|500k dash to Bagdhad
||March 25, 2003
|RANT #179: Society & Politics
Summary: Newsflash: 6 Iraquis in hut with peashooters threaten armored cav. divison.
| I find that tactical coverage of the ongoing war have been, on a consistent basis, almost laughably naive. I was recently browsing some news sites and found the following account of what is deemed to be stiff resistance:|
"Marines encountered Iraqi troops who appeared to be surrendering. Instead, they attacked - the start of a "very sharp engagement," said Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, deputy commander of the Central Command.
In the end, the Americans triumphed, knocking out eight tanks, some anti-aircraft batteries, some artillery and infantry, Abizaid said. But victory came at a cost: as many as nine dead, and an undisclosed number of
Now it seems to me that, when fighting a military of half a million people,
and one's advance has been counted in hundreds of kilometers in days, an engagement that results in nine deaths does not constitute major
resistance, especailly when losses on the other side included artillery, aa batteries, armour and infantry.
Also the fact that "The Iraqis were jubilant, claiming to havekilled at least 25 Americans" when the force they are fighting is over 150,000 shows how desparate their situation is. What does that show when you announce proudly that you killed 25 enemies out of more than 150,000? Or one appache helecopter?
It just gets under my skin that the news is consistently portraying what a difficult and heroic campaign this is when the reality is, the
Coalition army is racing though all Iraqui resistance. This war has been on not even a week and coalition forces are nearly at the capital. Stiff resistance? I don't think so.
Add a comment to this rant: