Four US helicopters shot down in two weeks. I'm waiting for the administration to make the charge that this must be because Iran is supplying new, more sophisticated, shoulder fired missiles to the Iraqi insurgents. Clearly we need to attack!
On a serious note, this is a bad turn of events tactically. Our air superiority is a very valuable asset. If we can't call in close air support to protect our troops for fear of losing helicopters (or AC-130s) we will be much more vulnerable on the ground. This will mean many more casualties.
i seriously think the only reason W is allowing himself to eat (a little) crow now is because he does have an (HUGE) escalation plan up his sleeve.
Now it's 6 (4 US and 2 US contractors.) But all the stories are saying it's *not* missiles but machine gun fire. So I guess there's no way to blame Iran except through some non-sexy link like "training" or "intelligence assistance." Still amounts to the same tactical problem for the US though. Rewatch BlackHawk Down for a sense of what happens to troops on the ground in hostile urban environments when you can't call in close air support for fear of losing helicopters. Short version: they get shot up.
I really think this is going to be worse than people think. The green zone is in danger.
Well that took long enough, but finally Debka is on the case: "Iran sends shoulder-borne QW-1 anti-air missiles to Iraqi Sunni insurgents and Hizballah to shoot down US and Israeli helicopters...."
Can we attack now? Has Cheney gone to his undisclosed location? (Well, okay, I guess we have to wait for the end of February when the second aircraft carrier group reaches the gulf.)
Oh, Iran and the Sunnis--best friends forever.
Also, half the guns in insurgent hands probably come from the US--does that mean we have to attack ourselves?
and half the funds
The Daily Show had some coverage of Bremer's testimony. Pathetic performance.
"We are in a war against terrorists, to have a blame meeting isn't, in my opinion, constructive," said Rep. Dan Burton an Indiana Republican.
Children. And not in a good way.
|
On a serious note, this is a bad turn of events tactically. Our air superiority is a very valuable asset. If we can't call in close air support to protect our troops for fear of losing helicopters (or AC-130s) we will be much more vulnerable on the ground. This will mean many more casualties.
- jim 2-02-2007 10:40 pm
i seriously think the only reason W is allowing himself to eat (a little) crow now is because he does have an (HUGE) escalation plan up his sleeve.
- bill 2-02-2007 10:58 pm
Now it's 6 (4 US and 2 US contractors.) But all the stories are saying it's *not* missiles but machine gun fire. So I guess there's no way to blame Iran except through some non-sexy link like "training" or "intelligence assistance." Still amounts to the same tactical problem for the US though. Rewatch BlackHawk Down for a sense of what happens to troops on the ground in hostile urban environments when you can't call in close air support for fear of losing helicopters. Short version: they get shot up.
I really think this is going to be worse than people think. The green zone is in danger.
- jim 2-08-2007 6:18 pm
- mark 2-08-2007 11:45 pm
Well that took long enough, but finally Debka is on the case: "Iran sends shoulder-borne QW-1 anti-air missiles to Iraqi Sunni insurgents and Hizballah to shoot down US and Israeli helicopters...."
Can we attack now? Has Cheney gone to his undisclosed location? (Well, okay, I guess we have to wait for the end of February when the second aircraft carrier group reaches the gulf.)
- jim 2-10-2007 1:49 am
Oh, Iran and the Sunnis--best friends forever.
- tom moody 2-10-2007 1:59 am
Also, half the guns in insurgent hands probably come from the US--does that mean we have to attack ourselves?
- tom moody 2-10-2007 2:02 am
and half the funds
- steve 2-10-2007 2:25 pm
The Daily Show had some coverage of Bremer's testimony. Pathetic performance.
Children. And not in a good way.
- mark 2-10-2007 10:48 pm