October 5, 2004
INCOMING:
US-Iraqi troops in new offensive (BBC, 10/05/04)
More than 3,000 US and Iraqi troops have launched a major offensive on a rebel stronghold south of the capital, Baghdad, the US Central Command says.Its press release said more than 30 suspected insurgents were seized in the sweep in the Babil province.
It said the forces seized a suspected rebel training camp and secured a key bridge across the Euphrates River often used by insurgents.
No casualties have so far been reported among the assault force.
The operation in the Babil region - which centres on the town of Hilla - follows a US-led blitz at the weekend on another rebel stronghold, Samarra, to the north of Baghdad.
What's especially revealing is how few troops we're conducting these operations with. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 5, 2004 5:42 PM
The October surprise to end all October surprises, find Osama in Iraq.
Posted by: pchuck at October 5, 2004 5:57 PMWhat's especially revealing is how few troops we're conducting these operations with.
Also the casualty ratios. It's already impressive when our troops inflict around 100 enemy casualties on the battlefield for every one of their own. When they do it in urban/guerilla fighting, that's incredibly impressive.
Posted by: PapayaSF at October 5, 2004 6:44 PMI don't find 3000 troops to be especially low when compared to the numbers they are fighting. These are not pitched battles with regular formations.
If this is in reference to the entire troop number debate, I must point out the issue was never that we did not have enough troops to win battles, but that they were insufficient for the occupation. Hopefully with these Iraqi units, there will be enough to secure the area permanently.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at October 5, 2004 7:49 PMIn a guerilla war you want to keep big reserves in country to deal with contingencies.
These offensives also give good experience to the Iraqi units involved.
Posted by: Pete at October 5, 2004 9:28 PM