« The Ultimate Tool | Main | Compare and Contrast »

April 05, 2005

Let's Not Get Too Excited

The press is still providing all kinds of attention to Saturday's attack at abu Ghraib, with NBC doing a second story on it last night that was virtually identical to a piece they had done the night before (even using some of the same footage.) Today the Post ponders whether this attack marks a shift in enemy tactics since, you know, after all the enemy says so.

In an interview, Iraqi insurgent leaders said the assault was carried out by Zarqawi's group, al Qaeda in Iraq. The claim was also made in the name of the group on a radical Islamic Web site. The group's numerous attacks had until now largely involved suicide bombings, car bombings and kidnappings rather than direct confrontations with U.S. forces. (My emph.)

Yeah, I don't know about you guys, but frankly that raises more questions for me than it answers.

Do we now have these guys on speed dial? Are they giving press conferences? Conference calls? what? I'd love to hear an explanation of the mechanics of this.

Of course, not until the 7th paragraph do we hear from a military spokesman pointing out what should be the somewhat obvious:

U.S. authorities said they had not yet determined the veracity of the claims. Boylan said it was "too early to say whether this is a new trend or a new strategy'' for the insurgency, which in March inflicted fewer casualties on U.S. forces than in any month since February 2004.

(And am I still the only one noticing that if it is a new strategy it didn't work. At least not materially. It's working gangbusters in getting them big press. They've had a lousy month, frankly, but now they're getting all sorts of attention in that "bold," "audacious" category. And for a failed attempt.)

But, hey, they say it's a new strategy.

Insurgent commanders said Monday that the prison assault represented a shift in tactics and that more attacks on U.S. installations would follow.

"These operations will be different from the old ones, the car bombs, the IEDs,'' said Abu Jalal, a top commander in the extremist group Mohammed's Army, using the common abbreviation for improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs. Mohammed's Army is one of dozens of home-grown armed groups believed to be fighting the U.S. occupation in Iraq.

"We are going to use the same method that they used when they attacked Iraq," said Abu Jalal, who uses a nom de guerre and described himself as a former general in the Iraqi military during Saddam Hussein's rule.

Again, it failed, the more so when their own objective is admitted.

Abu Jalal said the attack had been launched to free a commander of Zarqawi's group and associates held at Abu Ghraib.

The assumption (fear) seems to be that because they were able to pull together a large number of fighters and stuff once in a relatively sophisticated plan they may be shifting to a strategy of attacking us with large numbers of fighters and stuff using sophisticated attack plans.

But where's the evidence that's feasible for them?

It's possible this is a response to their old strategy having been played out. But it would require their ability to produce large numbers of fighters who can fight in a disciplined way (as opposed to a brave way, because bravery can turn over into recklessness which doesn't help you in more conventional style attacks), trained in more than just rudimentary uses of weapons, and enough people who can plan at this level. Not just enough of those things to pull off an attack here and an attack there but enough of those things to repeat this type of attack over and over wherever they want around the country at will. And there isn't much evidence they have those things in sufficient quantity.

More to the point, the press is treating this as some big shocking, negative development -- oh my God! they've shifted to large scale attacks!

Talk about a great example of the negative impacts of the press not understanding military issues. Because, listen: if that's the case then this war is over.

Why (tactically) do groups choose terrorism? Because they can't compete at a tactical level against their opponent. If their big new strategy is to come out and fight in conventional style attacks against the American Army and the United States Marines then this thing is just over. It's hard to stop suicide bombers, for any conventional army. But there isn't a conventional force in the world that can stand against our ground forces for very long. Their only hope with this strategy is to convince the press that it proves how big and bad and committed and simply still there they are. Because on the battlefield itself they're about to get mowed down in droves.

Posted on April 05, 2005 at 06:51 AM |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8342021e553ef00d834588ebb69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Let's Not Get Too Excited:

» A Change in Tactics from the fourth rail
The recent attacks on Abu Ghraib prison provide an interesting window into the mindset and tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq. Austin Bay reports the goal of the attacks on Abu Ghraib is to amplify the propaganda effect of Abu... [Read More]

Tracked on April 05, 2005 at 04:28 PM

» Mao's 3 Stages of 4GW (Now with Tractors?) from tdaxp
"The Vietnamese Modification," by Thomas X. Hammes, The Sling and the Stone, p 59, 12 September 2004. "Second Attack on Iraq Prison in 48 Hours Wounds 5 Iraqis," by Robert F. Worth, New York Times, 5 April 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/int... [Read More]

Tracked on April 05, 2005 at 06:20 PM

» Mao's 3 Stages of 4GW (Now with Tractors?) from tdaxp
"The Vietnamese Modification," by Thomas X. Hammes, The Sling and the Stone, p 59, 12 September 2004. "Second Attack on Iraq Prison in 48 Hours Wounds 5 Iraqis," by Robert F. Worth, New York Times, 5 April 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/int... [Read More]

Tracked on April 05, 2005 at 06:20 PM

» A Change in Tactics from the fourth rail
The recent attacks on Abu Ghraib prison provide an interesting window into the mindset and tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq. Austin Bay reports the goal of the attacks on Abu Ghraib is to amplify the propaganda effect of Abu... [Read More]

Tracked on April 05, 2005 at 09:14 PM

» A Change in Tactics from the fourth rail
The recent attacks on Abu Ghraib prison provide an interesting window into the mindset and tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq. Austin Bay reports the goal of the attacks on Abu Ghraib is to amplify the propaganda effect of Abu... [Read More]

Tracked on April 07, 2005 at 10:25 AM

» Terrorists forced to change tactics from Posse Incitatus
The Posse finds much speculation in the blogosphere as to what the conventional attacks on Abu Ghraib mean. The Belmont Club is a good starting point. [Read More]

Tracked on April 08, 2005 at 09:19 AM

» 4GW from Thesis Writing in Progress
War of Ideas / 4GW by tdaxp, Tuesday, April 05, 2005 Mao's 3 Stages of 4GW (Now with Tractors?) "The Vietnamese Modification," by Thomas X. Hammes, The Sling and the Stone, p 59, 12 September 2004. "Second Attack on Iraq Prison in 48 Hours Wounds 5 ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 10, 2005 at 05:10 PM

Comments

In a way this is great news.

The terrorists are trying to regain the support of the Iraqi people, because it's fading all so quickly.

That's why they chose a large-scale attack on a military target rather than civilian, plus a target that has valuable symbolism.

They want to be once again heralded as the freedom fighters and resistance to American injustices.

Does that mean it's a total shift away from terrorism? Doubtful, they're probably just trying it on for size, hoping something, anything will work in what is a desperate time for them in the recent events of all Iraq---election of government officials, Iraqis calling in tips constantly, negative media coverage of their efforts, etc.

Posted by: Athena | April 05, 2005 at 07:47 AM

This "new strategy" is great news...if you're a US soldier or Marine. Our lads must be licking their lips at the prospects of moron insurgents concentrating their forces, such as they are, against US fixed positions.

Bring 'em on. Hooah!!

Posted by: George | April 05, 2005 at 11:07 AM

My only question is, how many of the terrorists were killed. Have not seen that anywhere. Just curious.

Posted by: LYNN | April 05, 2005 at 02:42 PM

Don't think there's a hard answer to that question. I saw an est. of 50, but it's just an est. b/c they pull back their dead with them when they go.

Posted by: dauber | April 06, 2005 at 05:09 AM

The reason the press is so excited is that they believe their own world view (aka propaganda) that this is another Viet Nam. The switch to "large scale tactics" came just before our press convinced our "leaders" that the war was lost and we needed to exit. So the press is excited because they think they are about to relive their glory days. Hope they enjoy their self delusion. I would think the real reason for the attack on the prison was to either coincide with a mass uprising to effect mass escapes, or more likely to gain access to the aide in question to kill him to keep him from talking any more than he probably already has. Just my opinions.

Posted by: Scott | April 06, 2005 at 09:36 AM

Lynn, _their_ admitted KIA is ten "martyrs." Real count = who knows? "Casualties" includes anyone made at least temporarily combat ineffective and/or requiring treatment for wounds.

With the incredible lethality of our forces, 50 casualties in 60 fighters is quite possible. There is so much more to fighting a battle than pointing a gun and shooting. They have neither the time, nor instructors, nor the infrastructure necessary to teach it.

Posted by: ubu | April 07, 2005 at 04:26 PM

cosamin buy online


[url=http://cosamin-ds.idoo.com/capsule-cosamin-ds.html]cosamin good for health[/url]

best site

Posted by: cosamin-onhfghhjs | October 24, 2007 at 05:23 AM

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by:  | 

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment