View Full Version : Military Escort Does a Runner
Red Peasant
09-29-2006, 14:58
Who'd be a civilian driver in Iraq when the troops just leave you to be murdered?
Luckily, this guy got away but some of his mates didn't.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_5390000/newsid_5390300/bb_rm_5390306.stm)
edit: it works now.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-29-2006, 16:16
How about the massive incompetance of all the people involved?
Oops, we missed our turn.
Zero sympathy all round, I'm afraid.
FWIW, Halliburton does not provide its drivers with maps. Navigation is expected to be performed by the military escort. Insane not to give the drivers every tool they might need to get the heck out, but there it is.
FWIW, Halliburton does not provide its drivers with maps. Navigation is expected to be performed by the military escort. Insane not to give the drivers every tool they might need to get the heck out, but there it is.
Hey man, maps cost money! What, do you think the green stuff grows on trees? Perish the thought that some post-war generation executive should have to sacrifice a few dollars worth of stock options just so some hick driver can find his way out of a shooting gallery... for shame Lemur, for shame!
:furious3:
yesdachi
09-29-2006, 18:25
That’s a heck of a career choice! His high school guidance counselor must have hated him.
On a serious note, why do I get the funny feeling that the military escort which cut and ran was a Nat'l Guard or Reserve unit? Can you imagine an active Army unit or, perish the thought, a Marine unit cutting and running like that?
Major Robert Dump
09-29-2006, 18:53
this is old
Whos the retard who planned that route through a narrow road in sigle file vehicle formation? One truck gets disabled and the rest are stuck behind him
And maybe if Texas Johnson was a little more concerned with driving his truck and a little less concerned with being a cameraman and taking pictures of bullet holes in the steering wheel his truck might not have stalled. I wonder if every one of those other drivers were doing the same thing
Not to sound flippant, but those guys weren't soldeirs, they should not have been there. I doubt the escorts were very energetic about escorting a large group of unarmed non-military targets who get paid, eat and sleep better than they do. The escort was probably civil affairs, lightly armed and maybe even chics. So the question I ask you....would them stopping have done any good or would that just mean there were two dead american soldiers and a destroyed vehicle in the body count as well??????
What a flippin circus. Any civilians who go over there to make a buck should know exactly what they are getting into, and if not they should have read the fine print in the contracts that say if they break the contract they have to find their own way home. Whatever possessed these guys to say "okay, lets go for a drive!' while unarmed I may never know(probably felons so they cant have guns ROFL even in a warzone)
Halliburton later fired the guy BTW, for work related injuries. All the contractors need to go home and stop wasting billions of dollars paid to them up front. The army could do a better job any day of the week.
Major Robert Dump
09-29-2006, 19:02
On a serious note, why do I get the funny feeling that the military escort which cut and ran was a Nat'l Guard or Reserve unit? Can you imagine an active Army unit or, perish the thought, a Marine unit cutting and running like that?
Bite your tongue, Guard and Reserve are getting killed over there, too.
It was NOT marines; and despite the brilliant camerawork and commentary by Texas Johnson, you weren't there, you don't know exactly what happened, and as far as any of us know that military vehicle was surrounded by small arms fire and saw some jibs pointing RPGs at it, at which point the last thing you want to do is stop the vehicle and return fire. It may have stopped up the block and engaged insurgents, the people inside it may have been seriously wounded, and, as stated before, it was prbably just a couple of soldiers who would have been just as effective in that situation getting out and trying to kung fu the insurgents.
I could really give two sheets about civilian contractors in a war zone.
Reverend Joe
09-29-2006, 19:09
The guy was driving fine. The problem was that the engine was shot. Not to mention the driver; you cannot drive a large stick shift vehicle with one arm, especially on rocky roads such as the one they were using.
this is old
Whos the retard who planned that route through a narrow road in sigle file vehicle formation? One truck gets disabled and the rest are stuck behind him
What a flippin circus. Any civilians who go over there to make a buck should know exactly what they are getting into, and if not they should have read the fine print in the contracts that say if they break the contract they have to find their own way home. Whatever possessed these guys to say "okay, lets go for a drive!' while unarmed I may never know(probably felons so they cant have guns ROFL even in a warzone)
.
The retard deserves to be sacked
The "civilian" rightly expects the army to look after it, even if the civilian is useless, the army still has a duty to do there job, even if this means putting themselves at risk
lancelot
09-29-2006, 19:22
I saw this on the news last night...the almost comical bit was the statement from the US higher ups saying that the escort didnt run but moved to find a better position to fight bravely... :laugh4: :laugh4:
I think a civillian is stupid to take such a job but on the other hand if you are gonna escort something then the least you can do is escort it well.
Major Robert Dump
09-29-2006, 19:40
The guy was driving fine. The problem was that the engine was shot. Not to mention the driver; you cannot drive a large stick shift vehicle with one arm, especially on rocky roads such as the one they were using.
Are you saying he was driving with one arm because he was shot? He should have been a pro at it, since he was driving with one arm prior to that because he was holding a freaking camera
How do you guys know the escort didn't go to a better position? On the words of Texas Johnson, the vo-tech dropout, who even admits in the interview "I don't know who those escorts were, but...." Was he supposed to recognize them if he saw them amongst the rescue force, did he assume they ran because they didn't come back and kiss him goodnight and tuck him in? Shame on them, killing insurgents can wait! Do you not hear the gunfire? Why didn't they converge on ALL the trucks and kill ALL the drivers, could it be that maybe JUST MAYBE they were getting engaged by these troops you guys are so convinced turn tail and fled?
"We gotta go back and rescue Texas Johnson! It doesn't matter that we are sorrounded by people firing from rooftops, and sandwiched between a broke down truck and a flipped over truck with no room to maneuver! Get out of the vehicle and give your life to go run for a guy who may already be dead! I don't care if he sounds like Slim Pickins! Get in there!"
What a cowardly escort. They finally have a visible enemy that they can shoot at and kill and what do they do? Piss their pants and run home.
Samurai Waki
09-29-2006, 19:48
Call in an Artillery Barrage on my position!!!
Seamus Fermanagh
09-29-2006, 20:09
How about the massive incompetance of all the people involved?
Oops, we missed our turn.
Zero sympathy all round, I'm afraid.
A bit harsh, no? Some poor fellow looks the wrong way and steps in front of a moving bus and my first thought is not "zero sympathy."
Escort may have scarpered -- if so, they should be up on charges. Certainly their performance must be evaluated.
Mistakes happen in tense situations -- you keep working to minimize same.
Do those involved share some degree of culpability in the reported deaths? Yes. However, neither the drivers nor the escort were trying to kill members of the convoy. They are even less "at fault" then had they made a mistake which precipitated a fatal accident.
Major Robert Dump
09-29-2006, 20:10
It's obvious who here prefers to see the military as buffoons and cowards, rather than actually paying attention to whats going on in the video. I'm sure you all would have OMGLOLZ!!!111 at the insurgents.
How do you guys know the escort didn't go to a better position?
Great question. Any answers from lions den ?
What a cowardly escort. They finally have a visible enemy that they can shoot at and kill and what do they do? Piss their pants and run home.
Are you kiding me, they were on a 1 lane road, with only a couple soldiers as an escort. What are they expected to do at that point. They cleared the road ahead of the trucks, and from the sounds they didn't just abandon them. Not to mention their was a predator watching their position so I doubt highly that they abandon them, in anyway. Which is still irrelavent because Mr. Texas Johnson is a dumb*** redneck and should have been shot with his parents for shaming the great state of Texas.
____________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
BigTex
Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb
Tribesman
09-29-2006, 20:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s a heck of a career choice! His high school guidance counselor must have hated him.
Hey it could be worse , there is an idiot from just up the road who was kidnapped but eventually released , his next job is for Haliburton on Algeria.
Did you ever feic such a fruitloop in all your life:dizzy2:
Unfortunately yes
Some people never learn , hey its great money , we got loads of really heavily armed bodyguards and everything ...
Bollox
What ya gonna do when you are an internet celbrity for sick***** around the world and your parents cannot even watch the news anymore incase it sets them off .
******* idiots , don't take the bloody job in the first place .
Sorry about all the * , but thats life innit
Here's (https://youtube.com/watch?v=vy5vl0Vr0N4) what appears to be a longer clip. It seems (suprise, suprise) that the bbc cut the hell out of the clip to better fit their story.
Devastatin Dave
09-29-2006, 20:51
It's obvious who here prefers to see the military as buffoons and cowards, rather than actually paying attention to whats going on in the video. I'm sure you all would have OMGLOLZ!!!111 at the insurgents.
Nothing new...
Here's (https://youtube.com/watch?v=vy5vl0Vr0N4) what appears to be a longer clip. It seems (suprise, suprise) that the bbc cut the hell out of the clip to better fit their story.
Yes some more wonderful even and unbiased reporting by the bbc....... :shame: What the first "video" misses is that the humvee that pulls off is actually escorting the truck ahead of him. Not to mention on the tape it sounded like there was another humvee behind them.
______________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
BigTex
Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb
. Which is still irrelavent because Mr. Texas Johnson is a dumb*** redneck and should have been shot with his parents for shaming the great state of Texas.
Thats not very nice, he was only doing his job,
the second vid makes it clear that the escort didnt mess up too bad :2thumbsup: well done to the bbc for another bit of completely unbiased reporting :wall:
Tribesman
09-29-2006, 21:17
It seems (suprise, suprise) that the bbc cut the hell out of the clip to better fit their story.
yes Xiahou , they just killed him Oh my god they just killed him, and of course the cavalry came into the rescue and he wasn't really dead as the cavalry refused to obey their orders an returned to the ambush...hmmmm that was a nice house wasn't it , the seventh one on the right , I am surprised the BBC included a nice house in their footage since nice houses don't fit their agenda .:juggle2:
Bite your tongue, Guard and Reserve are getting killed over there, too.
Who said they were not getting killed? I simply called into question the competency and dedication of Guard and Reserve troops as compared to Marines and other active military units. Take note that Guard and Reserve enlistment is down while active service enrollment is either flat or up; clearly the average person inclined to join the Guard or Reserve isn't interested in seeing any kind of action. Furthermore, based on every documentary or special I've seen on the Iraq conflict there is an unusual amount of grumbling and resentment coming from Guard and Reserve units, often drawing an unfavorable comparison their active Army & Marine counterparts who don't exhibit nearly the same level of disdain for their assignments.
I could really give two sheets about civilian contractors in a war zone.
Well bully for you. True, these civilian contractors knew the risks when they signed up but like it or not they are instrumental in our overall effort to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Coalition troops can't do everything, especially since they're seemingly shorthanded as it is. Do you honestly believe the existing military assets in Iraq are sufficient to do the job by themselves? Taking a devil may care attitude with regard to the life of civilian contractors in missions like these only makes our job harder.
I also think you're taking some people's criticism of this particular escort unit a tad too personally. Regardless of whether this is indeed a case of cowardice or that the video footage is woefully inadequate for telling the whole story I do not believe everyone in this thread is judging the entire US armed forces based on a single incident.
Which is still irrelavent because Mr. Texas Johnson is a dumb*** redneck and should have been shot with his parents for shaming the great state of Texas.
:inquisitive: What planet are you from?
Major Robert Dump
09-29-2006, 21:32
I don't think the even the BBs version shows that the escort messed up. furthermore, the version released on Ogrish a year ago doesn't show it either. Clearly, if there were any screw up it were the choice of route for the convoy, which may not have even been the escorts fault anyway. You also have to keep in mind that in tight neighborhoods like that the insurgents create blockades to hinder movement and intelligence.
This guy in the convoy was expecting everyone to stop and come back for him. Taking a shot in the arm does not prevent one from hopping into one of the passing trucks, nor apparently, does it prevent you from using a video camera and making whiney commentary the entire time. If this guys intent was to play dead and hope the insurgents passed him by, screaming into the camera and holding it up to take pictures is not the way to do it.
He panicked. They all panicked. Several trucks got disabled. People were yelling into the radio. I highly doubt he was on the same frequency as the escort, probably only the convoy leader was. So if the CO watching on the predator tells the escorts to keep pushing out of the hot zone, the CO most likely has no idea which truckers are alive and which are not. May be hard for the escorts to communicate that info because, ya know, they are in a firefight and may even be wounded
And, as I stated before, this guy didn't even know who his escorts were, so how can he be a good judge of whether or not they stayed in the area? If he were abandoned and not rescued for 45 mins, why didn't he get killed them? What kept the insurgents off him? Coalition bullets maybe?
One thing I am curious about is where they convoy was headed, what they were carrying that it took such a low priority (1 escort) and whether or not the two escorts survived. Personally, as the guy on the other end of the predator watching it unfold, if I thought the situation was too much for my soldiers I would not send them back for the truckers and rather order them to supress and hold ground. I'd rather lose 7 civilian truck drivers than 7 truckers and 2 soldiers.
Major Robert Dump
09-29-2006, 21:36
Spino: no, of course I dont think the existing military resources are enough to do the job in Iraq without contractors. Of course, had we used the funds funneled to contractors instead on military assets then yes, as a matter of fact, I do believe they could handle it. This is all hindsight of course.
It's not a devil may care attitude. Read the last line of the post just above this one
I agree with most of that, but i think the military have to take into account the complete uselessness of civilians, obviously the drivers would panic...they are'nt trained for it, therefore they need to ve thoroughly looked after (ie. radio set for them etc. - although i realise this could be difficult)
again your complete disdain for civilian lives in combat seems a bit much, i would argue that putting the soldiers at risk is better than putting the civilian at risk, they know what they are in for, and are trained to deal with it...
Major Robert Dump
09-29-2006, 22:04
again your complete disdain for civilian lives in combat seems a bit much, i would argue that putting the soldiers at risk is better than putting the civilian at risk, they know what they are in for, and are trained to deal with it...
Complete disdain for civilian lives in combat? Heh. How, exactly, does saying I wouldnt send troops into certain death to save a convoy thats already been lost mean i have complete disregard for civilian lives?
Those truck drivers were not innocent Iraqi civilians. Those truckers were civilian contractors getting financially compensated -- very well I might add -- and were also all adults. They made the decision to leave the comfy states and go into a warzone to make some money. Haliburton didn't trick them and tell them they would be on a fishing boat for the summer up in Alaska. I fail to see how sacrificing soldiers would have changed the outcome of that video.
Do I want to see American (or any other contractors) killed? Of course not. Do I put more value on the life of a Iraqi civilian than the life of a contractor? No, but while the values are eqaul they are also of different types. Obviously, those trucks weren't carrying nuclear warheads or school children. And whether I'm on the ground in combat or watching a drone video and calling the shots, the focus is going to be on us killing the badguys -- an intergral part of which is us staying alive -- not running in and trying some bravado crap to save a truck driver.
Those soldiers did far more good for the overall mission by keeping themselves alive and killing insurgents than by running in and getting shot up trying to rescue Texas Johnson.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-29-2006, 22:27
I think that the mistake seems to have been when the escort took a wrong turn.
Aside from that, I've seen a couple of other videos where American regs panicked, cut and run. The only one where it turned out properly was when there was a Brit in with them and he had the gunner lay down the rounds with the 50. cal.
If you go into a war zone you're dead until you come out again.
lancelot
09-30-2006, 01:28
Do I want to see American (or any other contractors) killed? Of course not. Do I put more value on the life of a Iraqi civilian than the life of a contractor? No, but while the values are eqaul they are also of different types. Obviously, those trucks weren't carrying nuclear warheads or school children. And whether I'm on the ground in combat or watching a drone video and calling the shots, the focus is going to be on us killing the badguys -- an intergral part of which is us staying alive -- not running in and trying some bravado crap to save a truck driver.
Those soldiers did far more good for the overall mission by keeping themselves alive and killing insurgents than by running in and getting shot up trying to rescue Texas Johnson.
However all of this would be rendered moot if the convoy was protected adequately in the first place.
Red Peasant
09-30-2006, 02:10
Complet
Do I want to see American (or any other contractors) killed? Of course not. Do I put more value on the life of a Iraqi civilian than the life of a contractor? No, but while the values are eqaul they are also of different types. Obviously, those trucks weren't carrying nuclear warheads or school children. And whether I'm on the ground in combat or watching a drone video and calling the shots, the focus is going to be on us killing the badguys -- an intergral part of which is us staying alive -- not running in and trying some bravado crap to save a truck driver.
Hey, who here wants their backs to be covered by MRD?
If those guys can't be bothered to do their job in this scenario, then what the effin' use are they going to be in any other situation? I don't understand your logic. They were supposed to protect these civilians. It was a convoy. How simple can that be?
I'm confused MRD - why are you referring to the driver as "Texas Johnson"? His name was Preston Wheeler. I googled his name and this was the first report:
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060928/NEWS/60928015/1001/hawkeye_insider
This report gives Wheeler's account and says three civilian drivers were executed in cold blood by the insurgents during the ambush after their military escort left the scene. The army took 40 minutes to return. Preston Wheeler took two AK-47 bullets and was later fired for a "company injury" (I hope that does not refer to the two bullets). It also says the military policy in 2005 when this happened was to leave the site of an ambush and come back with superior force, but that this policy has now changed and convoys will be defended.
Another report includes the military reaction to the story:
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=80&pid=&sid=927827&page=1
It says:
The military investigation found that "individuals at the front of the convoy reacted as they were taught by pushing forward and getting out of the kill zone of the ambush," Martin-Hing wrote.
"What is not visible in the video being shown is that they collected the casualties they could reach and laid down suppressive fire with their weapons to help get those vehicles that could move from the front of the convoy out of the kill zone," she wrote.
The report also mentions that the escort was from the Va National Guard and that the convoy was carrying the mail.
I think a careful reading of the reports show that they could both be simultaneously true. But if the escort procedures have changed to be immediately protective of convoys, I would welcome that. The unarmed truck drivers were sitting ducks - if the escorts had immediately tried to get them to safety, they all would at least have had a fighting chance.
Crazed Rabbit
09-30-2006, 03:26
Hey, who here wants their backs to be covered by MRD?
If those guys can't be bothered to do their job in this scenario, then what the effin' use are they going to be in any other situation? I don't understand your logic. They were supposed to protect these civilians. It was a convoy. How simple can that be?
I do.
As for the rest of your post...it appears you don't completely comprehend what is going on.
CR
Earlier when he took fire and the gun truck didn't return fire he was mad that they didn't. Thanks to ROE US soldiers are only allowed to fire at things they can see so mowing down the village after some popshots were fired is a big no no.
You can hear over the radio the whole time to move out of the kill zone. That's SOP throughout the theatre. The driver should have taken sensitive items (radio) and hoped on the next truck (the one that passed him). Furthermore you can see this guys attitude when truck when says it's down (about 2:53 into it) and he says "keep rollin'" but when it's his ass on the line he changes his mind. When the convoy commander says "go around" he should have realized that the convoy is going to keep rolling and abandon his truck.
You can hear what should be done when truck 3 is downed and the driver asks for a ride too bad no one came back tough.
Also most contracters buy AKs and glocks for convoy duty for things just like this. This guys is a retard for going on convoy unarmed. The only truck drivers that go unarmed are all the Pakistanis and Indians the US hires to drive trucks and from what I've seen they have the sense to abandon their trucks when they should.
As for the escort. Don't knock them because they're national guard, we get killed just as easily as active duty! This convoy sounds like it only had 6 trucks and I have no idea how large the escort is, usually they are way overworked. Most KBR convoys into my area was about 30 trucks to 5 escorts so on a large ambush like this which envelopes trucks 1-5 all at once that escort can't be everywhere at once. Usually they'll try to consolidate at the front so they can clear a path for the still mobile trucks. But on them lie the full guilt for taking the wrong turn, EVERYONE should know the route and as you all saw people get killed when someone doesn't.
Major Robert Dump
09-30-2006, 06:53
Hey, who here wants their backs to be covered by MRD?
If those guys can't be bothered to do their job in this scenario, then what the effin' use are they going to be in any other situation? I don't understand your logic. They were supposed to protect these civilians. It was a convoy. How simple can that be?
Look, man. If that hummer did nothing but speed into the sunset and not return, then yes we have a problem.
However, you have apparently watched too many movies and expect to see a couple of soldiers running in and whisking the driver away to safety while surrounded by smoke and dust and under heavy gunfire from all sides all the while doing ninja rolls. The convoy was partially locked down, and insurgents drove a wedge in between the front and the back, which is also a recipe for killing friendlies in the crossfire (what I'm reading now is saying there may have been more military vehicles at the back of the convoy). That vehicle and the soldiers in it were best served getting to a location where they had more cover, from which they could effectively return fire and retake ground.
The fact is, none of us know feck all from just watching this video, only that the driver in question did survive, and he can thank the US military for that.
Had those all been military trucks (or at the least, armed) that video would have gone much, much differently
Kralizec
09-30-2006, 08:12
Do I want to see American (or any other contractors) killed? Of course not. Do I put more value on the life of a Iraqi civilian than the life of a contractor? No, but while the values are eqaul they are also of different types. Obviously, those trucks weren't carrying nuclear warheads or school children. And whether I'm on the ground in combat or watching a drone video and calling the shots, the focus is going to be on us killing the badguys -- an intergral part of which is us staying alive -- not running in and trying some bravado crap to save a truck driver.
Those soldiers did far more good for the overall mission by keeping themselves alive and killing insurgents than by running in and getting shot up trying to rescue Texas Johnson.
The way I see it the mission wasn't "drive around a little while with these random civilian verhicles and protect everyone around you, women and children first", it was "protect the convoy". Taking that into account I don't really see what relevance it has that this particular driver is an idiot (I condede that he is a Texan), or that he's being paid more then GI Joe. They miserably failed their mission, wether it was their own fault I don't know.
Also, I wasn't aware that nuclear warheads were living beings :juggle2:
Major Robert Dump
09-30-2006, 08:23
The relevance is that the "they left me" mentality is being perpetuated by him, and he fails to see that perhaps a larger plan was at work. Several of those drivers were lost due to small arms fire into their trucks, at least one of the vehicles was flipped on its side due to an IED, and the convoy was surrounded. What I'm trying to get through your heads is that based on the combat situation that I can assess from this video is that had the people in the forward military vehicle gotten out where this mans truck was disabled and engaged the enemy the outcome would have still been the same, plus a couple dead soldiers.
The relevance is that the "they left me" mentality is being perpetuated by him, and he fails to see that perhaps a larger plan was at work. Several of those drivers were lost due to small arms fire into their trucks, at least one of the vehicles was flipped on its side due to an IED, and the convoy was surrounded. What I'm trying to get through your heads is that based on the combat situation that I can assess from this video is that had the people in the forward military vehicle gotten out where this mans truck was disabled and engaged the enemy the outcome would have still been the same, plus a couple dead soldiers.
you can understand him having a "they left me" mentaility, he is watching what he thinks remains of his escort drive off into the distance...as an untrained soldier how could he know a larger plan at work, and apparently it wasnt.
As an escort surely the military have a duty to protect their convoy, the army cant just sacrifice men everytime they get in a difficult situation, it completely defeats the point of an escort.
I also dont see why the truck driver should be armed, they are surely better able to drive with two hands, and rely on the army for protection.
Kralizec
09-30-2006, 08:38
I also dont see why the truck driver should be armed, they are surely better able to drive with two hands, and rely on the army for protection.
I can almost hear MRD banging his head on the keyboard :laugh4:
The relevance is that the "they left me" mentality is being perpetuated by him, and he fails to see that perhaps a larger plan was at work. Several of those drivers were lost due to small arms fire into their trucks, at least one of the vehicles was flipped on its side due to an IED, and the convoy was surrounded. What I'm trying to get through your heads is that based on the combat situation that I can assess from this video is that had the people in the forward military vehicle gotten out where this mans truck was disabled and engaged the enemy the outcome would have still been the same, plus a couple dead soldiers.
Fair enough, I did say I wouldn't cast judgement wether the soldiers were at fault or not.
Ser Clegane
09-30-2006, 08:49
Unfortunately the video does not even give close to enough information to assess the situation - it just provides us with the point-of-view of one of the truck drivers.
This might be enough to somewhat understand his subjective view on the situation but it certainly does not give us a means to actually judge what has been done right or wrong.
IIRC it was mentioned at the beginning that there were 17 vehicles in the convoy - 12 trucks and 5 military vehicles.
My understanding is that the truck of our "protagonist" was truck #5 in the convoy, so assuming that the trucks were driving in their assigned order (of course I might be wrong in that assumption) there were still quite some trucks behind our proragonist.
I have to admit that I have no clue about proper convoy procedures, but I would guess that not all 5 military vehicles were driving ahead of a substantial part of the convoy, meaning that there would probably be at least 2 military vehicles still behind truck #5 that might or might not have stayed to protect the trucks that could not get away with the first part of the convoy.
It has already been mentioned that the protagonist obviously got out alive - so unless the attackers completely ignored him and his truck after he was "abandoned" (seems somewhat unlikely) or he miraculously managed to make a daring escape on his own (nothing of that was mentioned), chances are that he had not been abandoned but brought to safety with the help of military (either by the soldiers that protected the convoy or by additional troops that arrived).
I did not spend any time doing further research on this incident - so my statements are exclusively based on the posted video(s) and might be proven wrong by additional information.
The only conclusion I can draw based on the video(s) is simply that being a civilian contractor in Iraq would be a far too dangerous job for my taste and would IMO not be worth the probably very high payment - but I cannot draw any conclusions as to whether the soldiers did a good job protecting the convoy or not.
you can understand him having a "they left me" mentaility, he is watching what he thinks remains of his escort drive off into the distance...as an untrained soldier how could he know a larger plan at work, and apparently it wasnt.
As an escort surely the military have a duty to protect their convoy, the army cant just sacrifice men everytime they get in a difficult situation, it completely defeats the point of an escort.
I also dont see why the truck driver should be armed, they are surely better able to drive with two hands, and rely on the army for protection.
The driver is not untrained to even think halliburton didn't at least drill some basic safety procedures into those boneheads is a bit out there. The driver who's intelligence is better refered to as "what?" is the problem here. The driver failed to react to his truck stalling and the others screaming on the radio to essentially get the heck out of dodge by hoping into the multiple trucks pulling right past him. I mean heck I heard up to a truck number of 9, plenty of chances. I also doubt that with him being truck 5 and there being 4 other trucks that there wasnt at least one humvee at the rear. The humvee that pulled off was trying to protect the other humvee's by not stopping and giving the enemy what they wanted, a completely halted convoy to slaughter.
As for not being armed, does that include not holding video camera's also? Honestly a G3 siting next to you is probably not going to interfere with you driving a semi, but it sure might keep the crazie's out of the cabin.
They drove a wedge into their midsection of the convoy and promptly tryed to suround it completely, stoping and fighting would mean not only the 2(?) truck drivers die, but all 9 and alot of soldiers.
__________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
BigTex
Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb
Someone said the civilian contractors were not allowed to carry weapons. As for jumping out of the truck to try to hitch a lift, if I knew military procedure was to hightail it out of the ambush, I might be inclined to do that. But as a civilian, I would not expect the escort to drive off - I very much doubt Halliburton spelt it out in their training. I would be inclined to think that if I stayed put, in radio contact, one of the five escorts might pull up and get me out. The video gives no evidence that the humvee picking up the driver would have resulted in soldiers dying. The driver survived for 40 minutes in his cab. The humvee soldiers probably would have survived the minute or so it took to pull over and pick him up.
People should remember that while the escort may just have followed standard procedures, according to military spokesmen, those procedures have now changed and now require defending the convoy. I'm not going to criticise the escort, but I do welcome the new procedures.
The really scarey part would be if the escort shared the contempt for civilian contractors that some posters here apparently do.
lancelot
09-30-2006, 12:48
As for the rest of your post...it appears you don't completely comprehend what is going on.
CR
And you do?
The convoy was partially locked down, and insurgents drove a wedge in between the front and the back, which is also a recipe for killing friendlies in the crossfire (what I'm reading now is saying there may have been more military vehicles at the back of the convoy). That vehicle and the soldiers in it were best served getting to a location where they had more cover, from which they could effectively return fire and retake ground.
Which is in itself a classic tactic for enemy units in a convoy formation...any escorts with half a brain and a decent escort force in the first place should have been expecting this and had the means to counter it without the loss of civillian lives.
I agree with you that in all probability the escort as it was souldnt have done much benefit by staying put...Im just surprised that they fell victim to such an old tactic in the first place.
Which is in itself a classic tactic for enemy units in a convoy formation...any escorts with half a brain and a decent escort force in the first place should have been expecting this and had the means to counter it without the loss of civillian lives.
Have you ever been caught in an ambush? I suspect someone doesn't have the knowledge necessary to pass judgement. (And this is direct at more then one poster.) Standard practice for any vehicle caught in an ambush is to move away from the kill zone, find a secure area, assemble a combat force and go back. The video's radio traffic seems to indicate that was what was being attempted.
I agree with you that in all probability the escort as it was souldnt have done much benefit by staying put...Im just surprised that they fell victim to such an old tactic in the first place.
Ambush is the oldest and most useful tactic in military operations. Simply because if one does not like the odds of the situation - the ambushing force can elect not to fire the ambush.
The escort didn't abandon him, he stopped and by the time he told anyone he was down they were around the corner. You can hear a lot of gun fire in the backround, I'll assume that's a lot of fire from the front or rear of the convoy, probably both. It means the escort was trying to fight the enemy. It's not as if they just hauled balls to the next base. Think about it, you need the path cleared, if they can't secure the front of then the convoy will sit there even longer and more people will die. Sitting in place with no extra support is stupid, it lets the isurgents pick off the gunner from angles he's not facing, then if he's dead the entire convoy essentially loses a guntruck and is even more screwed. There's trucks behind him as well then which are probably trying to secure their part of the convoy, the rear trucks didn't pass him and leave they just followed SOP to try protect their part while the front got cleared.
The guntrucks did exactly what they were supposed to do in that situation and damn it they can't protect everyone. What they should be fried for is taking the wrong turn, everyone should know the route!
And contracters usually were armed. They at least had a pistol on them, maybe KBR changed the rules in the past few months but when I left in Jan contracters were usually toting an Ak47 in their truck and a pistol at their side. Maybe they were never allowed to carry weapons but they certainly did when I was there and with good reason.
Looking at the date this was Sept last year so there should be plenty of guntoting contract drivers, maybe their supervisor was an unreasonable dick.
And here you guys go:
From here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046769/page/2/
U.S. military officials stress that in the video, Wheeler is describing the experience from his perspective alone, and that it provides an incomplete picture of all that took place.
A military investigation into the attack on the KBR convoy found that the military escorts responded appropriately to the insurgent attack.
"Once the shooting started, the soldiers in the lead Humvees followed established military procedures to move out of the kill zone," concludes the investigation.
According to the report: Once clear of the kill zone, the two Humvees in the lead circled back to set up a "perimeter" and "lay down suppressing fire" against the insurgents. They also arranged for the evacuation of three U.S. soldiers and one KBR employee who had been wounded but managed to drive out of the kill zone. The soldiers also placed an immediate call for a U.S. military Quick Reaction Force and air cover.
The report states that the firefight lasted at least 35 minutes. During that time the soldiers took small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and grenades.
Two U.S. helicopter gunships arrived within 20 minutes after the initial enemy contact. It's not clear whether the helicopters actually fired, but the military investigation indicates their mere presence reduced the amount of enemy fire. The Quick Reaction Force arrived 35 minutes after the first contact.
U.S. military officials say their investigation disputes the claim that the military escorts had abandoned the KBR employees. "They (soldiers) never left." According to the officials, the video does not reveal the Humvees that established perimeters beyond the front and rear of the convoy.
The military officials say the suppressive fire laid down by the soldiers kept the two wounded KBR employees alive.
"If they had been abandoned, they would not have survived," says one official.
The investigation did reveal an error in the convoy route map, and the U.S. military says it was corrected within a week.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-30-2006, 21:53
Ultimately the problem lies in using Civi's in the first place. The drivers should have been Regs, so should the escort.
Beyond that the first priorety should be to get the convoy out.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-30-2006, 21:54
Question to those of you who have done this convoy work.
Is close escort practical?
I say this based on a number of discussions of aerial and naval convoys during the world wars. These discussion suggest that having an escort close-by and visible was psychologically comforting for the escortee, but usually was not the best means to suppress/destroy convoy raiders. The bomber pilots wanted the P-47's flying off their wing and staying with them -- which left them pretty useless for destroying Bf-109s.
Hunter-killer groups and free roving "sweeps" seemed to be more practical for the goals of convoy safety, by (when possible) removing the opposition before it was in range to engage. Does this analogy hold true for these land convoys?
lancelot
09-30-2006, 22:04
Have you ever been caught in an ambush? I suspect someone doesn't have the knowledge necessary to pass judgement. (And this is direct at more then one poster.) Standard practice for any vehicle caught in an ambush is to move away from the kill zone, find a secure area, assemble a combat force and go back. The video's radio traffic seems to indicate that was what was being attempted.
Have I been caught in an ambush? Yea- all the time- District line train into london...
And are you suggesting that I am the someone who doesnt have the necessary knowledge to pass judgement?
Have I been caught in an ambush? Yea- all the time- District line train into london...
every damn day :2thumbsup:
Question to those of you who have done this convoy work.
Is close escort practical?
I say this based on a number of discussions of aerial and naval convoys during the world wars. These discussion suggest that having an escort close-by and visible was psychologically comforting for the escortee, but usually was not the best means to suppress/destroy convoy raiders. The bomber pilots wanted the P-47's flying off their wing and staying with them -- which left them pretty useless for destroying Bf-109s.
Hunter-killer groups and free roving "sweeps" seemed to be more practical for the goals of convoy safety, by (when possible) removing the opposition before it was in range to engage. Does this analogy hold true for these land convoys?
It's different on the ground, there aren't really formations such as sea and air formations. It's really just spacing between vehicles and what to do when you get hit. Close escort is needed for urban areas, but once on the open highway or freeway everything opens up and you'll have roving escorts that go up and down the line of vehicle so that no pattern is set. For the closer urban work one truck can't do much so when someone get's hit 2 go to the front 2 to the rear and all extra escorts to where ever someone got hit.
For the equivalent of true roving destroyers or fighters that would just be standard patrolling. People are assigned a sector they patrol it several times a day. EOD usually have people traveling up and down the MSRs (supply routes) get the road for IEDs and in my AO there were always a handful of Apaches ready to give support when needed. All this is very effective in deterring most attacks but when someone gets attack as in the video the terrain is going to be very unfriendly for mobility or in the case of IEDs just something you can't really react to in the act of attacking the perpetrators. For the guys firing pop shots there's really nothing that can be done, we can't fire back unless we see who shot at us or a weapon in hand.
I think spmetla pretty much nailed it in #46.
One thing that keeps coming to mind for me is... what the hell was the driver doing operating a video camera? You're a truck driver, not some tourist- focus on doing your job.
During the attack, the drivers reactions are understandable- he was obviously terrified. However, if he's still going around talking to reporters claiming that he was "abandoned" I'd say he's being a bit of a hypocrite as well as dishonest.
Major Robert Dump
10-01-2006, 09:17
I don't see what the big deal was with "abandoning" him. It's not like he was a blonde nubile with big tits. You guys need to get your priorities straight.
Have I been caught in an ambush? Yea- all the time- District line train into london...
And are you suggesting that I am the someone who doesnt have the necessary knowledge to pass judgement?
From the nature of your comments - I can safely reach that conclusion with absolutely no problem.
Do you know the tactics and procedures for a blocked ambush? How does it differ from the tactics and procedures for an unblocked ambush? How does a combat vehicle convoy respond to an ambush versus that of a Supply truck convoy?
lancelot
10-01-2006, 15:03
From the nature of your comments - I can safely reach that conclusion with absolutely no problem.
Hang on a minute...My post was a comment on the use of such a tactic as boxing in a convoy to which I thought that in such a hostile enviroment a better escort was (obviously) needed and then went on to add that I was surprised that military organisations are not better prepared to counter such a tactic considering its age.
To which you replied-
Standard practice for any vehicle caught in an ambush is to move away from the kill zone, find a secure area, assemble a combat force and go back. The video's radio traffic seems to indicate that was what was being attempted.
And then quoted me-
I agree with you that in all probability the escort as it was souldnt have done much benefit by staying put...Im just surprised that they fell victim to such an old tactic in the first place.
...in the same post, even though you basically reiterated my point.
So first off you present a piece of information in response to something I wasnt even talking about and then belittle me for it...
Grey_Fox
10-01-2006, 18:03
It's rather easy to place an ambush. Just watch to see how the convoy moves and spread out into buildings along the path, then open fire (hopefully with an explosive device someplace along the route. There is no way in hell of avoiding it aside from being informed from locals or blind luck. As far as I can tell, the escort did nothing wrong, they were just unlucky in that the enemy opened fire first.
The escort was in all likelihood sufficient for the task at hand - getting the civvies from point A to point B. If the civvies had done the smart thing and run as soon as the shooting had started, there would have been fewer casualties, but instead they froze like rabbits caught in the headlights and got buggered for it.
You can't stop a determined enemy from launching an attack, and these lads are determined.
The escort was in all likelihood sufficient for the task at hand - getting the civvies from point A to point B. If the civvies had done the smart thing and run as soon as the shooting had started, there would have been fewer casualties, but instead they froze like rabbits caught in the headlights and got buggered for it.
You can't stop a determined enemy from launching an attack, and these lads are determined.
Arguably the escort is only sufficient if they succeed with 0 casualties, but i'm sure the US army knows what its doing, (-that wasnt sarcastic)
However i dont think the civilians should be expected to know what to do, i would certainly freeze in that situation, as i suspect the vast majority of civvies would, its the escorts job to make sure they dont...
Hang on a minute...My post was a comment on the use of such a tactic as boxing in a convoy to which I thought that in such a hostile enviroment a better escort was (obviously) needed and then went on to add that I was surprised that military organisations are not better prepared to counter such a tactic considering its age.
Your comment here shows just what I was alreadly talking about myself. How do you counter an ambush?
Your taking an armchair general approach and still don't see it.
So first off you present a piece of information in response to something I wasnt even talking about and then belittle me for it...
Nope - demonstrating that you do not have the knowledge in which to critize the military unit for its actions. The Battle Drill for a convoy ambush is for the convoy to depart the location. Something that you are seemly critizing the military for doing. The Tape does not present any evidence that the military did not follow through on its battle drill to return to the ambush site with overwhelming combat power.
At Scurvy
Arguably the escort is only sufficient if they succeed with 0 casualties, but i'm sure the US army knows what its doing, (-that wasnt sarcastic)
However i dont think the civilians should be expected to know what to do, i would certainly freeze in that situation, as i suspect the vast majority of civvies would, its the escorts job to make sure they dont.
Your comment only demonstrates what is wrong with allowing civilian contractors to perform tasks on the battlefield. They do not have the training to perform the necessary battle drills when engaged.
Your comment only demonstrates what is wrong with allowing civilian contractors to perform tasks on the battlefield. They do not have the training to perform the necessary battle drills when engaged.
I agree :2thumbsup:
A convoy through hostile territtory is all about ensuring the survival of the majority of the cargo. If this mans leaving a crippled ship to the U-boats or a stalled truck to the insurgents then so be it.
Although it seems that operational protocols now require a "see the convoy through" rather than a "run off for help" action from the escort it is clear that they reacted as per then current instructions in this case. The new instructions no doubt require even more manpower, which is probably part of the original problem.
Where the escort failed utterly was a guides, since it appears they took a wrong turning. This is where they should be, and probably were if true, held to account by their superiors.
Civilian contractors have no place on the ground in a warzone IMO. It just shows a lack of proper planning and political willpower while highlighting a lack of military manpower and equipment.
Red Peasant
10-02-2006, 17:20
I suppose that one of the problems is identifying the battleground in Iraq. Is the whole country a battleground? Places that seem to be reasonably 'pacified' or at least not imminently threatening are suddenly erupting. This ambush was ad hoc, but effective. We are supposed to be there to help rebuild the country, so civilian workers will have to get involved at some levels because even a military as powerful as the US's cannot do everything.
I understand what you are saying about standard counter-ambush tactics, but surely they would apply mainly in a completely military context and an attack on a target that includes civilians would operate under different protocols. Just leaving unarmed civs stranded for 40 mins seems a bit more than re-grouping somewhere up the line. I was discussing this with a friend of mine with currently 22 years service (due out soon) in the British Army, who has been involved in lots of ambush situations in N. Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq etc., and he says that when protecting civilians, their protection is the most important factor. Standard procedures are well and good but every situation is different and the response should be tailored accordingly, although that is not easy under extreme duress, but imperative in this situation is the safety and protection of civs. A lot would depend on the quality of the officers and NCOs on the ground.
edit: Where's BG? As an ex-officer he will probably have first-hand insights into this kind of scenario and how it is dealt with.
Major Robert Dump
10-02-2006, 17:34
The fact that he was not captured or killed is evidence that he was not stranded for 40 mins.
What, pray tell, is the point of running in and pulling this man to safety when in fact you have no where safe to take him? Can any armchair generals answer me this?
You save the civies by killing the badguys, and you kill the badguys by establishing a perimeter, drawing them out of their little hiding spots and shooting them. I might also point out that that humvees primary weapon was an M-60, which you don't want to use with friendlies in close proximity to the line of fire. If that contractor thought some AK rounds hurt, wait till he gets downrange of some 60 rounds.
You people still don't get it. It was an ambush. The only mistake here was the navigation and manpower level. Those soldiers are heroes, and shame on everyone who spouts otherwise.
I would say that any Iraqi settlement has the potential to be a battleground. Some more than others, but nevertheless....
Using civilian contracters in a hostile country is merely a way of avoiding difficult political decisions like "do we call people up, give them basic training and a weapon and a uniform and then have them drive a truck/operate a crane/design buildings as part of the armed forces?" "Oh no, that'll look bad and we'll lose votes so best we contract the work out to less accountable organisations who will hire the same Joes out to us at an inflated price while not caring hugely about their welfare because any cock-ups and casualties will get blamed on the military anyway, but at least we won't lose votes by drafting people."
Red Peasant
10-02-2006, 17:48
The fact that he was not captured or killed is evidence that he was not stranded for 40 mins.
It clearly states that he had to wait 40 mins for help. He seems to have been one lucky guy, unlike his friends.
Nice rant BTW.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-02-2006, 18:03
IUsing civilian contracters in a hostile country is merely a way of avoiding difficult political decisions like "do we call people up, give them basic training and a weapon and a uniform and then have them drive a truck/operate a crane/design buildings as part of the armed forces?" "Oh no, that'll look bad and we'll lose votes so best we contract the work out to less accountable organisations who will hire the same Joes out to us at an inflated price while not caring hugely about their welfare because any cock-ups and casualties will get blamed on the military anyway, but at least we won't lose votes by drafting people."
Yes, contracting out some of these tasks is an easier political decision. Numerous complaints (some in service, others out) have been made that we do not have the number of boots needed to truly pacify Iraq. You and I are on the same page on that.
For some of the tasks you name, however, it also makes sense. You don't need military skill to run a crane. Some of the best people in water-treatment and irrigation might not pass a basic military physical. Outsourcing some of this does make sense.
I take exception to your comment on the nature of the organizations who employ such contractors. Blackwell (a local firm here in VA) and Haliburton have excellent records at working toward providing safety for their employees in difficult situations. There may be contractors as callous as you describe, but you are painting with too broad a brush here.
Major Robert Dump
10-02-2006, 19:33
It clearly states that he had to wait 40 mins for help. He seems to have been one lucky guy, unlike his friends.
Nice rant BTW.
No, it states he had to wait 40 mins for someone to pull him out of the truck and take his crybaby self to safety. There were soldiers all around him engaging the enemy, and there were choppers flying spook-em patrol overhead. This is no way means he was abandoned.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-02-2006, 19:46
No, it states he had to wait 40 mins for someone to pull him out of the truck and take his crybaby self to safety. There were soldiers all around him engaging the enemy, and there were choppers flying spook-em patrol overhead. This is no way means he was abandoned.
Some will not be satisfied that they are being protected until they see the soldier standing in front of them to take the bullet on their behalf -- Secret Service Protection Detail style. Even then, some of those would probably complain that the soldier in question let the bullet get too close.:no:
Using civilian contracters in a hostile country is merely a way of avoiding difficult political decisions like "do we call people up, give them basic training and a weapon and a uniform and then have them drive a truck/operate a crane/design buildings as part of the armed forces?" "Oh no, that'll look bad and we'll lose votes so best we contract the work out to less accountable organisations who will hire the same Joes out to us at an inflated price while not caring hugely about their welfare because any cock-ups and casualties will get blamed on the military anyway, but at least we won't lose votes by drafting people."
More like it's merely a way to let volunteers do the jobs they're willing to do for pay as opposed to pressing people into service to do jobs against their will. I know which I prefer.
Red Peasant
10-02-2006, 21:34
Ah, so this chap's a cry-baby now, and there were soldiers all around him. Where does it state that? Funny, but the only soldiers I can see are those running away, and the only aerial cover is an unarmed and un-manned observation craft. We must be watching different accounts, or the substances you take have been kicking-in, me old mate. ~;)
Ah, so this chap's a cry-baby now, and there were soldiers all around him. Where does it state that? Funny, but the only soldiers I can see are those running away, and the only aerial cover is an unarmed and un-manned observation craft. We must be watching different accounts, or the substances you take have been kicking-in, me old mate. ~;)
Ummm, maybe you should read the info in post 46 again...
Here you go again. Two apaches were there within 20 minutes. They did not run away!
U.S. military officials stress that in the video, Wheeler is describing the experience from his perspective alone, and that it provides an incomplete picture of all that took place.
A military investigation into the attack on the KBR convoy found that the military escorts responded appropriately to the insurgent attack.
"Once the shooting started, the soldiers in the lead Humvees followed established military procedures to move out of the kill zone," concludes the investigation.
According to the report: Once clear of the kill zone, the two Humvees in the lead circled back to set up a "perimeter" and "lay down suppressing fire" against the insurgents. They also arranged for the evacuation of three U.S. soldiers and one KBR employee who had been wounded but managed to drive out of the kill zone. The soldiers also placed an immediate call for a U.S. military Quick Reaction Force and air cover.
The report states that the firefight lasted at least 35 minutes. During that time the soldiers took small-arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and grenades.
Two U.S. helicopter gunships arrived within 20 minutes after the initial enemy contact. It's not clear whether the helicopters actually fired, but the military investigation indicates their mere presence reduced the amount of enemy fire. The Quick Reaction Force arrived 35 minutes after the first contact.
U.S. military officials say their investigation disputes the claim that the military escorts had abandoned the KBR employees. "They (soldiers) never left." According to the officials, the video does not reveal the Humvees that established perimeters beyond the front and rear of the convoy.
The military officials say the suppressive fire laid down by the soldiers kept the two wounded KBR employees alive.
"If they had been abandoned, they would not have survived," says one official.
The investigation did reveal an error in the convoy route map, and the U.S. military says it was corrected within a week.
yesdachi
10-03-2006, 19:55
We should plan more “convoy route errors” but with extra troops in the convoy rather than civilian contractors. Kind of a reverse ambush if you will (I’m sure that has a name). They seem to be a good way of flushing out the enemy, and isn’t that the hardest part. If we can find them we can kill um, and all.
Big ambushes against covoys like this are not common, usually it's just IEDs and popshots. If you put too many troops on covoy duty there's less left to patrol and do raids which are more effective for preventing attacks on convoys then oversized escorts.
And it wouldn't be a reverse ambush, it just wouldn't get hit while a weaker conoy then would. If you tried to make all covoys backed up with escorts up the wazzu then like I said there'll be less troops doing the jobs that actually work. At least with patrols and raids the initiative is partially on coalition's side while with covoy your just an easy target or a hard target. It's not a good way of "flushing out the enemy" have patrols and raids clear areas is.
I think what he's saying is to fake a small convoy. Make it look like some contractors driving a few trucks with a small escort, but do something like hide lots of troops in the trucks waiting for the bait to be taken, and have air support on immediate call. After a couple of these, it might make the insurgents think twice about hitting a small convoy. Seems like a good idea, not sure how you would prevent IEDs from taking out a lot of the troops when the ambush is sprung. Maybe armor up the inside of the trucks.
Papewaio
10-04-2006, 02:28
Like in the olde times when small navy ships where outfitted to appear to be merchant ships...
Still think it'd be a waste of resources. I'm sure the surprised insurgents would just drop their weapons and blend away as they always do when surprised by a strong force.
Also wasn't it fake merchants ships picking on other lone merchant ships? I don't this would have worked well against true convoy raiders such as subs and heavy cruisers.
And the IED taking out a cargo space of soldiers is a good point against it.
The initiative would still lie with the insurgents.
Reverend Joe
10-04-2006, 02:53
No, it states he had to wait 40 mins for someone to pull him out of the truck and take his crybaby self to safety.
I would like to see you get stuck in the middle of a firefight and see how well you respond. He was hired to drive trucks so that the soldiers are free to shoot people. He was not hired to assist them in fighting angry bands of partizans.
I still think we should have barricaded everyone in Fallujah the first time around and firebombed the city from the outside moving in, so that every single human being would be burnt alive. That would let the Iraqis know that they are part of the Imperium Amerikana.
(No, I am really serious about that. If we want to be an empire, we should stop pissing around and do it like we mean it.)
Still think it'd be a waste of resources. I'm sure the surprised insurgents would just drop their weapons and blend away as they always do when surprised by a strong force.
Also wasn't it fake merchants ships picking on other lone merchant ships? I don't this would have worked well against true convoy raiders such as subs and heavy cruisers.
And the IED taking out a cargo space of soldiers is a good point against it.
The initiative would still lie with the insurgents.
You might know better than me, but more often than not it seems like insurgents get pasted by American forces when they try to spring an ambush anyhow. When you have the quick reaction forces and air power, all the insurgents can hope to do is cause some damage with an initial IED and some early potshots. I can't see things going well for them if they stick around to try and consummate the attack.
I wonder how many, if any insurgents were killed/captured during this attack?
When the US gets good intel so it can carry out raids they are usually very effective at conducting those raids and the intel from that raid might lead to more successful raids. Problem is the intel though, the locals in the neighborhoods with the IEDs know who plants the IEDs or fires the potshots at the covoys and even more so who does the ambushes. Problem is of course that they are either too opposed to the coalition or too fearful for the lives at the hands of the insurgents (understandably so) that good intel is hard to come by. This of course leads to a large distrust of locals in neighborhoods were they(the coalition forces) get hit in and that animosity is then reciprocated again by the locals when the Americans are disrespectful and uncaring for the "unapprecitive" locals.
Informants are okay but the information is never accurate enough and the giving of intel too infrequent. Then of course many insurgents used to Saddams's regime give the US the information that they think we want to hear which proves to be worthless but perhaps just feasible enough to keep them in our purse. Furthurmore some informants try to use the coalition forces to knock out rival insurgent groups or militias which the US does very well when given the nessasery information. This of course creates larger militias which informants then give bad information about and the coalition can't do much about.
Generally insurgents don't try regular firefights because like you noted the coalition forces have lots of resources on hand and tend to wallop them once those resources come to bear. I'd rather this suppression though and the enemy just acting out through IEDs though because in a nation where every house seems to have 2 AKs and every neighborhood an RPG and morter team (illegally of course) this nation of millions could cause huge casualities upon the Americans if they really wanted to and could accept even greater losses on their part.
As for your question of how many were killed, I don't know. The Army probably doesn't know either. The fact that the enemy dispersed upon arrival of the gunships shows the nature of the fight. For all we know they were shooting at the convoy from the roof of their house or their neighbors house and they just chucked the the weapons in a hidey hole knowing that now they're untouchable to the americans because they are now civilians. Obviously an inherant problem in this war. If the Iraqis themselves ever see foriegn insurgents and private militias as the threat they are to stability and prosperity the war will end very quickly. As most of you know already, the war will need to be won by Iraqis, there's little the US can do but try provide security even in it's current haphazard form.
In short summary, the suppression is effective to an extent. Raids and patrols do their job well though no perfectly and convoys are mostly safe from ambushes, they are rare occurances when they occur in the scale in this video. Biggest threat is still IEDs and shifting more troops to escorts will probably increase IED usage rather then decrease it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.