Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,021 posts)
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 02:55 PM Jan 2020

Missiles hit Green Zone and Iraq base housing US troops: security sources

Source: Agence France-Presse

Two mortar rounds hit the Iraqi capital's Green Zone Saturday and two rockets slammed into a base housing US troops, security sources said, a day after a deadly American strike.

The precision drone strike outside the Baghdad airport on Friday killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, top Iraqi paramilitary chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and a clutch of other Iranian and Iraqi figures.

In Baghdad, mortar rounds on Saturday evening hit the Green Zone, the high-security enclave where the US embassy is based, security sources said.

The Iraqi military said that one projectile hit inside the zone, while another landed close to the enclave.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/missiles-hit-green-zone-and-iraq-base-housing-us-troops-security-sources/ar-BBYC7Kb?li=BBnb7Kz



Is anyone surprised?
21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Missiles hit Green Zone and Iraq base housing US troops: security sources (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 2020 OP
Not really, dware Jan 2020 #1
fuck... dhill926 Jan 2020 #2
With dementia boy at the rudder, any provocation.. Maxheader Jan 2020 #3
Great toon! burrowowl Jan 2020 #21
We have multi-million dollar drones which can do precise MineralMan Jan 2020 #4
Let's add the local Wellstone ruled Jan 2020 #5
Yes. A technological military force is powerful, MineralMan Jan 2020 #6
As you said, Wellstone ruled Jan 2020 #7
Well, US forces can launch a multi-million dollar drone, carrying MineralMan Jan 2020 #9
Also, Vietnam. dware Jan 2020 #8
That, too. Yes. MineralMan Jan 2020 #10
58,000+ of my brothers and sisters. dware Jan 2020 #11
Way more Vietnamese. MineralMan Jan 2020 #12
A Huge +100. nt dware Jan 2020 #13
I had a conversation with my hubs this morning about the oil stopwastingmymoney Jan 2020 #19
Add to that 58k the troops that have died thru exposure to Agent Orange, etc KewlKat Jan 2020 #14
+100. dware Jan 2020 #15
And suicides, drug overdoses stopwastingmymoney Jan 2020 #20
Are there reports on U.S. civilians being able to leave Baghdad? JohnnyLib2 Jan 2020 #16
Mortars and Rockets Are Not Missiles. jayfish Jan 2020 #17
More info- James48 Jan 2020 #18

dware

(12,393 posts)
1. Not really,
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 02:59 PM
Jan 2020

but this isn't unusual for the Green Zone to take hostile fire, so I don't think Iran is behind this, probably some local militia group trying to even the score.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
4. We have multi-million dollar drones which can do precise
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 03:31 PM
Jan 2020

destruction, while others have mortars and unguided rockets with which to attack.

Those are just some of the differences between our forces. Unless Russia becomes involved, we have the upper hand, pretty much. However, 100 attacks with mortars and rockets can equal one of those costly missile and drone attacks. What we do not have is the manpower to stop those smaller harassment attacks. We simply do not. In the end, such primitive weapons can defeat all that technology, because we don't have enough of it on hand to deter a determined enemy.

This is why the Russians gave up in Afghanistan. They could not win a manpower war, despite better weaponry.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
5. Let's add the local
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 04:02 PM
Jan 2020

players have the home field advantage. After thirty years of our breaking the Pottery Barn,the locals have adapted and they control this playing field. Nationalism will rue the day.

But,until the Ignorance in the White House is removed,we are in for some ugly days weeks and months ahead.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
6. Yes. A technological military force is powerful,
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 04:13 PM
Jan 2020

but limited by its own technology. A resistance or militia force isn't limited by its technology, because that technology is limited. That less well equipped force has the benefit of knowing its surroundings, because the fighters live there. A foreign technological force doesn't know the territory, can't speak the local language and can't distinguish harmless civilians from dangerous fighters most of the time. In an urban, or even rural area, the locals have some serious advantages over the technological force.

There's also the thing about protecting what is yours, compared to being in strange surroundings and being confined to particular areas or compounds.

Few powerful, technological forces that are out of their home territory can prevail over a dedicated local resistance force for very long. Eventually, the steady small attacks will win out in the end, because the technology isn't suited to the environment where the fighting occurs. A technological force needs a fixed base as a place to be. A resistance can be everywhere and has no fixed location. The resistance knows exactly where the technological force is based, but the reverse is not true.

We learned that in Vietnam. We're learning the same thing in the Middle East. We're out of our place and fighting people we can't recognize as fighters. It's not a good situation, generally.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
7. As you said,
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 04:21 PM
Jan 2020

tech has it's limits. As my old Bud said an several occasions over four decades,your word is your bond,and if you do not speak or write the Persian Language or speak rudimentary French,you have not Business being in the Middle East.

BTW,the same fellow talked about what you said about Vietnam. There are complex issues happening in real time in Iraq,Iran and Russia. Those whom understand and could deal with those issues have long been purged or quit the State Department.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
9. Well, US forces can launch a multi-million dollar drone, carrying
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 04:33 PM
Jan 2020

high-tech missiles that can destroy a vehicle and everyone in it. But such operations are costly and require a large team of people to carry out. So, we don't have an unlimited supply of such weapons, and using them requires knowing exactly what to aim them at. They're very powerful weapons, but clumsy to operate and complicated.

As we have learned in our too-many years in the Middle East, a roadside IED can accomplish the same thing, killing everyone in an armed personnel carrier. It can be taken to a fixed location where such vehicles pass by and be hidden there, beside the road. Then, some skinny guy in dirty clothes can stand or sit nearby with a cell phone and wait. Maybe there are 20 or 30 other people who look just like that guy there beside the road every day. Along comes that APC full of soldiers and the skinny guy in the dirty clothes pushes a button on his phone as the truck passes the IED.

Same effect, but a lot lower-tech, a lot cheaper, and a lot fewer people are needed to make the attack. Sometimes, technology is superior. All too often, it's just more complicated and expensive. Sure, the United States military can wipe out an entire installation in a bombing raid, or wipe out a convoy by remote control. But, a group of insurgents can do the same thing, just a little more slowly and a helluva lot cheaper.

Sometimes technology wins a battle, but winning a war on someone else's turf is a lot more complicated.

dware

(12,393 posts)
8. Also, Vietnam.
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 04:26 PM
Jan 2020

We far outclassed the NVA and VC, but in the end, we still were defeated, not by force of arms, but by wearing down the American public in a useless war.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
10. That, too. Yes.
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 04:34 PM
Jan 2020

A lot of US personnel died there, and for nothing, really. We gained nothing in Vietnam. Nothing at all. But what a price we paid to gain nothing. You'd think we'd learn, you know...

dware

(12,393 posts)
11. 58,000+ of my brothers and sisters.
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 04:38 PM
Jan 2020

And I'm still pissed off about that.

What did we gain? Absolutely nothing at all, except a lot of dead and maimed Americans and Vietnamese.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
12. Way more Vietnamese.
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 04:44 PM
Jan 2020

It's always the same. And all for nothing. Nothing gained. Nothing accomplished. Nothing won.

The United States does not belong in the Middle East. The warfare there has been going on for millenia. We're there because of the oil, quite frankly. We need the oil. At this point, it has become a surrogate war with Russia and China and other interests. Conveniently, that war is taking place over oil and a few other commodities in a place far from the US, or Russia, or China.

None of us belong in the Middle East. We have no real business there that requires us to send the military there. We don't understand the languages. We don't understand the religion. We don't understand the history. We can't possibly win there. We don't have enough people to do that, and never will.

But, all of us keep going back there to fight our surrogate wars. Shame on us for our stupidity and avarice!

stopwastingmymoney

(2,042 posts)
19. I had a conversation with my hubs this morning about the oil
Sun Jan 5, 2020, 01:57 AM
Jan 2020

Do ‘we’ really need it anymore? I thought we were energy independent now and exporting oil even.

So, if that’s right, we don’t need it and all of this is really only for the benefit of the oil COMPANIES

What do you think?

KewlKat

(5,624 posts)
14. Add to that 58k the troops that have died thru exposure to Agent Orange, etc
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 05:22 PM
Jan 2020

We’ll never know the true number of lives lost in Vietnam Nam as we’ll also never know the true number of lives lost from the 911 exposures to toxins of which people are still dying.

jayfish

(10,039 posts)
17. Mortars and Rockets Are Not Missiles.
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 05:34 PM
Jan 2020

The difference is important. Oh, and what's with the stupid poll at the bottom of the story? Who cares? MSN is shite.

James48

(4,436 posts)
18. More info-
Sat Jan 4, 2020, 11:16 PM
Jan 2020

On Military.com:

Rocket Attacks Hit Baghdad's Green Zone, Balad Air Base: Iraqi Military

Rocket attacks hit Baghdad's "Green Zone," which houses the U.S. Embassy and Balad Air Base where U.S. troops are stationed, on Saturday, Iraq's military and state media reported.

There were no immediate reports of casualties. The attacks came as the U.S. bolsters forces in the region in response to Iranian threats to avenge the killing of Iranian Quds Force Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad's International Airport this week. The Pentagon later took responsibility for his death.

At least one rocket fell on a parade ground in the Green Zone, causing no damage or casualties, the reports said.

Also Saturday, several rockets fell at the gates of Balad Air Base, which is used jointly by the U.S. and Iraqi militaries, the reports said.

The Iraqi Security Forces' Twitter account said that "a number of rockets landed targeting" the Green Zone and Balad "without casualties."

There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the attacks.

Earlier, thousands of mourners, including acting Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, marched in a procession to honor the deaths of Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, leader of an Iranian-backed Shiite militia, who also was killed in the U.S. strike at the airport.

On Friday, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley said U.S. intelligence had solid evidence of Soleimani's plans for a campaign of devastating attacks on Americans before the Pentagon launched the strike that killed the widely feared head the Quds Force, a branch of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

In a meeting late Friday with a small group of defense reporters at the Pentagon, Milley said the U.S. must now brace for an unpredictable response from Iran after eliminating an implacable foe of its presence in the region.

"Is there risk? Damn right, there's risk. But we're working to mitigate it," he said, according to The Washington Post, The New York Times and other outlets invited to Milley's office.

"We fully comprehend the strategic consequences" of President Donald Trump's order to launch the strike to kill the 62-year-old Soleimani at Baghdad's International Airport on Thursday, Milley said. Iraqi state media reported the attack was carried out by missiles launched from a drone at Soleimani's two-vehicle convoy.

In another precautionary move, the first contingents of about 3,000 additional paratroopers from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, began boarding aircraft Saturday at Pope Army Airfield to deploy to Kuwait, the Fayetteville Observer reported.

On Wednesday, about 750 soldiers from 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, of the 82nd boarded C-17 Globemaster aircraft to deploy to Kuwait following Tuesday's anti-American demonstrations at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

In a statement Friday after Soleimani's death was confirmed, a Pentagon spokesperson said the entire 1st Brigade Combat Team would begin deploying to Kuwait as early as Saturday.

In his briefing to reporters Friday, Milley said there was "clear, unambiguous" evidence picked up by U.S. intelligence of Soleimani's plans for attacks on Americans, but he was not specific on what the intended targets included.

Before briefing members of Congress on Friday, a senior Defense Department official, speaking on background, was equally vague on Soleimani's plans.

The official cited a series of rocket attacks on U.S. installations in Iraq in recent months, which were blamed on the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah (KH) militia. Those attacks included one on the "K-1" U.S.-Iraqi base near north-central Kirkuk that killed an American contractor and wounded at least three U.S. troops.

In response, the U.S. launched strikes by F-15 Strike Eagle fighters against three KH locations in Iraq and two in Syria. The KH claimed the attacks killed 25 fighters.

The senior defense official declined comment on the attack Soleimani was planning but said the decision to kill him "was based on a presidential direction, given the ongoing planning and threats we saw in the region."

On CNN Friday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also did not give specifics but said the threat of an Iranian attack against Americans was "imminent" and required the strike that killed Soleimani.

"It was the time to take this action so that we could disrupt this plot, deter further aggression from Qasem Soleimani and the Iranian regime -- as well as to attempt to de-escalate the situation," he said. "The risk of doing nothing was enormous."

-- Richard Sisk can be reached at Richard.Sisk@Military.com.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Missiles hit Green Zone a...