- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
But contrary to what many many television networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact, there were no airstrikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What’s more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.[emphasis added]
With the Interior Ministry's Samarra commando battalion, the soldiers had found some 300 individual pieces of weaponry like mortars, rockets and plastic explosives in six different locations inside the sparsely populated farming community of over 50 square miles and about 1,500 residents. The raids also uncovered high-powered cordless telephones used as detonators in homemade bombs, medical supplies and insurgent training manuals.
Before loading up into the helicopters for a return trip to Baghdad, Iraqi and American soldiers and some reporters helped themselves to the woman’s freshly baked bread, tearing bits off and chewing it as they wandered among the cows. For most of them, it was the only thing worthwhile they’d found all day.
The operation, they said, has yielded various weapons caches including 350 mortar rounds, 49 rocket-propelled grenades, 14 rockets, and six artillery rounds...............
So for what was probably at a cost of a few billion taxpayer dollars, we at best nabbed a few thousand dollars worth of insurgent munitions. Which probably amounts to about 1/1000 of one percent of their total arms.cherokee said:
SouthernDemocrat said:So for what was probably at a cost of a few billion taxpayer dollars, we at best nabbed a few thousand dollars worth of insurgent munitions. Which probably amounts to about 1/1000 of one percent of their total arms.
SouthernDemocrat said:So for what was probably at a cost of a few billion taxpayer dollars, we at best nabbed a few thousand dollars worth of insurgent munitions. Which probably amounts to about 1/1000 of one percent of their total arms.
danarhea said:You got it nailed dead on.
Actually, this operation does have a name. Its called..........
Shameless self promotion of adminisration using the troops as the bait.
danarhea said:To hear it from the Bush administration, Operation Swarmer was a huge success. However, the facts speak for themselves:
1) Not a single shot fired.
2) Not a single leader nabbed.
3) Of the 48 so called terrorists nabbed, 17 have already been released, and more are being released every hour.
I have some question. Is this to be construed as a victory against the insurgents? How many of our tax dollars went into this fizzled attack? What was the conversation between Bush and Rumsfeld like when they came up with this cockamamie scheme to spin the war?
Bush: My poll numbers are way down. What do I do?
Rummy: Lets launch a new assault, and call it the biggest one since the war began. We will call our embedded mediawhores and get them to play along too. Lets call it....... um..... ahhhhhhhhh - operation SWARMER.
Bush: OK, so we send 50 choppers out with 1500 troops, and make it look good to the American people. Now what about any insurgents we find?
Rummy: We have a war game we have been practicing just for this occasion. Its called Patty Cake.
Bush: Brilliant!!!! Now gimme another Guiness **burp**.
Article is here.
Actually, we MUST ask Bush, since he is ignoring the career experts on this issue. See what the following experts which Bush has ignored have to say:Nephtis said:The First thing you have to remember is that Bush being the Commander in Chief doesnt mean that he actually comes up with the battle strategys for Iraq. If your going to gripe about how actuall war is, then go gripe to the commanders. Im sure they would love to explain how uneducated you are in the Art of War. I myself admit im not an expert in warfare but I do fully acknowledge that i havent been trained in this therefore I respect those who are leading us in Combat.
danarhea said:Actually, we MUST ask Bush, since he is ignoring the career experts on this issue. See what the following experts which Bush has ignored have to say:
Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba
Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly
General Richard Myers
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]General John Abizaid[/SIZE][/FONT]
Gen. Eric Shinseki
Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni
General William Odom (ret.)
Aylwin-Foster, whose rank equates to a one-star U.S. general
A senior general at the Pentagon
Former Army secretary Thomas White
They, along with many other experts, state the case against Bush quite succinctly.
danarhea said:I have some question. Is this to be construed as a victory against the insurgents? How many of our tax dollars went into this fizzled attack?
danarhea said:Actually, we MUST ask Bush, since he is ignoring the career experts on this issue. See what the following experts which Bush has ignored have to say:
I was responding to a previous post, in which someone said I need to ask the commanders, because Bush doesnt make those decisions. Those Generals are examples of experts Bush never listened to. My point was not to use them to illustrate this instance, but of Bush's history for ignoring the experts.oldreliable67 said:1) The links you posted have nothing to do with the specific operation about which you made the subject of this thread.
2) It would be strange indeed if all current and former military types were in complete agreement with any single topic about Iraq that you might care to choose. If one were to make the effort, I'm positive that one could come with an equally long list of ex-military types who, while acknowledging that mistakes have been made, endorse the overall strategy decisions. But that wouldn't be news; its only worthy of the MSM when there is dissension, blood or bullets.
3) Unlike Johnson/McNamara and Nixon, from all accounts that I have read, Bush has not shown a tendency to 'micromanage' our effort in Iraq. To the contrary, he has left the day-to-day running of the war to the military. Of course he has been consulted on the issues involving policy and the larger operations, but to his credit, he delegated responsibility appropriately, IMO.
4) According the cite you provided, this specific operation was turned into a photo op by the media and was exagerrated by the media as to its characteristics.
dana, in this instance, you succumbed to the media hype and exagerrated and extrapolated a straightforward operation into a BDS rant. And in doing so, you got it wrong.
It didn;t appear that he was trying to "purposefully distort" your post. You arrived at that all on your own. Dana, relax. People can disagree if they want. The world isn't against you.danarhea said:Now when you respond to something I post, you might want to use the proper context instead of purposefully trying to distort the meaning.
cherokee said:Two words slick...
Prove it.
Quote from Time article
Four Black Hawk helicopters landed in a wheat field and dropped off a television crew, three photographers, three print reporters and three Iraqi government officials right into the middle of Operation Swarmer. Iraqi soldiers in newly painted humvees, green and red Iraqi flags stenciled on the tailgates, had just finished searching the farm populated by a half-dozen skinny cows and a woman kneading freshly risen dough and slapping it to the walls of a mud oven.
danarhea said:purposefully trying to distort the meaning.
SouthernDemocrat said:So for what was probably at a cost of a few billion taxpayer dollars, we at best nabbed a few thousand dollars worth of insurgent munitions. Which probably amounts to about 1/1000 of one percent of their total arms.
cherokee said:I admit I only looked at the first link but what the hell does this have to do with the operation?
Stinger said:You simply do not understand, the anti-war side will NEVER admit successes and try to denigrate any that are obvious. They just can't stand it.
Stinger said:And your cite for the "few billion taxpayer dollars". This was an Iraqi led operation and it was successful.
You just can't stand it can you.
millsy said:There ya go, now you're towing the right line.
Successful in what way? I'm not saying it was unsuccessful, because I don't know what the aim of the mission was.
Stinger said:And your cite for the "few billion taxpayer dollars". This was an Iraqi led operation and it was successful.
You just can't stand it can you.
oldreliable67 said:1)....Bush has not shown a tendency to 'micromanage' our effort in Iraq. To the contrary, he has left the day-to-day running of the war to the military. Of course he has been consulted on the issues involving policy and the larger operations, but to his credit, he delegated responsibility appropriately, IMO.....
NO
it’s called taking away 350 mortar rounds, 49 rocket-propelled grenades, 14 rockets, and six artillery rounds that could have been used against our troops or the Iraqi people.
Ok let’s look at it this way...
With the 350 mortar and 6 artillery rounds I'm thinking you could make around 100 roadside bombs easy...
But chit why stop there…..
350 mortars = 350 mortars dropped in a crowded market
49 RPG’s = 49 buses you could blow up.
6 artillery rounds = 6 easy roadside bombs.
Now is that good enough for you or do you need more examples?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?