Redstate

There are technologies that would allow us to detonate every roadside bomb in Iraq by heating the wires in the detonators to the point that they triggered an explosion. But these systems could severely harm civilians nearby, so we're not using them, either. "In our system, we often are not given credit for the fact that we are very concerned about collateral damage," Meigs said.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I beleive that was what Shakespeare said. More appropriate would be "First we must nullify all the legal arguments" since I know several of our friends here are in the legal profession.

It seems the lawyers are getting in the way of keeping our own people alive (again). Maybe we should get some laws passed that gives the military and the CIA a bit more authority in these cases. Then the lawyers can quit worrying....

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

...we need our own "truth commission" to publicly identify the cretins who make decisions like this...

Or, enabled those decisions, by purposely creating the kind of legal environment favorable to them.

State your name for the record, and spell your last name for the clerk.

Jamie Gorelick. G-O-R-E-L-I-C-K.

As far as I'm concerned, she, as the architect of the "wall", is de facto guilty. Let her and the other Clintonistas prove otherwise.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

how our guys continue to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. I can just envision our soldiers chatting about the stupid rules coming down the chain to them, they must be disgusted to know that so much more can be done but isn't, why it's almost as if we are not fighting a war.

"by an IED, which Coalition forces were unable to detect before terrorists detonated it. Stay tuned to this station, for the latest news from the front lines."

Hey, maybe it will catch on. But, if Jamie's got a good reason why that characterization is unfair, I'm sure she'll make it. Now, whether she can make it stick with the rest of us is quite another matter.

Let her try.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

"Thin-voiced and thickly bespectacled, Abdallah, 28, fits every geek stereotype, right down to the acne and the flash drive on his key chain."

Uh, couldn't the reporter have managed to get this guy killed shortly after the interview?

Just askin.

back in the saddle, streiff. We need your insights these days.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

they ought to pull all of our troops out of Iraq, not any of those other bogus arguments. Why have our brave men and women there when our own idiot government leaders won't let them do what they have trained to do and what they are supposed to do. If I were a soldier over there right now I would be furious. Why does the incompetent US government handicap our soldiers like this...? and then criticise them...I know, I know we support the troops not the war. BULL. Can't have it both ways. The politicians in Washington are screwing this country up!

"cretins" to blame for this war are Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the neo-cons). But I can't make a better argument for restraint than Capt. Ian Fishback of the 82nd airborne when he wrote to Senator McCain re the treatment of prisoners in Iraq:

...Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.

Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."

Fishback is a graduate of West Point currently holding the rank of Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. He served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. His arguments apply equally to how we choose to fight this war. He is what I would consider a true American hero.

I have a very low tech idea. Get a map, put a acetate cover on it and then plot the location of every IED located. Do a frequency analysis to locate favorite bomb locations. Just as the NYPD track the patterns of street crime, track the bomb emplacers and saturate the area with those small armed observation craft. Spot the emplacers and eliminate them. Usually the bomb makers are not the emplacers and the emplacers, by the nature of their work, are vunerable. Of course, you can do the same thing high tech by using programs like the one used to locate Saddam Hussein.

I believe that not all locations on the highways, roads, streets and alleys are equally well located for the emplacement of IEDs. Once an area has been mapped and the locations that have been used for IED emplacement entered, IED emplacement will become a high risk enterprise rather than a low risk one.

...on before a long time ago. The WWII M3 Sherman tank had a five man crew. It also used a gasoline engine and had between one and three inches of armored protection.
The German Tiger and Panzer Tanks fired a shell that was able to penetrate six inches of armor. The German tank crews called the Shermans "Ronson lighters" because they always lit when they were hit. Army planners figured they need five Shermans to take out a Panzer Tank. Wartime kill statistics bore them out, twenty five dead Americans for one German tank kill. They went to war with what they had then, too.
This time we find ourselves with only seventeen out of every one hundred twenty five news media personalities who support the political party in power. Lacking the will to win, in order to deafeat your political opponents, is a guaranteed loss for every citizen. The Democrats and the wobbly kneed, quivering lipped, inhabitants of the Nanny State should be careful what they wish for, though.

It was not the Germans who called the Shermans "Ronson" but the British and Australian troops in North Africa. At first they called the Shermans "Honeys" because the Shermans were easier to operate and maintin. However, their tendency to "brew up" was very noticable.

that the CIA's predecessor, the OSS, didn't have general counsel like these idiots or we might have lost WWII in the Pacific. Imagine if they or some JAG decided that we couldn't use our flamethrowers against the enemy entrenched in those caves on Iwo Jima. Many came fleeing from the caves engulfed in flames. I guarantee you that if we were to use this method to weed out any Taliban in those caves in Afghanistan, the first picture or video of one terrorist in flames would bring such scorn and outrage from the rest of the world. But then again, some CIA lawyer or JAG would probably not have allowed it in the first place.

considered close infantry support as the proper role for tanks and hounded Patton and Eisenhower out of Armour. Patton had to return to the Calvary(horse) and Eisenhower took a staff position under MacArthur.

The OSS (Oh So Social) also disguised explosives as cow flop and dog doo. I don't recall them using horse apples but it seems logical that they would have done so.

As to the tank destroyers, they did a great job when used properly. As one Negro tank destroyer crewman, answering Patton's question about whether German machine gun bullets went through the lightly armored sides of the tank destroyer, said " No, General. They just come in one side and then rattle around."

Regarding the difference in tank production, I talked to a former German officer, who had commanded an 88 battery in Italy. He told me that he knew that the war was lost when, occupying a critical blocking position, he realized that he was going to run out of ammo before the Ami unit would run out of tanks.

... I could tell you some tales of bureaucratic stupidity from this war that would curl your toes. Even the very highest commanders in this war are occasionally unable to overcome the maddening web of rules and regulations we have hogtied ourselves with. I rarely agree with Becker, but "kill all the lawyers" is a great idea.

I would disagree with your point about EFPs vice Catastrophic IEDs (really big ones). Both are significant. The EFP is significant for 2 reasons: first, because it easily penetrates the armor of our main troop-carrying platform in Iraq, the uparmored HUMVEE. Second, because the technology behind it can only be developed and produced by someone with the resources of a nation-state, and it is employed mainly by Shia groups. Thus, it is a telltale sign of the Iranian campaign to destabilize us.

The real way you deal with IEDs is to eliminate the conditions that give the insurgents the support of the population. You can't dig up the pavement and bury 1000 pounds of fertilizer unless everyone in the area supports you, especially in the era of cell phones. Once the bad guys lose popular support, as is happening in Anbar and now in Diyala, it's easy to hunt them down. You gotta drain the swamp to kill the alligators.

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

The next time a JAG or civilian agency lawyer issues a ruling that results in the death of an American solider, sailor, Marine, airman or Coast Guardsman said JAG or civilian lawyer and his immediate superior will take the place of the deceased.

John
----------
Modern Art: Created by the untalented, sold by the unscrupulous, purchased by the unknowing.

According to this article, our troops are starting to believe that they are safer on foot then in their vehicles.

That's sad.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-walk22jun22,0,952300...

BAGHDAD — U.S. troops working the streets of the capital fear one Iraqi weapon more than others — a copper-plated explosive that can penetrate armor and has proved devastating to Humvees and even capable of severely damaging tanks.

The power of what the military calls an EFP — for explosively formed penetrator, or projectile — to spray molten metal balls that punch through the armor on vehicles has some American troops rethinking their tactics. They are asking whether the U.S. should give up its reliance on making constant improvements to vehicle defenses.

Instead, these troops think, it is time to leave the armor behind — and get out and walk.

"In our area, the biggest threat for us is EFPs. When you are in the vehicles, you are a big target," said Army Staff Sgt. Cavin Moskwa, 33, of Hawaii, who patrols Baghdad's Zafraniya neighborhood with the Bravo Battery of the 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment. "But when you are dismounted … you are a lot safer."

De Opresso Liber

... of getting at the point of the problem.

Low-tech Third World murderers employ unsophisticated weapons today as the prime American killer in Iraq. The effects of these weapons are fairly gruesome to describe . . . in the field.

However, their most effective results are at home in the hallowed halls of Congress, in the media, and - seemingly - in the minds of senior administration officials (including some military planners).

Aside from including lawyers in the military operational planning process, why - exactly - is America unable to either defeat or avoid these devices? I mean, IEDs are not nuclear weapons (At least not yet). So, what is the problem?

While our troops dismount to reduce the threat of IEDs their DoD superiors dither about most any other topic other than a REAL IED solution; while the Administration seems to have gone AWOL from Iraq.

Imagine. IED's are confounding the most powerful and best supplied and supported miltary in the world today. WHY?

I believe we haven't the national will to do what is necessary in Iraq, and I am disheartened and somewhat ashamed to admit that. Solving the IED problem is certainly not beyond our technical capabilities nor does it exceed our troops' ability to improvise - as always. Techies at home scratch their heads developing IED countermeasures, REMF staff attorneys nix the solution, and our bleeding troops develop their own tactical approach to the problem.

America is not incapable technically, operationally or otherwise of bringing Iraq to a satisfactory conclusion (Dare I say 'win'?. The IED issue, although of supreme concern to our deployed troops, is merely a microcosim of the innui encompassing the Iraq conflict, which is itself an example of our larger national problem: America has either forgotten or forsaken the means to win a military conflict.

If we can find the answer to the question: How is it that our military won the Iraq war in weeks, and everyone else in government is losing the peaqe years later - then, we will have solved our IED problems.

This is all legal pablum. Under what rule of war do they possibly think we would be liable, who would render the complaint and in what forum? Ultimately, what would be the impact of someone pusuing such action, a NYT front pager? Please they do worse without such initiation.

Killing the enemy is perfectly legal under our ROE; full stop. Perhaps they can get off their butts and fill some of the open positions in Baghdad. One look at the results from an IED or VBIED and my guess is their proclamations would cease.

One question streiff; I have heard their has been some success interecepting ordinance coming from Iran; both by direct engagement and following to delivery, then engaging? Any idea on the level of success?

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

I've always wondered why, since so many of these devices are apparently triggered using very low-tech signaling devices we haven't found a more reliable means to capture the signals used to detonate them and cause them to explode prematurely. That would have the side effect, of course, of making the builders of the devices use more sophisticated and reliable means to trigger them remotely -- but they would also be more difficult to build and presumably, to feed them ready-made bogus devices.

The United States is widely reputed to have the most formidable signals intelligence capabilities in the world and I am at a loss in 2007 to understand why a single coalition soldier has to die from a device triggered by a toy car remote control.

One we know AQ is fighting a media war.

Once they figured out that it was our boobytraps blowing up their people, it wouldn't take them long to round up children and maim them with our boobytraps. The next thing you know its on the front page of the Times for the next six months . horribly maimed children all blamed on the us.

The second is to avoid the comparison to NAZI germany. During the spanish civil war the NAZIS shipped crates of shells to the republicans. One out of every hundred shells would explode in the chamber.

Amateur opinion on my part, but it would seem the best way to deal with IEDs is to take the war to the bombers and their supplier Iran. What you are trying to do is find a universal defense against a class of explosives that consists of anything and everything. You can use whatever you like as a sensor hook it up to a microcontroller and you have something sophisticated cheap and reasonably effective (on the effectiveness thats out my rear, but you would think it would be no worse than what has been used).
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

...was lost due to my sloppy use of M3 instead of M4. Sorry about that. The real point was that the United States Government knowingly supplied equipment that was woefully outgunned and under armored. Once you see the film clip looking down the long barrel of the German tank firing its round and then see the turret of the M4(?) flying off into the air like the cap from an exploding coke bottle, you get the point. It doesn't matter whether the German tank was a Tiger, King Tiger, Panther, of Leopard Tank. The Americans who opposed them got into their vehicles every day knowing full well that when they confronted their armored opponents and were also unlucky, a guy like Belton Cooper would inevitably be scraping their brains off the inside of that tank's hull as he refitted it for combat duty again, manned by a fresh crew. They knew they were toast if they got hit, but if they killed enough Germans, or Japanese for that matter, the guys that were left would eventually go home. It was for that reason that those men are called the 'Greatest Generation" and this current one will not be. Half of this current generation is at war with their president and not the enemy that has sworn to kill them.