Two U.S. soldiers die in drive-by shooting

[DeaconBlues]

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/Casualty_Report.asp?CasualtyReport=20050523.txt


BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two Task Force Baghdad Soldiers died May 19 at approximately 5:40 p.m. from wounds suffered when their convoy was fired upon by terrorists in another vehicle in central Baghdad.

The names of the Soldiers are being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The incident is under investigation.

I hope this isn't a duplicate - I don't see it posted elsewhere. This makes 1629 reported American deaths in Iraq. The number still keeps going up in the war we "won."

[libhill]

1. I wonder

if we have statistics on how many more have been wounded in combat, or injured in freak accidents?

[Selatius]

2. Globalsecurity.org: Wounded: 11,888; Dead; 1627 (as of this post)

17,184 have been evacuated from Iraq in total due to injuries, illness, and non-battle injuries.

[libhill]

3. Thank you

What a needless human tragedy.

[bennywhale]

14. The injuries are rarely paper cuts either. The army portrays them

as minor, but a more appropriate term would be the number maimed. Many of these soldiers have lost limbs, or are blind. And what about the unseen injuries. In the Falklands war between Britain and Argentina in the 80s, twice as many soldiers committed suicide in the ten years following the conflict than were actually killed in battle.

[DeaconBlues]

4. here's a nice site that's often used here

http://icasualties.org/oif/

This site has good statistics that separate those killed by hostile fire and non-hostile fire, and separates those wounded and returned to duty from those wounded and sent home, but I don't see anything that distinguishes those wounded in combat from non-combat injuries.

[libhill]

5. Thanks -

that's one aspect of this that I usually forget about, and that is the number of troops who get wounded, but not seriously enough to be sent home - time in the hospital, then right back to the front.

[leftchick]

6. "Terrororists". Perhaps they were ordinary Iraqis hell bent on

Revenge for the loss of a loved one due to the uS occupation. Tribal societies demand revenge for loved ones. That is a much more likely scenario. it is also why our soldiers are sitting ducks and need to come home.

[Sabriel]

7. Was the French Resistance also made up of "terrorists"?

Or for that matter, any group of citizens resisting the take-over of their country by a foreign power?

[Selatius]

9. The Nazis called them terrorists. It depends on who you ask.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

[bennywhale]

22. The Nazi's were also keen on collective punishment of Towns where

these fighters were hiding. RE: Falluja

[libhill]

8. Yup

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The British during our Revolution probably considered our vaunted Founding Fathers to be terrorists, or at least agitators.

[daleo]

10. I understand the British thought the Americans didn't fight fair.

They wouldn't come out for set piece battles against British regulars, but sniped from the trees and such. Not too sporting. Just like Iraqi irregulars against the U.S. regulars.

[libhill]

15. This is true

People who are considered to be hero's to us, such as Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion, to name just one guerrilla fighter, were considered by the Brits to be cowardly. And today under different circumstances would no doubt be labeled "terrorists" by U.S. forces. And during the Civil War, Coferderate guerillas like Mosby and Quantrill were looked at in much the same way by Union soldiers.

[DivinBreuvage]

20. Quantrill really was a terrorist... see the Lawrence Massacre

In fact he had such a history of committing atrocities that even the Confederates kept him at arm's length.

[DivinBreuvage]

18. This is mostly legend. The Americans fought plenty of "set piece" battles

And sometimes even managed to beat the much better trained and equipped British army.

The battles of Bunker Hill, Long Island, Quebec, Brandywine, Saratoga, Monmouth Courthouse, Hannah's Cowpen's, and Yorktown were all more or less "traditional" battles fought in the European fashion. There were, as always, exceptions -- particularly in the southern colonies -- and in fact the first British combat experience of the Revolution (their retreat from Concord) was a nightmare of snipers and ambushes, and may have given coloring to subsequent experiences. But the idea that the Americans did most or even a majority of their fighting as guerillas just isn't true.

This fable was doubtless embraced and promoted by British officers, politicians, and scribblers as a less painful way to account for the trouncing of their glorious army by a rabble of undisciplined bumpkins.

[bennywhale]

21. I think your myth is equally misleading. You have failed to mention

the French army and Navy who involved in many "set peice" battles against the British with the Americans.

[DivinBreuvage]

25. In your eagerness to smite me for "myth making" you expose yourself

as one who is not informed on the history on which you presume to lecture me.

First of all, permit me to say a word about reading comprehension. My post was a response to a comment on American fighting styles. The subject of foreign aid was not mentioned because it was not relevant to the discussion. I also neglected to discuss the diplomatic career of Benjamin Franklin, privateering, prison ships, and all kinds of other things that pertain to the Revolution but not directly to a discussion of how the Americans conducted their battles. Your assertion that I am perpetuating the myth of complete American self-sufficiency is unfounded and inaccurate, unless you believe that every statement on every facet of the American Revolution must be qualified by an addendum on the contribution of the French.

As for your knowledge of history, I named seven "set piece" battles: Bunker Hill, Long Island, Quebec, Brandywine, Saratoga, Monmouth Courthouse, Hannah's Cowpen's, and Yorktown. How many of those did the French participate in? (answer: one). How many of those were fought before the French openly pledged their support to the colonies? (answer: five)

Saratoga forced the surrender of an entire British army. Where were the French then?

Certainly the financial and material contributions of the French were important, and their military presence at Yorktown was decisive; although I would argue that the biggest help they gave the Americans lay not in direct support of the revolution but in allying with the Spanish and Dutch to involve Britain in a general war.

The oft-repeated fable here at DU that the French are the only thing that won the war for the Americans is just as false as the opposing fantasy that foreign aid had nothing to do with it.

[bennywhale]

27. Woah there. I fear your riposte has exposed you as being inclined to

insecurities. I called your post misleading, which it was.

A note on comprehension if i may. I was directly answering your implication of a unilateral American victory regardless of the method of battle. You stated that British officers probably perpetuated the myth of guerrilla tactics as to save embarrassment at being beaten by a ramshackle army; failing to mention the other nations involved, and therefore concluding that the British believed they had been beaten by a ramshackle army, which they did not, and had not.

It was subtle but its there, and from your second post it is obvious that your admirable patriotic gusto is clouding your dissemination of facts.

Furthermore, your definition of a my two sentence correction as a lecture, is also exaggerated and perplexing

[DivinBreuvage]

28. You continue to ignore the historical reality of the Revolutionary War

which is that most of the fighting on the North American continent was done between the Americans and the British. The French, with a handful of notable exceptions, were just not there.

Am I wrong? Present your historical evidence. In an earlier post you said that the French army and Navy were "involved in many 'set peice' battles against the British with the Americans". Personally I think the fact that you made such a bizarre statement reveals that you don't know enough about the Revolution to be having this discussion, but if I'm wrong it should certainly be easy for you to compile a list of these "many" battles. I've already given you Yorktown.

Perhaps you're just trying to get my goat. Fine, you've got it. Feel free to ignore the rest of the post. But if anyone else has bought into the oft-repeated fallacy that the French deserve the credit for the American victory, consider the following:

The Americans held off one of the best-trained and best-equipped armies in the world for two and a half years before the French piled on. This is a significant accomplishment.

When the game was all but up in December of 1776 George Washington and the exhausted and dispirited remnants of his army singlehandedly revitalized the cause with their astounding victories at Trenton and Princeton. There were no Frenchmen there then. This is a significant accomplishment.

At Saratoga the Americans forced the surrender of an entire British army. This, in fact, was the event that earned open recognition from the French: because the French themselves realized that the Americans actually had a chance at winning. This is a significant accomplishment.

After Saratoga the Americans continued to withstand the British for another four years. This is a significant accomplishment.

It is true that the Americans received supplies from the French throughout the war, even before the victory at Saratoga, and that these supplies did contribute to the survival of the Revolution. France certainly does deserve credit and recognition for this. But this does not change the fact that the Americans did almost all the fighting and the dying; nor does it change the fact that after every beating a core of Patriots would always come back to face the enemy again. You completely ignore the fact that the mighty British army was never able to destroy the Patriot armies or break their will to fight. All the supplies in the world wouldn't have amounted to anything if the Americans had ever given up or come to the conclusion that the Revolution just wasn't worth fighting for.

If you think this doesn't show the British getting beaten, you'd better get to Baghdad pronto because the Pentagon has a big paycheck waiting for you in their public relations department.

[bennywhale]

29. "...after every beating a core of patriots would always come back to face

the enemy again" is moist eyed sentimentalism that is more at home in a Hollywood propaganda film, yet you state it as fact.

You talk of "...exhausted and dispirited remnants" "...singlehandedly" "..revitalising..." the cause with "...astounding..." victories. This is again misleading, historically inaccurate, and blatant chest thumping propaganda and myth making. To use such terms is to deal in populism and legend rather than fact and reality.

"...the mighty British army was never able to destroy the patriot armies" is also misleading sentimentalism. The "mighty British army" in North America was made up of Hessians and other ill trained mercenaries. The bulk and cream of the British army was in the East, in India or China, in Africa, or fighting other European armies.

The British withdrew from North America because it was not worth the trouble to stay there. Not because of some mighty God-driven patriot army and revolution. The real prizes for the British was in the East and in Africa; America at the time had little to offer to offset the expense of containing a troublesome rebellion. Had oil been discovered by this point in time, or another valuable resource, the Mighty British Army may have then gone to fight the patriots, Which would have led to an entirely different American history. If the British knew then what they know now, things would have been very different.

Your patriotic view of history is understandable but inaccurate

[DivinBreuvage]

32. Im still waiting for your list of those "many set piece battles"

but I think we both know you're not going to be able to produce that. I must admit I'm fascinated by the behavior of people who clearly know nothing about a given historical situation yet persist in arguing for whatever cherished mythology they've received. Although I must admit that something in the tone of your writing makes me suspect that perhaps you don't really believe what you're writing and are just enjoying the argument. At any rate, please permit me to address your comments below.

>>"after every beating a core of patriots would always come back to face the enemy again" is moist eyed sentimentalism that is more at home in a Hollywood propaganda film, yet you state it as fact.

It was a fact. Washington's army continued to exist and return to the field after the defeats at Bunker Hill (although Washington didn't command it then), Long Island, Brandywine, Germantown, and Newport. It held together through six years of fighting till the end of the war, despite being beaten most of the time. If this is wrong, show how. I mean really show how -- lyrical comments about moist eyed propaganda movies, while pretty (you write quite well) -- are not valid historical evidence.

>>You talk of "...exhausted and dispirited remnants" "...singlehandedly" "..revitalising..." the cause with "...astounding..." victories. This is again misleading, historically inaccurate, and blatant chest thumping propaganda and myth making.

Washington's victories at Trenton and Princeton caused the British to evacuate the entire state of New Jersey. If you really knew anything about the condition of American affairs in the winter of 1776, or the state of Washington's army following the defeats in New York, or the effect the American victories at Trenton and Princeton produced on the strategic situation in the east, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself with such a silly statement. But don't take my word for it, here is concise commentary by an Englishman:

"The effect of the battle of Trenton was out of all proportion to the numbers involved and the casualties. The American effort across the colonies was galvanized and the psychological dominance achieved by the British in the preceding year overturned. Howe was stunned that a strong German contingent could be surprised in such a manner and put up so little resistance. Washington’s constant problem was to maintain the enthusiasm of his army for the war, particularly with the system of one year recruitment and Trenton proved a much needed encouragement."

Excerpted from: http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-trenton.htm

>>The "mighty British army" in North America was made up of Hessians and other ill trained mercenaries. The bulk and cream of the British army was in the East, in India or China, in Africa, or fighting other European armies.

Of course the British used mercenaries - 30,000 German troops in North America, although only about half were actually Hessians. But your blanket statement that they comprised the whole of the British forces is fallacious. Your blanket statement that mercenary troops were ill-trained is fallacious. And your assertion that the cream of the British army was elsewhere is contradicted by the historical presence in America of elite units like the Coldstream Guards and the Black Watch.

I find it interesting that you didn't comment on the poor quality of the British troops until you realized that the French weren't the ones fighting them.

>>The British withdrew from North America because it was not worth the trouble to stay there. Not because of some mighty God-driven patriot army and revolution.... America at the time had little to offer to offset the expense of containing a troublesome rebellion.

Here you yourself explicitly admit that the British left because of "a troublesome rebellion", while at the same time making the curious and completely contradictory statement that the troublesome rebellion had absolutely nothing to do with it. Utter nonsense! You understand perfectly well, as you yourself inadvertently let slip here, that the continued resistance of the American Patriots, Insurgent, Rebels, Terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, was indeed a vital factor in forcing the British out.

And in the final analysis, excuses after the fact really don't matter much, do they? It really doesn't matter if the British considered the West Indies to be more valuable than the North American continent. It really doesn't matter if the Revolution eventually expanded into a global war. You can try to fabricate any excuse for it that you like, but at the end of the day all that matters is that the British had six years to put those people down, and they couldn't do it. They left. They were beaten.

Let me rephrase your argument in terms that I think will allow you to grasp its fallaciousness:

The Vietnamese deserve no credit for defeating the United States. The Russians and/or Chinese do. Legends about the tenacity of the Viet Cong are nothing but misty-eyed Communist propaganda, yet some people assert them as fact. In fact the Viet Cong did not even really fight, at least not very much and not very hard, although the patriotic fervor of those who want to believe they did is understandable. To assert that the Tet Offensive marked a turning point in the war is to deal in populism and legend rather than fact and reality.

Furthermore, the American military really didn't have much of an edge over rice paddy peasants because most US soldiers were draftees with bad morale. The good troops were in Germany. So it's not surprising that the US couldn't beat the Viet Cong, even though the Viet Cong really didn't do anything of any consequence except get the Russians and/or Chinese to pull their asses out of the fire.

The US was not beaten, but decided to leave because of the unpopularity of the war at home. If the US had really wanted to win that war, it would have.

[libhill]

30. One thing you pointed out

And something deriving from it that both of you seem to be missing - is that French participation encouraged Spain and later Holland to enter the fray against Britain. This eventually turned a colonial struggle into a global war. Britain had to fight in India, West Africa, the Mississippi Valley, the Caribbean, and along the Gulf Coast of what is now the U.S. Also in the Mediterranean and even Europe. One of the biggest naval actions took place in the North Sea between British and Dutch naval forces (Battle of Dogger Bank). If Britain had not been forced into such a wide ranging conflict, I believe that she would eventually have worn the colonies down, and we would have been defeated. So ultimately, whether we like to admit it or not, the participation of France saved our assess, (even if indirectly), set piece battles or not. And lurking on the periphery of the conflict was Russia and the "League of Armed Neutrality", which was a coalition of European Powers who were sworn to defend each other against violations by belligerents. Something that really did not concern the Americans so much, but certainly something for Britain to take account of. If Britain or France had assisted the Confederacy in the Civil War, that conflict would also have ended much differently. Mr. Lincoln was very quick to apologize to Britain when British troops started arriving in Canada after the Trent Affair.

[DivinBreuvage]

31. Please see my post #25, in which I clearly state:

"Certainly the financial and material contributions of the French were important, and their military presence at Yorktown was decisive; although I would argue that the biggest help they gave the Americans lay not in direct support of the revolution but in allying with the Spanish and Dutch to involve Britain in a general war."

Your post is well written, informed, and intelligent, so it is quite surprising to me that you would accuse me of missing this point when it was very clearly set down there in black and white.

[libhill]

33. My point was

and maybe my wording was bad, but the point is that, by bringing Holland and Spain into the war, Britain's military might was stretched to the max in a global conflict. And that was the major contribution of French entry into the war, whether or not French forces actually engaged in "set piece battles". I feel the "set piece battles" argument is really irrelevant to the issue you guys were discussing. And, thanks for the compliment.

[truth2power]

11. Well, someone beat me to it, again...

Yeah, they're described as "terrorists". From the Iraqi standpoint, they're fighting a foreign invader. Guess they decided a long time ago that the "Americans are gonna liberate you is a non-starter.

This is an unspeakable tragedy, for both sides.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. I don't even see how they can be described as terrorists under normal

definitions.

They did not attack a group of innocent civilians, but a groups of soldiers in a combat zone. How can they be considered terrorists under any definition? That's bizarre.

Let's review: Blow up a car bomb outside a mosque to spread fear = terrorist.

Snipe or engage with US or Iraqi troops in the course of an uprising = insurgent, guerilla, rebel, or soldier.

I still think that in order for an act to be considered terroristic by definition, it has to be targeted at civilians. Trageting troops is not terrorism. It is warfare.

[Miss Chybil]

13. I think you're right. May they rest in peace. nt

[Nihil]

16. Damn ... common sense keeps seeping through doesn't it?

You are exactly right.

This is simply urban warfare, not terrorism.

There are still grey areas (e.g., are Iraqi police "civilians" or
"quisling traitors"? are off-duty soldiers fair game or only those
in uniform?) but the basic tenet is sound: innocent men, women and
children are killed by terrorists, armed men & women are killed by
soldiers.

(Not forgetting the old but true comment: the only difference between
a terrorist and an air force is the method of delivering the bomb that
blows civilians apart.)

[bennywhale]

23. I agree. Thats where the IRA lost all support, when

they changed their targeting of the British Army, to pubs and shopping centres on the British mainland. They moved at once from fighters, rebels, etc to murdering Terrorists

[Frederik]

17. "terrorists"

It's not terrorism to shoot at soldiers who are occupying your country. It's resistance.

[Ripley]

19. I'm sure Rumsfeld will say "See, just like L.A."

All big cities have their inner-city violence.
:nuke:

[rocktivity]

24. I, too, thought "terrorist" was a little strong

but when you consider the source (CENTCOM), I'll be charitable and not mention that if those Iraqis are terrorists, then the Bush regime is a force of evil.

:headbang:
rocknation

[NNN0LHI]

26. Simply put terrorism is violence you don't like n/t