MIA
Tom Ashbrook in this morning’s On Point intro compares the search by 4000 for 3 MIAs abducted by terrorists to “Saving Private Ryan,” fictitious effort to extract non-MIA 1 brother of three KIAs from combat. Idiotic kickoff followed by extensive, worthwhile discussion of actual issue with WaPo reporter Sudarsan Raghavan in Baghdad and a couple of U.S. military counterinsurgency experts/veterans. Raghavan talks about something I haven’t seen reported, an al-Qaeda spokesman suggesting these captives will be used politically, alive, to apply pressure on Bush.
Raghavan like others continues to call this the biggest taking since the Jessica Lynch incident. Meaningless as likelihood of torture and execution was significantly less. More relevant comparisons to Sgt. Matthew Maupin, still MIA but reportedly executed in 2004; and PFCs Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Lowell Tucker, tortured to death last year. Also, four taken in Karbala and found dead shortly afterward in January.
AP: 11 arrested, hundreds questioned, two insurgents killed, four wounded as search goes on.
NYT with some conflicting accounts of what happened.
WaPo’s version of events raises some questions.
Gateway’s roundup, includes names and faces of some of the KIAs. Gateway remembers what happened last time.
Stratfor on the heightened risk as the US moves to smaller unit operations:
The U.S. patrol, comprising two vehicles with a total of seven soldiers and one Iraqi interpreter, came under attack before dawn some 12 miles west of the town of Mahmudiyah, in the Triangle of Death. The patrol, from the 3rd Infantry Division, likely was out in the predawn hours to clear the road of any improvised explosive devices before the day’s traffic began. U.S. troops responding to the attack found the bodies of five members of the unit, including the interpreter, at the scene.
In this case, the initial response to the attack would have come from similar patrols in the area, which would have rushed to the scene to provide reinforcements. At that time, the call would have gone out for the deployment of a quick reaction force, a unit of 10 to 15 soldiers, usually military police or cavalry, held in reserve at a forward operating base (FOB) for the purpose of responding to units in the field that come under attack. Once it is determined that soldiers are indeed missing, the report is sent from the field to the higher levels of command. In this case, the initial notification would have gone at least as high as the divisional command level.
The search for the missing soldiers is the current highest tactical priority for U.S. forces in Iraq — and all available assets are being used to locate them. Some 4,000 U.S. soldiers have surged into the area where the patrol was ambushed, searching houses and vehicles and detaining suspicious individuals. In addition, UAVs are scouring the area, using video, infrared and other sensors to locate any signs of the soldiers or their captors. Coalition spokesman Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell also said “national means” are being used in the search, meaning the government is using spy satellites capable of collecting all kinds of image, signal and multispectral intelligence. Because they are in a polar orbit and move quickly over the Earth’s surface, the satellites can only scan the area for a brief time. The information they collect can be used to narrow the search area for the UAVs, which can loiter over the area longer and provide real-time information. Furthermore, Iraqi interpreters in U.S. employ, as well as local Iraqi sources, have begun collecting intelligence about the soldiers from relatives in the insurgency.
The risk of capture is high in any combat situation in which small units come into direct contact with one another. In recent months, however, the U.S. military has begun deploying troops to neighborhoods in smaller units, rather than sending them out in large convoys from FOBs. This further increases the odds that more U.S. troops will be captured.
In Iraq, U.S. solders are told to resist capture at all costs, and to attempt escape immediately. This is because they can expect no quarter from the enemy or any protection under the Geneva Conventions if captured. If the attackers captured the missing U.S. troops alive, the soldiers likely were wounded during the ambush or while attempting to fight off the attackers.
Topics: Uncategorized
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:37 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2007
2 Responses to “MIA”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Those of us with loved ones in the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq share the desperate anxiety of the soldiers involved in this search. Pray with us for the safe return of the missing and God’s comfort for the families of the fallen.
May 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
We need a miracle, please Dear Lord, a miracle……