PDA

View Full Version : Marines Face Enemy in Iraq With Less Armor



J-10
06-05-2004, 05:24 AM
Saturday June 5, 2004 7:16 AM


By FISNIK ABRASHI

Associated Press Writer

CAMP MERCURY, Iraq (AP) - They ride out of remote camps in Humvees, often with flak jackets and rifles as their only protection for long - and sometimes lethal - patrols through Iraq's desert expanse.

The small U.S. Marine convoys, lacking tanks and heavily armored vehicles, may seem an easy target for Sunni insurgents in the restive Anbar province, the largely uninhabited swath of land stretching north and west of Baghdad to the borders of Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Unlike the Army - whose daunting Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles shake the ground and send villagers scurrying for their homes - the Marines say they prefer not to use heavy armor.

``Sometimes, the armored vehicle gives a false sense of security,'' says Maj. Larry Kaifesh of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, which is based near Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad.

Sitting inside a heavily armored vehicle can prevent a Marine from seeing his enemy. It also puts distance between the gun and the enemy, Kaifesh said.

The Marines stand out among U.S. troops in Iraq, for their digital-print camouflage uniforms as well as for the lack of tanks and Bradleys inside their camps.

Most of their Humvees have armor plates but no side windows. The open-top back is often reinforced only by simple metal plaques placed on the sides.

Many would conclude that the sparse use of armor - so different from the Army's way - makes the Marines more vulnerable on the battlefield.

The Marines disagree. By appearing to be exposed, they say they are baiting insurgents, trying to draw fire so they can locate insurgents, then go for the kill, said Sgt. Mathew Conrad.

``We like to go look for (them) instead of having them come to us,'' said Conrad, 30, from Simi Valley, Calif. ``We go out looking for trouble for the sake of everyone's peace.''

Since the battalion arrived here in March, hundreds of insurgents have been killed, officials have said.

``It is like boxing. You pretend that you miss with your right, they take a swing at you and than you hit them back hard with your left,'' said Gunnery Sgt. Mark Kline, 42, of Kansas City, Mo. ``If you do not take risks, you won't win a match.''

Jeremy Binnie, a Middle East military analyst with the London defense consultancy, Jane's, said that any ``intentional placing of troops in harm's way'' carries serious risks.

British troops have been known to shun their armor to ``boost relations with the local people and show them they were not intimidating,'' he said.

``But looking to draw Iraqis (insurgents) into a standoff fight this way ... is dangerous,'' Binnie, who has closely followed the war in Iraq, told The Associated Press.

He suggests that the Marine a conflict in different ways.''

When the Army rotated fresh units into Iraq this spring, the newly arrived forces left some of their tanks, Bradleys and armored personnel carriers at home, figuring they needed a higher proportion of Humvees to be light and more agile to deal with insurgents.

But as the anti-occupation violence has grown, Army leaders have concluded that the lighter force should be stiffened with more armor. Initially the response was to add armor plates to the Humvees, giving them a measure of extra protection. Now, even that seems too little, and the Army is asking for additional tanks or other heavy armored vehicles to improve protection for soldiers.

The Humvee is a utility vehicle, designed to carry troops, equipment and wounded soldiers and not intended at first for combat zones.

Since arriving in the Fallujah area, known for fierce anti-U.S. insurgency, the Marines have taken a heavy toll.

Almost 10 percent of Kaifesh's battalion has been wounded, many of them during a three-week siege of the city of Fallujah. That attack was prompted by the April 5 massacre of four American civilian contractors.

At least 10 Marines were killed in those battles, along with hundreds of Iraqis.

Since then, attacks on the Marines have decreased, but mortars are still lobbed at their bases and roadside bombs are placed in the path of their patrols.

This has not deterred the Marines, who still ``seek the enemy and try to destroy it,'' said 1st Lt. Richard Wilkerson, 28, of Knoxville, Tenn.

Killing the enemy is not the problem, Kaifesh said.

``Finding him is difficult,'' he said. ``It is like looking for a needle in a haystack.''


From (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4170268,00.html)

J-10
06-05-2004, 05:47 AM
Most of their Humvees have armor plates but no side windows. The open-top back is often reinforced only by simple metal plaques placed on the sides.


Humvee is too weak.


``Finding him is difficult,'' he said. ``It is like looking for a needle in a haystack.''


It's a big problem - how to fight in street/building.

OB Kenobi
06-05-2004, 08:03 AM
Bush spent all the funds on those pampered security contractors from Blackwater, Dyncorp, etc., instead of on the troops. Now the average GI gets ***********.

gbos
06-05-2004, 10:53 AM
I don’t think the problem is the lack of armor. The problem as I see it is that the number of men currently in Iraq seems to be low. If you leave pretty of room and time to insurgents then they will find an opportunity to attack. There must be constant present in up rested regions to suppress gorilla tactics. Just my opinion. I may be wrong.

Secret Squirrel
06-05-2004, 11:49 AM
Bush spent all the funds on those pampered security contractors from Blackwater, Dyncorp, etc., instead of on the troops. Now the average GI gets ***********.

Private firms arent paid from the military's budget (baseline budget) but rather are paid from the supplemental (the money thats funding the war). So saying Bush spent all the funds on the pampered security contractors (even though those contractors buy their own gear) is completely wrong.

OB Kenobi
06-06-2004, 02:35 AM
Bush spent all the funds on those pampered security contractors from Blackwater, Dyncorp, etc., instead of on the troops. Now the average GI gets ***********.

Private firms arent paid from the military's budget (baseline budget) but rather are paid from the supplemental (the money thats funding the war). So saying Bush spent all the funds on the pampered security contractors (even though those contractors buy their own gear) is completely wrong.

That's nonsense. The funds could have been diverted to the military instead of being used for the ~20,000 mercenaries Iraq right now. The funds could have been counted into the cost of the occupation in the first place, rather than be diverted from the reconstruction costs as is being done right now.

More importantly, *Bush claimed the money was going to civilian contractors* for the reconstruction not to mercenaries. He chose to put the security situation in the hands of high-priced private security of dubious reputation, and some of foreign origin instead of US troops.

To put it simply, you cannot deny that Bush screwed up the logistics of the invasion completely. Not solely out of honest mistakes, but because he had a specific agenda to use private security, and to rely on US contractors in the recontruction rather than allow the Iraqis to handle it themelves.

Even more simply put, Bush and his corporate buddies thought they could make a nice profit from their war, instead they totally screwed it up.

Secret Squirrel
06-06-2004, 11:19 AM
Bush spent all the funds on those pampered security contractors from Blackwater, Dyncorp, etc., instead of on the troops. Now the average GI gets ***********.

Private firms arent paid from the military's budget (baseline budget) but rather are paid from the supplemental (the money thats funding the war). So saying Bush spent all the funds on the pampered security contractors (even though those contractors buy their own gear) is completely wrong.

That's nonsense. The funds could have been diverted to the military instead of being used for the ~20,000 mercenaries Iraq right now. The funds could have been counted into the cost of the occupation in the first place, rather than be diverted from the reconstruction costs as is being done right now.

More importantly, *Bush claimed the money was going to civilian contractors* for the reconstruction not to mercenaries. He chose to put the security situation in the hands of high-priced private security of dubious reputation, and some of foreign origin instead of US troops.

To put it simply, you cannot deny that Bush screwed up the logistics of the invasion completely. Not solely out of honest mistakes, but because he had a specific agenda to use private security, and to rely on US contractors in the recontruction rather than allow the Iraqis to handle it themelves.

Even more simply put, Bush and his corporate buddies thought they could make a nice profit from their war, instead they totally screwed it up.

Nonsense? Actually its perfect sense if you understand what you're attempting to comment on. But yet again you show your ignorance. 20,000 mercs? Are cooks mercs? Are interrogators mercs? Are weapons maintence mercs? I'm sure you know, as you seem to know everything ( rofl ) that mercs are illegal as defined by the GC and international law. There arent any mercs in Iraq. Also, why dont you go learn about budgets, funding, and political spending before you make such sweeping and incorrect comments.

"To put it simply, you cannot deny that Bush screwed up the logistics of the invasion completely" <---I sure as hell can. The logistics of the invasion were not screwed up at all. The invasion was done quite well with more than adequate troop levels. I'm certainly not a fan of Bush, but I'm not going to warp facts just to get another crack or two at him.

usa320
06-06-2004, 12:00 PM
Children there are a difference between "contractors" and "mercs".

Mercenaries are actually fighting a war.

These contractors are nothing but heavily armed security guards. They are performing only DEFENSIVE missions.

Secret Squirrel
06-06-2004, 01:16 PM
Children there are a difference between "contractors" and "mercs".

Mercenaries are actually fighting a war.

These contractors are nothing but heavily armed security guards. They are performing only DEFENSIVE missions.

Yes there "is" a difference between contractors and mercs. Maybe you could comment on the main idea (ie. the funding of the war, where the money came from, whether or not it was money that should or even could have gone towards the troops...etc) woot and not the offtopic one that wasnt really a dispute?

J-10
06-07-2004, 01:00 AM
How about drive this light armored vehicle? :lol:

http://www.kiken.nu/army/land/imgbox/img20040603161700.jpg

Secret Squirrel
06-07-2004, 01:22 AM
How about drive this light armored vehicle? :lol:

http://www.kiken.nu/army/land/imgbox/img20040603161700.jpg

shhhhhh thats topic secret special forces ninja midget intel.

speaking of midgets, what do you call a bouncer at a homo****** midget nightclub?

answer: a flame-thrower