Arrowhead Ripper on the Ground
Michael Yon with a quick update on the ground from Baquba, with a little background on the kind of access you get when you embed.
Yon points to NYT’s Gordon, whose latest report is here, earlier analysis of the operation is here.
Unclear who else is there … Yon says he’s heard of others but hasn’t seen them. CNN, Time, Reuters want in but space is an issue. Not sure what that means.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:47 am on Thursday, June 21, 2007
9 Responses to “Arrowhead Ripper on the Ground”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Once again, we have an inordinate concern for civilian casualties–but only those caused by Americans. This focus obscures the fact that our hyper-sensitivity has caused not only American casualties, but enormous civilian casualties by allowing the enemy to prosper and grow.
No one likes to think that they have been responsible for the death of innocents, but look at the actual results of a sensitivity that has no place in war. First of all, the enemy has escaped time and time again. Their success has encouraged others to join them. By not killing them every time we had the chance, we’ve given them time to grow, learn and obtain more money, arms, training, etc. We’ve let the enemy know that their best chance to survive is to make the very civilians we are trying to protect into human shields.. We have not saved civilians, but have put them in greater danger from the enemy. I guess we could say that it doesn’t matter, since at least WE aren’t the ones killing them, but I think that is a craven equivocation. Our failure to act is causing the death of innocents. If you are going to fight a war in defense of life, success only comes from killing the enemy.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
We’re firing rockets into a city of 280,000 people, salty.
I don’t think we’re being that sensitive to civilian casualties.
I wonder if the bad guys are somehow monitoring all the battlefield data being sent back to our commanders?
Encryption only goes so far…
June 21st, 2007 at 7:26 pm
“We’re firing rockets into a city of 280,000 people, salty.
I don’t think we’re being that sensitive to civilian casualties.”
I expect you’d be in character and gleefully presenting the same argument as proof of US perfidy if it was terrorists firing rockets into a US city of 280,000, so your offended sensibilities don’t mean much, jihad boy.
“I wonder if the bad guys are somehow monitoring all the battlefield data being sent back to our commanders?”
No, they aren’t. You’ve no idea what that would take.
Encryption only goes so far…”
Shows what you know. Plus, encryption is only one of several methods used simultaneously to secure battlefield data.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Thanks for pointing to Yon’s latest; he’s been consistently remarkable.
In what was really a sad moment, I was sure I knew exactly where your NYTimes links would lead, even without remembering Gordon’s name. I read his earlier article when it came out and thought, wow, finally. The Times actually managed to publish a report on what’s going on in Iraq, instead of their usual interpretation of the news. They’ve got the incomparable John Burns, of course, and I can only hope we’re on our way to a trend of three. Would that such reporting were the rule, not the exception!
June 21st, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Oldman,
I’m sure the bad guys have managed to get their hands on some of our decryption equipment.
Remember Enigma?
I thinks it’s best to assume they know everything our commanders do…in real time.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Now the ant is a military specialist. Always good for a laugh, that insect.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
“I’m sure the bad guys have managed to get their hands on some of our decryption equipment.”
You are? Based on what?
“Remember Enigma?”
Yup. Apples and Oranges. Not just the fact that it’s multiple generations back and encryption itself is very different, but Enigma had nothing whatsover to do with battlefield C3.
Strategic and tactical methodology for ensuring secure communications is apples and oranges. Neither approach is suitable to the the other.
The common indicator of ignorance in opining about military matters is the complete cluelessness about the the challenges and solutions of tactical and strategic demands and the vast difference between the two.
“I thinks it’s best to assume they know everything our commanders do…in real time.”
Ya thinks? You knew absolutely nothing about what you were talking about. Nothing. And went downhill from there. You just wanted to manufacture another imagined failure to lay at the US military’s feet. In character.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 am
Why did al Qaeda’s leaders move out of Baquba before our troops got there then. oldman?
Lucky guess?
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 am
You really are entirely clueless about military operations aren’t you?
Did they? When exactly? Before the operation started, or before their specific locale was threatened or invested? If you haven’t the answers, your statement is meaningless especially in light of the fact that you intend it to be some ignorant support of your fantasy that battlefield communications were compromised.
Which is to say that another of your rationales for your position that the US military is incompetent once again simply serves to illustrate that you are as stupid as any other jihadi.
On the other hand, even someone who is for the most part clueless about military operations with a moment’s thought would realize that in an operation of that size there’s plenty of warning of what’s going to happen just observing troop movement as it takes time to move those numbers. That same person could easily understand that a troop movement of that scope would not be designed to capture opposing commanders. You do that with tight. fast, special ops.
Clueless without also being a moron that is.