Shocking Tally of Iraq Civilian Causalities

[Occhidiangela]

"No one is a victim of their experience if they keep an eye open to new understanding."

Thanks for that gem, Occhi. I'll keep that one around. It's something we could all use a good reminding of every now and then.

-Jester
[right][snapback]94320[/snapback][/right]

Don't I know it. I have munched on too many a sneaker for forgetting that. :o

[whyBish]

If the number was that high, I like to think that it would change public sentiment.  Bloodless war is a very popular fiction.
[right][snapback]94062[/snapback][/right]

When we were originally discussing the possibility of the war someone (Pete I think?) said that if the government knowingly misled the US public then there would be hell to pay. Hell seems pretty gentle these days. ;)

Even if the magic number this bloke came up with was 2 Million, or 10% of the Iraqi population, then the U.S. might start wishing they never joined in, but like Occhi said, what are the options from here, you can't change the past. "Oops, we probably shouldn't have gone into Iraq, sorry about the 2 million dead, we'll just be leaving now" ain't something likely to come out of the mouth of an American president, even less by the govt. that initiated the whole deal. And what can the public do, even if they wanted out? there isn't an election for another 3(?) years...

I don't agree with the U.S. rationale for going to war, But I am happy that Saddam was dethroned. With the high stakes in such an event, there will be bias from all sides, and once again I ask, what would knowing the exact number of civilian casualties actually achieve, even if it could be counted by a mutually agreeable definition?

[Minionman]

When we were originally discussing the possibility of the war someone (Pete I think?) said that if the government knowingly misled the US public then there would be hell to pay.  Hell seems pretty gentle these days.  ;)

Even if the magic number this bloke came up with was 2 Million, or 10% of the Iraqi population, then the U.S. might start wishing they never joined in, but like Occhi said, what are the options from here, you can't change the past.  "Oops, we probably shouldn't have gone into Iraq, sorry about the 2 million dead, we'll just be leaving now" ain't something likely to come out of the mouth of an American president, even less by the govt. that initiated the whole deal.  And what can the public do, even if they wanted out?  there isn't an election for another 3(?) years...

I don't agree with the U.S. rationale for going to war, But I am happy that Saddam was dethroned.  With the high stakes in such an event, there will be bias from all sides, and once again I ask, what would knowing the exact number of civilian casualties actually achieve, even if it could be counted by a mutually agreeable definition?
[right][snapback]94346[/snapback][/right]

It could tell you some of how well the war went. Bloodless war is impossible, but it does seem like a good idea to get the war objectives done with as little extra deaths as possible.

That's what annoys me about the whole war, for whatever reason it was started, there's no excuse for some ugly bits of planning that seemed to happen. Some people are talking along the lines of "it was more expensive than we thought it would be", my tenth grade self when the invasion happened was thinking along the lines of "I wonder where we'll get all the money we need from for rebuilding". This awas based on a bunch of assumptions, and some high school/encyclopedia history.

[Occhidiangela]

When we were originally discussing the possibility of the war someone (Pete I think?) said that if the government knowingly misled the US public then there would be hell to pay.  Hell seems pretty gentle these days.  ;)

I don't agree with the U.S. rationale for going to war, But I am happy that Saddam was dethroned. 
[right][snapback]94346[/snapback][/right]

1. I said it, among others, and I was apparently wrong, or Hell takes a while to pay, the installment plan and all that, balloon payments . . .

2. The number itself is not significant, unless you happen to be one of them. Otherwise, it is a vulgar score card used for other purposes.

In war, people die. They always have.

In earthquakes, people often die. 80,000 or so in Pakistan lately: that's a lot.

War features intramural homicide. The propensity of some of the media and spin meisters to present it as a sporting event is nauseating.

Last year, 2004, in Texas, we killed 1700 of each other in vehicle accidents.

John Cleese quipped once in a Python sketch: "Don't get sentimental mother, people die every day." While I wish I could take that glib approach, when it is someone you know, it hurts.

Occhi

[Griselda]

I don't see that there would be a reason for anybody to stop blowing things up any time soon.

I can't see any motivation for Iraq's Sunni population to play ball at this point. If the current governmental situation doesn't work out, then something else will happen, and from their point of view just about anything would be better than what they are getting now. Until something comes along that unites all Iraqis as Iraqis, stuff will get blown up whether we're there or not. Unfortuantely, I don't know that Iraq ever had much of a national identity, other than one that was forced on them by whoever was in charge. I wouldn't be surprised to see the country split along ethnic lines in the not-too-distant future.

The USA is probably worried about leaving a power vacuum in Iraq, however they're probably equally concerned about strategic positioning in the area. I'm pretty sure the initial plan was to foster a friendly regime in Iraq so that we could set up permanent military bases in Iraq and draw some (most? all?) of our forces out of Saudi Arabia. That would probably allow for better strategic positioning relative to Iran and Syria, and would take some of the sting out of the Arab criticism of US troops in Saudi Arabia and complaints at home that we're too cozy with the Saudis.

As of now, what do we have? Our presence in Saudi Arabia continues to be shaky, and Afghanistan is no rose garden either. Iraq was supposed to be a solid location for a permanent base, and my guess is that there are those in the military planning to hold out until that becomes the undisputed reality.

I haven't seen any pigs flying yet, though, so I hope somebody has a Plan B.

[Jester]

"That is the role America fell into when Kofi bailed out after the truck bomb hit the UN office building in Baghdad. Action talks and BS walks, so Kofi walked. Still, he was right on that matter."

Now, really, you can't be blaming the purchase of 26 million pieces of broken mesopotamian pottery on Kofi and the UN, can you?

Dubya bought that urn eagerly and willingly. Kofi warned him, Colin warned him, millions upon millions of protestors warned him, and yet he went ahead anyway. The UN was dragged along with the usual rationale: we're doing it anyway, and it'll be worse if you don't come along too. That apparently wasn't enough to keep the UN involved in a US-triggered civil war, and frankly, I don't blame them. Override the security council at your own risk.

I had my eyes and ears open in the runup to this war. I do remember when you and I discussed many of these same problems. And I seem to recall cautioning anyone who would listen about these problems: Not "what will Iraq look like" but "how many Iraqs will there be?". Not "how do we spread democracy" but "how do we stop people from being very angry after we blow their country apart?" The line was crossed, much to my dismay, and now the US is stuck.

I blame Dubya, PNAC, and all the rest of the crew that foisted this hellish situation on the world. The rhetoric was as transparent then as now, when it's all fallen to pieces. But now that we're here? The good outcomes are looking remarkably unlikely. Three states, living in harmony? One state, somehow balancing totally polarized interests (see: constitution referendum results)? A perpetual protectorate, with the money to support such a venture being donated by philanthropic individuals? Good luck with any of that.

I smell perpetual, smouldering civil war. If the continued occupation manages to avoid a larger, regional conflict, then great. But if a big, nasty middle eastern war is in the cards, I doubt even 50 years of occupation would accomplish that. Not on the current budget, anyway.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Shouldn't have in the first place.

-Jester

[Chaerophon]

I blame Dubya, PNAC, and all the rest of the crew that foisted this hellish situation on the world. The rhetoric was as transparent then as now, when it's all fallen to pieces. But now that we're here? The good outcomes are looking remarkably unlikely. Three states, living in harmony? One state, somehow balancing totally polarized interests (see: constitution referendum results)? A perpetual protectorate, with the money to support such a venture being donated by philanthropic individuals? Good luck with any of that.

I smell perpetual, smouldering civil war. If the continued occupation manages to avoid a larger, regional conflict, then great. But if a big, nasty middle eastern war is in the cards, I doubt even 50 years of occupation would accomplish that. Not on the current budget, anyway.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Shouldn't have in the first place.

Well put. Team Wolfowitz deserves to eat some crow. They won't.

[Occhidiangela]

Well put.  Team Wolfowitz deserves to eat some crow.  They won't.
[right][snapback]94426[/snapback][/right]

Feith, Wolofowitz, Krystal . . . where are they now? Their baby, whom they have abandoned. Only Cheney is around to hold the bag, I don't think he's going to make it through the 2008 without a major mess.

There is an outside chance he'll pull a Casey, but I doubt it.

Wolfowitz was rewarded with World Bank position. Why does he get to leave town before the project is complete? He was the guy dying to hammer Saddam back in early 90's, a guy whose advice to G Bush the Elder was ignored.

I'll give the folks at State and DoD some credit: they are trying like crazy to polish the turd, and parts of it are shining. Still smells, though.

Who gets left holding the bag, other than Cheney?

The troops. The taxpayers. A whole lot of folks in central Iraq.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

"That is the role America fell into when Kofi bailed out after the truck bomb hit the UN office building in Baghdad. Action talks and BS walks, so Kofi walked. Still, he was right on that matter."

Now, really, you can't be blaming the purchase of 26 million pieces of broken mesopotamian pottery on Kofi and the UN, can you?

Pottery (I am guessing you refer to the museum looting that was an inside job) protection during combat cannot and is not a priority military mission, and the politicians did not resource that effort as though it were a high priority. Too damned bad. War breaks things.

The problem of the UN very publicly being kicked out of Iraq by one bomb killed off a significant political support effort. Kofi's decision showed once again how fragile UN efforts are in collective security. This same weakness was shown in Bosnia 1992-1995, so it was no surprise to me. To a certain extent, his hands were tied as I don't think much of anyone (contributing nations) was willing to send more people into Bagdad with bombs on the plate. Risk aversion shows a terrorist or guerilla that he can out gut you. The terrorists or Sunni insurgents, not sure who drove that bomb, guessing it was one of Al Douri's folks, kicked Kofi's and the UN's arse, by intimidation. Sad but true. If you want to suggest Kofi was set up by the Bush course of action on that, you'd have a good point.

Dubya bought that urn eagerly and willingly. Kofi warned him, Colin warned him, millions upon millions of protestors warned him, and yet he went ahead anyway.

The "protestors warning" was irrelevant bullsh**. The hair trigger protest versus the US, cries of wolf since about the mid 50's, render their voice nothing more than sound and fury, hot air, and blatant demagoguery. Many were the same over wrought fools who protested Afghanistan: mostly emotion, little substance.

The dipsticks also protest Kyoto. So what?

The warning of people like Powell, like Zinni, like Webb, like Ron Paul, like Chirac, like Putin. Those warnings were of merit. The warning of a few dozen inside State and CIA, some of whom reisgned in protest, those were warnings of merit. Kofi's reluctance to act, since he can't without the Russians, Chinese, and French anyway, was due to his own powerlessness as a leader. He's not a leader, he's a bureaucrat. Bless him for his good intentions, but he's an empty suit, albeit a gentlemanly empty suit.

Override the security council at your own risk.

There is some truth in that, but you might want to consider that the Security Council cease fire of 1991 had never been complied with, so at any time hostilities could recommence.

Saddam had ignored SC for 12 years. At his own risk. :D Milosovic ignored the SC for a few years, at his own risk. :P

Still, I agree with the spirit of your point that taking the time and effort, indulging in the hard work required to get the big 5 on the SC on board was necessary to keep the UN engaged in the long term rebuilding effort, which IMO would have done a lot for the prospects for success.

The decision was a risk based decision that assumed:

1. Keeping lots of international support for the rebuilding effort.

2. Killing or capturing Saddam early on.

3. Lots of Saddam's inner circle quitting or running or dying.

4. 4th ID coming in from Turkey during the operation. That pincer movement not being possible made a massive differnence in the speed of collapse and the time allowed for certain key leadership to go to ground, and the time to start transition.

5. A quick insertion of Chalabi. (Dumb assumption, he's as big a charlatan as Diem or Bao Di in Viet Nam.)

6. A successful PR/Information campaign. It has been a complete failure since day one.

If the assumptions break, the plan breaks. Those six assumptions broke.

I had my eyes and ears open in the runup to this war. I do remember when you and I discussed many of these same problems. And I seem to recall cautioning anyone who would listen about these problems: Not "what will Iraq look like" but "how many Iraqs will there be?".  Not "how do we spread democracy" but "how do we stop people from being very angry after we blow their country apart?" The line was crossed, much to my dismay, and now the US is stuck.

Yes, indeed, you and I discussed "what will Iraq actuallly look like once the glue that binds it is gone?" We also discussed the very real prospect of "civil war like Yugoslavia's break up." Yup.

I blame Dubya, PNAC, and all the rest of the crew that foisted this hellish situation on the world. The rhetoric was as transparent then as now, when it's all fallen to pieces. But now that we're here? The good outcomes are looking remarkably unlikely. Three states, living in harmony? One state, somehow balancing totally polarized interests (see: constitution referendum results)? A perpetual protectorate, with the money to support such a venture being donated by philanthropic individuals? Good luck with any of that.

The last we can't afford. Dubya and PNAC are certainly culpable, as is the US Congress for it's own "authorize use of force" endorsement. Had the ground work been laid to get no fooling UNSC support, and therefore a lot more buy in from more actors in the rebuilding . . . but it wasn't. That hurt in a dozen different ways.

I smell perpetual, smouldering civil war.  If the continued occupation manages to avoid a larger, regional conflict, then great. But if a big, nasty middle eastern war is in the cards, I doubt even 50 years of occupation would accomplish that. Not on the current budget, anyway.

I do see a civil war, one that I saw and was involved with last year, continuing. If it can be confined to Iraq, that is probably the best that could be hoped for, but that leaves Iraq a lot worse off than under Saddam, doesn't it? Yes. Where it leaves Israel is a more insightful question. ;)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

Not really, there is a third way, even a fourth, none of which were explored with any vigor, nor rigor. The "do nothing straw man" was presented with "here's a course of action" and that is no better than a fool's dilemma. What still kills me, since I have long admired Secretary Powell, is that he went along with the brief to the UN, in light of what we have learned since. He was used, but he allowed himself to be used, maybe through a sense of loyalty. Hard to say.

The "if you don't" was tied to a move to increase Israeli security, a move that allegedly makes Israel more tractable in the over all "roadmap to peace." For better and worse, "Israel secure" is part and parcel of US Mid East policy since 1948, and even moreso since 1973. That is reality. Debate the why if you wish, that has been a consistent policy.

Shouldn't have in the first place.
-Jester
[right][snapback]94368[/snapback][/right]

Certainly not without better assumptions, clearer force to task balancing, listening to General Shinseki and other competent military staffwork, and a lot less "hope as a method."

In the absolute case, both General Anthony Zinni, USMC, Retired (Former CENTCOM Commander, predecessor to General Franks) and former Secretary of the Navy James Webb, would agree with you. If you haven't read any of Webb's books, I suggest "The Emperor's General" and some of his public writings from 2002 to present. And transcripts of his speeches. His latest, "Born Fighting" is excellent, and partly explains where Pres Bush draws his public political power from. Good stuff.

Occhi

[Jester]

"Pottery (I am guessing you refer to the museum looting that was an inside job) protection during combat cannot and is not a priority military mission, and the politicians did not resource that effort as though it were a high priority."

(I'll probably get to a more detailed reply later. Needless to say, I agree with you on many points. You were, and remain, a voice of experience and sanity here. I just wish those with your caution had carried the day.)

No, the pottery thing was Powell's Pottery Barn Rule: You break it, you pay for it. They broke a nation of 26 million people, the "pieces of mesopotamian pottery". Now all the President's horses and all the President's men can't put Iraq back together again.

-Jester

Edit: corrected an error in the PBR.

[Occhidiangela]

"Pottery (I am guessing you refer to the museum looting that was an inside job) protection during combat cannot and is not a priority military mission, and the politicians did not resource that effort as though it were a high priority."

(I'll probably get to a more detailed reply later. Needless to say, I agree with you on many points. You were, and remain, a voice of experience and sanity here. I just wish those with your caution had carried the day.)

No, the pottery thing was Powell's Pottery Barn Rule: You break it, you pay for it. They broke a nation of 26 million people, the "pieces of mesopotamian pottery". Now all the President's horses and all the President's men can't put Iraq back together again.

-Jester

Edit: corrected an error in the PBR.
[right][snapback]94445[/snapback][/right]

Nice metaphor. Not sure if you are right, at the moment things look rather hosed to those of us being fed by various media sources with varying foci. We shall see.

At the moment, I am betting neither the over nor the under, in fact, I'm not betting at all. I'm watching, wondering, and gritting my teeth.

Occhi

[Concillian]

Ok, where is our resident statistician?  Concillian?
edit:  typo
[right][snapback]94038[/snapback][/right]

At work sure I deal with determining whether differences between experimental cells are statistically different or not, and determining standard deviations and such. But verifying some mathematical model for the best way to count dead people... well I think this simple illustration sums up my feelings about that:


Concillian |-----10 foot pole------| _________________________ dead body model

[eppie]

Nice metaphor.  Not sure if you are right, at the moment things look rather hosed to those of us being fed by various media sources with varying foci.  We shall see.

At the moment, I am betting neither the over nor the under, in fact, I'm not betting at all.  I'm watching, wondering, and gritting my teeth.

Occhi
[right][snapback]94490[/snapback][/right]

Yes, this week the RAI (Italian television) came with some footage in which they claim that phosphorus bombs were used in Fallujah.
I think there happened things that we will never know of, just like in any war any time.

[Occhidiangela]

Yes, this week the RAI (Italian television) came with some footage in which they claim that phosphorus bombs were used in Fallujah.
I think there happened things that we will never know of, just like in any war any time.
[right][snapback]94553[/snapback][/right]

I know for a fact that Willy Pete is not a bomb munition. Once again, the media get it wrong.

Some helicopters carry rocket pods carrying with 2.75" rockets. (About 6cm in diameter, about 2 meters long, unguided.) I may be able to find out if they are still used as markers.

EDIT: Info on those rockets here. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/a...in-rockets.html

The purpose of the "smoke" is to mark, either for artillery fire, strafing, or bombing from a plane carrying bombs. The RoE (when I was over there) expressly forbade WP's use as an Anti Personnel munition. (Due to the LOAC.) However, if the wind blows, I imagine WP could get on someone inadvertantly. Given how strict the RoE is in general, I'd be surprised to find helicopters loading "smoke" rounds. Most of the combat action is in urban environments (where location via grid or simple road map is an easy talk on for Close Air Support), most engagements require visual identification of enemy (so, it is already marked by someone'e eye or other mechanical sensor) and the "smoke" round is better used in open country, particularly in support of artillery fire or bomb runs of unguided bombs.

The US uses guided bombs in Iraq. The risk to civilians of unguided bombs is too great.

As a point of international convention: WP is not forbidden by LOAC as a marker or "smoke," or it wouldn't be in the inventory.

Occhi

[eppie]

As a point of international convention: WP is not forbidden by LOAC as a marker or "smoke," or it wouldn't be in the inventory.

Occhi
[right][snapback]94560[/snapback][/right]

Yes I know it is like that. The US did not sign that treaty.
But I'm curious to know if they showed the RAI-report also in the US.
It looked all very convincing what they had to say. And I don't consider the RAI as an anti war in Iraq medium.

[Occhidiangela]

Yes I know it is like that. The US did not sign that treaty.
But I'm curious to know if they showed the RAI-report also in the US.
It looked all very convincing what they had to say. And I don't consider the RAI as an anti war in Iraq medium.
[right][snapback]94562[/snapback][/right]

What are you talking about? The US did indeed sign the Geneva Conventions. LOAC is an acronym for "Laws Of Armed Conflict." US a is party to all of them. I had to enforce adherence to LOAC for about six months. The US Rules of Engagement are generally stricter than the LOAC.

It's the ICC the US has scorned, and well the US should, as should every sovereign nation. No accountability. No balances, no checks. It's a kangaroo court, and always has been. A modrn day Star Chamber.

As to when and where Wily Pete may have been used, purposefully or otherwise, I am at the limit of my knowledge.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Yes I know it is like that. The US did not sign that treaty.
But I'm curious to know if they showed the RAI-report also in the US.
It looked all very convincing what they had to say. And I don't consider the RAI as an anti war in Iraq medium.
[right][snapback]94562[/snapback][/right]

eppie

FWIW, the Washington Post picked up on the story and got a comment from the DoD.

Washington Post November 16, 2005 Pg. 16
U.S. Used Phosphorous Munitions In Fallujah

The U.S. military confirmed yesterday that it used artillery rounds containing white phosphorus against insurgents during the assault on Fallujah last November, but said it did not use the highly flammable agent against civilians as claimed in an Italian television report.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said U.S. forces in Fallujah "employed white phosphorus . . . as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," but said that "suggestions that U.S. forces targeted civilians with these weapons are simply wrong."

Defense officials acknowledged that they could not rule out the possibility that the phosphorous munitions accidentally hit civilians during the Fallujah offensive, which involved the heaviest U.S. combat since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

U.S. troops who took part in the Fallujah battle recounted in detail their use of white phosphorus -- most commonly employed to obscure troops during an assault or to mark targets -- as an effective weapon for routing out insurgents from "trench lines and spider holes," according to an article written by three of the soldiers and published in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine.

Venable said munitions containing white phosphorus are not illegal and are considered conventional, not chemical, weapons.

-- Ann Scott Tyson

I am pretty sure that the officer is correctly citing the international protocols on weapons that the US is a party to. I think I'll quote General Patton and remark that most "gentlemen of the press" know less about war than they know about fornication. The intent to sensationalize a "fact" is not a new phenomenon.

"Remember the Maine." ;) 1898

"German Soldiers Bayonetting Nuns and babies in strollers in Belgium!" :o 1914

Occhi

[eppie]

eppie

FWIW, the Washington Post picked up on the story and got a comment from the DoD.

Washington Post November 16, 2005  Pg. 16
U.S. Used Phosphorous Munitions In Fallujah

The U.S. military confirmed yesterday that it used artillery rounds containing white phosphorus against insurgents during the assault on Fallujah last November, but said it did not use the highly flammable agent against civilians as claimed in an Italian television report.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said U.S. forces in Fallujah "employed white phosphorus . . . as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," but said that "suggestions that U.S. forces targeted civilians with these weapons are simply wrong."

Defense officials acknowledged that they could not rule out the possibility that the phosphorous munitions accidentally hit civilians during the Fallujah offensive, which involved the heaviest U.S. combat since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

U.S. troops who took part in the Fallujah battle recounted in detail their use of white phosphorus -- most commonly employed to obscure troops during an assault or to mark targets -- as an effective weapon for routing out insurgents from "trench lines and spider holes," according to an article written by three of the soldiers and published in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine.

Venable said munitions containing white phosphorus are not illegal and are considered conventional, not chemical, weapons.

-- Ann Scott Tyson

I am pretty sure that the officer is correctly citing the international protocols on weapons that the US is a party to.  I think I'll quote General Patton and remark that most "gentlemen of the press" know less about war than they know about fornication.  The intent to sensationalize a "fact" is not a new phenomenon. 

"Remember the Maine."  ;)  1898

"German Soldiers Bayonetting Nuns and babies in strollers in Belgium!"  :o  1914

Occhi
[right][snapback]95046[/snapback][/right]

With did not sign the treaty, I meant the part that the US did not sign the part that bans the use of white phosphorus in combat. (that is what I heard on the news here) So in that sense WP is not illegal no...although a lot of other countries wanted it to be.

I don't think the RAI claimed that WP was used especially on civilians but just that it was used as a weapon, not just as a method to light up the battle field.

But anyway, your statement "I know for a fact that Willy Pete is not a bomb munition. Once again, the media get it wrong." was a bit premature. And the one" "The risk to civilians of unguided bombs is too great. " was indeed right but nobody cared about it at that time.
Don't get me wrong I fully understand that in heavy combat one might be willing to use some "not very conventional" weapons, also to protect yourself, but i guess this was also the reason that a lot of countries wanted to have WP as weapon banned.

[jahcs]

WP is often called "rapid smoke." With most smoke rounds/smoke generators it takes a bit of time for the smoke cloud to thicken and expand to obscure the line of sight you need blocked. A WP grenade gives you that smoke cloud almost instantly. The tactical situation will normally dictate which munition is used under fire. I wouldn't doubt that it may have been used as a weapon against insurgents also.

Every soldier I've talked to that's come back from Iraq went to great lengths to safeguard the civilian population. They know that's why we're there. Most of the time I think the press are there just for body counts.


As soon someone gets their 'been there, done that patch' for their uniform then I'll be much more inclined to listen to arguments of tactics, rather than expect some press pool monkey in their air conditioned office sipping a latte to have all the answers.


Next the International Media will be saying we used 'incendiary bullets' against people. Oops, I meant 'tracer ammunition.'

[Chaerophon]

As soon someone gets their 'been there, done that patch' for their uniform then I'll be much more inclined to listen to arguments of tactics, rather than expect some press pool monkey in their air conditioned office sipping a latte to have all the answers.

I think that you may be a bit deluded as to the level of threat that the average field reporter faces in Iraq... they're certainly not sipping lattes. I have no opinon on the specific topic - why would I, I know nothing about it - but I think that you may be doing a disservice to many people who, according to your logic, DO deserve to have an opinion.