31.7.03
The Washington Post misses the mark
The Washington Post reviews the effects of the anti-US attacks in Iraq, and comes to some ridiculus conclusions (emphasis is mine):
Some safer conclusions the Washington Post could make might be: 1) psychology is absolutely militarily significant. 2) even if the attack is just barely noticed, it has hit its "mark". 3) the chief planning element for the attackers is probably escape (live to fight another day), and to date they are succeeding almost flawlessly. 4) morale, destroyed vehicles, and interrupted supply convoys are of utmost importance, militarily -- as opposed to a low casualty rate, which, on its own, is indeed militarily insignificant. unfortunately for washington (the govt, not the post), these kinds of low casualty rates can cause low morale.
The Washington Post reviews the effects of the anti-US attacks in Iraq, and comes to some ridiculus conclusions (emphasis is mine):
In numerous interviews here, soldiers said attacks happen all the time, but the vast majority miss their mark or result in minor injuries, and don't make it into news accounts. Soldiers with cuts and bruises and shrapnel wounds return to duty every day. Their near-misses are militarily insignificant, BUT psychologically damaging. Soldiers said the daily, relentless uncertainty and randomness weigh heavily on themI'm not sure what the washington post thinks the "mark" is, but it seems they are insinuating that US soldiers have to be seriously wounded or die for the attack to be successful. The post covers an RPG incident and the insinuation is that it was one of these militarily insignificant near misses:
Days earlier, O'Neill said, he had watched a rocket-propelled grenade blast the fuel tanks of an armored personnel carrier directly in front of him in a convoy. He threw his Humvee into reverse to escape the flames, and a second RPG screamed across his hood, a few feet from his face, right where he had been a moment earlier.This is just good RPG tactics (see this earlier post on Iraqi tactics). The assailants immobilized the APC in front of the humvee, and fired another grenade, directly in succession, either missing the immobilized APC (oops) and indicating that they are striving for the higher value targets, or on the other hand, a shot that had been right on target to destroy O'Neil's humvee. O'Neil's reactions saved his life, sure, but the assailants marksmanship/timing/strategy indicates that they know what they are doing. They apparently got away too.
Some safer conclusions the Washington Post could make might be: 1) psychology is absolutely militarily significant. 2) even if the attack is just barely noticed, it has hit its "mark". 3) the chief planning element for the attackers is probably escape (live to fight another day), and to date they are succeeding almost flawlessly. 4) morale, destroyed vehicles, and interrupted supply convoys are of utmost importance, militarily -- as opposed to a low casualty rate, which, on its own, is indeed militarily insignificant. unfortunately for washington (the govt, not the post), these kinds of low casualty rates can cause low morale.
