or military tactics of our government.

[vbmoneyspender]

This isn't the gov't telling you this -- it's the NY Times. I would suggest that that is a significant distinction particularly when one is comparing what American troops are telling us versus what the queens at the NY Times are telling us.

[Destro]

Apache gunners file news stories? I can easily see a kill agianst a hostile vehicle of all types (APC? supply trucks? etc.) being mistranslated by a journalist as a tank kill. Makes me think that if this number was in a news story--I have never read it and I read a lot then the journalist got what was killed wrong - but notthe numbers. Please link the article on the number of tank kills claimed so I can know from what source you are typing about. Thanks.

[Destro]

You don't need one lucky shot when you have multiple shooters...

[Poohbah]

Apache gunners file news stories? I can easily see a kill agianst a hostile vehicle of all types (APC? supply trucks? etc.) being mistranslated by a journalist as a tank kill.

A CENTCOM briefing officer said "tanks," not a journalist.

[hotpotato]

Agreed. While it is sad and frustrating to lose our soldiers, this is war and that's part of war and currently, the loss when compared to Iraqi loss is amazingly low (especially when you take into consideration those losses due to accidents and a traitor). While there will always be those in a platoon that won't like the way things are being run, I think our boys are handling it, in the word of General Franks, "magnificently!" I do think this 24-hour coverage is getting to a lot of people. Some folks don't appreciate that Iraq is a big place with hundreds of thousands of defenders. This was never going to be a cake walk.

[Destro]

American troops are telling me nothing. Are you in contact with them about kill counts? I neither trust or respect the NYSlimes or the govt.

[Destro]

Thanks for that update--can you link me to his breifing?

[johnb838]

Our military is having their hands tied by political concerns

Exactly what happend in Vietnam. I thought we learned our lesson. I thought we were going to bring overwhelming force to get this over with quickly. It is scaring the crap out of me everytime I hear the brass blame something bad on our desire to not kill civilians. If civilians are in the way it is on the iraqi regime (not going to call it saddam anymore) not on us. They are the butchers. They are the torturers. Hold them by the nose and kick 'em in the ass. Slit their bellies and use their guts to grease the treads of our tanks. When our boys stick their hand into the puddle of goo that one minute previous was their best friends face, they'll know what to do. LET THEM!

(Ooops, got off on my General Patton schtick)

[vbmoneyspender]

Follow the link at post number 35 and lay off of the anti-American propaganda. Our people who are giving info on this are members of the American military. If you don't trust that info then you don't have a firm grasp on who is telling the truth in this.