A Deadly Clash at Donkey Island (Ramadi. Iraq)

[unhappycamper]

On a Routine Night Patrol Near Ramadi, U.S. Troops Stumble Upon a Camp of Heavily Armed Insurgents Poised to Retake the City

A Deadly Clash at Donkey Island
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 19, 2007; Page A01


RAMADI, Iraq

Staff Sgt. Norman Stark had never seen combat. Nor did the 32-year-old soldier from Baltimore expect it, after many uneventful months in Iraq's Anbar province, as he jostled over the rough terrain of brush, fields and irrigation ditches in the lead Humvee of a routine patrol on the night of June 30.

Stretching before him under a full moon were the flat lands near the village of Tash, south of the city of Ramadi. Violence had plummeted in recent months in Ramadi -- long one of the deadliest cities in Iraq for U.S. troops -- as powerful tribes in the predominantly Sunni region joined forces with the U.S. military to uproot Islamic insurgent groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

For Stark and the eight other soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment, it seemed like just another tedious night in the desert, they later recounted.

But ahead lay a vicious battle, which would not only reveal their enemy's determination to retake Ramadi but also throw into question the region's long-term stability if the Americans were to leave. It suggested, moreover, that preserving the city's fragile, hard-won calm would call for heavier fighting than anticipated.

Yet U.S. commanders say the all-night firefight, dubbed the battle of Donkey Island, also demonstrates progress, by showing how an increase in U.S. troops and Sunni cooperation makes it much harder for insurgents affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq to operate in Anbar.

The account that follows is based on interviews with three dozen U.S. soldiers and Iraqis with direct involvement in or knowledge of the battle and its aftermath, as well as official U.S. military accounts and maps detailing the fighting, insurgents' videos later obtained by the U.S. military, and a Post reporter's survey of the battlefield.


more

[rodeodance]

1. In fact, he said, "this shows the enemy is patient. This is his land. He's got all the time in the w

In fact, he said, "this shows the enemy is patient. This is his land. He's got all the time in the world. . . . They're going to continue to fight in Anbar."

[gulfcoastliberal]

2. I expect the WH will be buying lots more propaganda articles to justify staying in Iraq next month

We've already seen the new slimy propaganda message printed in one administration mouthpiece - the New York Times:

The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
By Robert Parry
July 30, 2007

No need to wait until September. It’s already obvious how George W. Bush and his still-influential supporters in Washington will sell an open-ended U.S. military occupation of Iraq – just the way they always have: the war finally has turned the corner and withdrawal now would betray the troops by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

At one time, the Iraq story line was how many schoolrooms had been painted or how well the government security forces were doing. Now there are new silver linings being detected that will justify a positive progress report in September – and the U.S. news media is again ready to play its credulous part.

President Bush signaled the happy-news judgment of his hand-picked commander, Gen. David Petraeus, in a round of confident public appearances over the past two weeks. With his effusive praise of “David,” as Bush called the general at a White House news conference, the President acted like a smug student arriving for a test with the answers tucked in his pocket.

Another key element of the coming propaganda campaign was previewed on the op-ed page of the New York Times on July 30 as Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution portrayed themselves as tough critics of the Bush administration who, after a visit to Iraq, now must face the facts: Bush’s “surge” is working
http://consortiumnews.com/2007/073007.html

[wtmusic]

3. "if the Americans were to leave" -- says it all, in a nutshell

It would throw into question the region's long-term stability. As if it's stable now. :puke: