Iraqi insurgents find killing prowess in technology-fueled bombs

U.S. and British troops are being killed in Iraq by increasingly sophisticated insurgent bombs, including a new type triggered when a vehicle crosses an infrared beam and is blasted by armor-piercing projectiles.

The technology, which emerged during guerrilla wars in Lebanon and Northern Ireland, has been used in recent roadside bombings that have killed dozens of Americans and at least eight British soldiers.

The alarming efficiency has led many British and a few U.S. officials to argue that rogue groups in Iran and perhaps Lebanon are giving expertise to Iraq's insurgents. But others caution against that idea, saying the technology is available to those who know where to look.

Either way, the Pentagon is scrambling to find countermeasures, says Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a senior U.S. military officer in Iraq.

"We're studying very hard where this technology is coming from and what we can do to combat that technology," Lynch said in a briefing in Baghdad last week.

The article says,"We're studying very hard where this technology is coming from and what we can do to combat that technology,"

Don't combat the technology, combat those who are employing the technology against our troops = Syria and Iran.

Why in the world doesn't Bush bomb Syria and Iran? Why does our President let the Iranians and Syrian kill more and more of our troops with impunity? While everyone is hollering about France burning, and Valerie - CIA - Cheney circus, do we notice that for the first time in this Iraq war, Coalition KIA are over 80 per month, 4 times in a 6 month span?

Stop building all these stinking Iraqi schools and roads and start blowing up the enemy Mr. President. This is wartime not rebuilding time. When the enemy is destroyed and the bullets stop flying, THAT is when you rebuild.

'We match them and they adapt to our adaptations...it all rolls on."
Dead men don't adapt.
Semper Fi

WHile I agree that the bombmakers should be killed, don't forget they aren't always easy to find!

As to Syria and Iran, even with a full occupation of the countries in question that just makes for larger territories to try and amintain and would certainly stretch ground force capacity at a time when it already needs more support in key areas. It would also stretch the combat zone up to Afghanistan and allow easier infiltration from the former Svoiet Islamic states who previously might not have liked the US in Iraq but had Chechenya to hand.

Leaving aside a ground invasion, an airstrikes only policy to teach them a lesson would do little to reduce this capacity since let's face it, the tech in this article doesn't require a huge complex infrastructure to produce.

Needless to say, both policies would allow America to be seen as a warmongering bully to the rest of the world and would probably multiply the number of recruits AQ or the insurgents are getting tenfold at least.

Bush is right in trying to stabilise Iraq first, though I still think more on the ground are needed. At the end of the day, Syria and Iran need to fear America enough to help combat cross border infiltration in their own interests. However, even if both govts tried with all their might for genuine, chances are it would only diminish the flow - those are long borders in rugged country. If the west can't monitor the Mexico border or equivalent areas...well how are two third world states meant to? Realistic work needs to go into better border surveillance technologies, from hidden IR and other sensors to drones, live remote surveillance and fast response units.

Rebuilding Iraq may be a b**tch in terms of tied down resources and frustration but it's the right thing to do and we don't have the luxury of waiting till the war is over. That could genuinely be years before all fightin dies down. LEaving Iraq in rubble just makes the US look bad internationally and is going to provide the enemy with plenty of recruits who will see them as having come in and smashed a state without making any effort to provide for the people there. Winning hearts and minds is a dreadful phrase, with all its associated baggage, but it is a necessary course (Albeit a very very frustrating and slow one).

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.