U.S. launches artillery barrage in Baghdad against "suspected" insurgents

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/U_S_launches_artillery_barrage_in_Baghdad.html?siteSect=143&sid=7766457&cKey=1177831390000

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military in Iraq launched an artillery barrage in southern Baghdad on Sunday against suspected insurgent targets, with two dozen loud explosions shaking the southern outskirts of the capital.

U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver said the morning blasts, which were heard across the city, were caused by U.S. artillery but declined to say what the target was.

Tens of thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops have been deployed in Baghdad as part of a 10-week-old security crackdown to combat sectarian militias and insurgents.

The Iraqi police said the artillery was being fired from the U.S. Forward Operating Base Falcon in southern Baghdad into the al-Buaitha neighbourhood of Dora, a volatile district that is a Sunni insurgent stronghold.

[mike_c]

1. probably not any civilians living in that neighborhood....

That would be my guess. :sarcasm:

[hobbit709]

2. "Suspected Insurgent"=Any dead Iraqi

Age, gender, lack of weapons totally irrelevant.

[malaise]

10. You've got it n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Artillery inside a city?? Well, it worked for the Soviets in Berlin....

[Pavulon]

7. Different application

That was a total war. Artillery was used in a destroyed city. The objective was to take land, and destroy any resistance. Civilian loss was not on the meter.

However this war is the polar opposite.

[MethuenProgressive]

13. Exactly. But the Soviets began with the first barrage.

And Baghdad is pretty much "a destoyed city" by now.

[scarface2004]

4. is this legal?!?!

thought so!

[bluerum]

11. depends - is terra-ism legal? eom

[izzie]

5. Sounds like a group of people who do not know what they are doing

Me thinks that we have people in the WH running this so called war. God help us all as reason has long gone away. We need new minds and talent every place and send these old f--ts to the garbage bin. But that is just my point of view. I was not for sticking my foot in the ant nest of the Middle East even with the first Bush. Why were we them going to war to prop up an autocrat any How? If it was not for the oil we would all hate autocrats and their police states. God does really need to help the poor people that are between profits on oil and power.

[Pavulon]

6. Legal but goes against CI warfare "rules"

David Galula laid out basic tenets of conducting CI warfare, his book is the cornerstone. Controlled use of force is high on the list of things required to win a ci war. As the support of the people is the objective.

Artillery has come a long way since ww2. It can be very accurate. CEP can get below 10m. A 155 round can be used in place of a 500lb bomb. Say to kill the occupants of a building.

Again it depends on the load, target, and options.

[NNN0LHI]

12. As the support of the people is the objective.

As in we will make the Iraqis love us even if we have to kill every last one of them?

Don

[bluerum]

8. Hmmm. Interesting change in tactics. This should work.

:sarcasm:

If nothing else, they will have to place a few more orders for artillery ordinance. It is a good time to be in the killing trade.

:puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Winning "hearts and minds" with firepower. It worked so well in Vietnam.

A newer version of "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

[Jim__]

14. Adding stupidty upon stupidity.

If that's our best tactic, it's long past time to leave.