TAKING BACK AMERICA!

    Tuesday, May 10, 2005

    The Shadow Knows

    The so-called Army of Ansar al-Sunna said they have ambushed a foreign security convoy near a U.S. base in western Iraq and captured a Japanese citizen. A picture of the man's passport posted on the Internet gave his name as Akihiko Saito, aged 44. Japanese Defense Minister Yoshinori Ohno said the kidnapping would not affect the deployment of Japanese troops in Samawa. Both Australia and Japan have repeatedly said they will not bow to the demands of kidnappers. Besides Saito, six Japanese have been taken hostage in Iraq. Five were released but Shosei Koda, a backpacker, was beheaded by his captors last year. Yes, that's right - a big milestone for this "army" was to behead a backpacker. Real tough guys, huh?
    Despite the name, Army of Ansar al-Sunna, they are not a real army. The most base definition of an army is: A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare - but warfare, again by definition, is a combat between armed forces. This radical Islamic group is too cowardly to engage in armed conflict and their tactics are to terrorize mostly unarmed civilians (like a backpacker). These are defective humans that need to be killed and their corpses thrown into trash crushers. Now am I blunt or what!
    So I wake to news this morning: BAGHDAD -- American troops backed by helicopters and warplanes launched a major offensive against followers of Iraq's most wanted terrorist, Abu Musab Zarqawi, in a desert area near the Syrian border, leaving as many as 100 militants dead, U.S. officials said yesterday.
    100 less evil worthless scum to threaten innocent people. Ahhh - it's a good day and the shadow does know!

    2 comments:

    Pundit said...

    One of the problems the US is going to have in the near future is defining what their mission really is, and what equipment they need to wage it because the entire concept of battle is taking on new dimensions. That means the traditional definitions are loosing their application. This also means that the arming and equiping of our forces is going to be problematic. Since the outset of the current operations in Baghdad, the United States has lost over 80 Abrams tanks, several crews have been killed and many more injured. In the 1991 war, we only lost 19 with no crew deaths and trivial injuries. The scary part of this is that the loss of tanks has been due to 50 year old Russian RPG grenade launchers, and homemade roadside bombs. This is a tragic paradox considering the cost and technical advances that went into the tank. The problem: tanks were designed for open, face to face set piece battles in Europe on open ground against advancing Russian forces, a doctrine developed during the cold war. All the armor is in the front, not the sides or rear which are vulnerable to smaller hits. Tanks are not designed for urban warfare, although they can be used--with tragic results sometimes. This applies across the board. The Stryker infantry vehicle is designed for high-speed, high mobility and moving troops rapidly. It can do this because it has, essentially, no armor. A 50-cal. machine gun can penetrate the thin aluminum, killing the crew and infantry units inside quite easily. This is bad in urban settings, making it vulnerable to a lot of weaponry the insurgents possess. The times they are a-changin' and this is going to require a whole new rethink on doctrine, operational art, and order of battle. What we are seeing over there now is the troops paying the price for being sent into urban warfare with equipment and doctrine designed for large-scale set piece confrontations against an army organized around the same doctrine and strategy.

    : JustaDog said...

    One of the problems the US is going to have in the near future is defining what their mission really is It always has been to irradicate terrorists, the countries that support terrorists, that provide safe haven for terrorists, etc. Yes, there are more countries out there besides Iraq, and even some we appear to be friendly with on the surface - but I do think there is a stratagy so don't listen to Kennedy's viewpoint on this topic.

    Yes, I agree the protection of our troops and the equipment they have is in some sad shape. But equipment doesn't happen overnight and they are slowly coming up to speed. Perhaps if the 8 years of Clinton would have been more productive instead of constant cutbacks...