« Matador updates | Main | Wednesday Live-blogging Commences »
May 11, 2005
Noon Wednesday: Various Matador Updates
Several things to cover:
1. An Alert Commenter, Heartless Libertarian notes why rafts might have been used in the river crossing, rather than Amtracs:
Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of reason for using rafts instead of amtracs. The first would be for stealth. Tracked vehicles are noisy. The squeeking and squealing of sprockets and the rumble of diesel engines can be heard from a long ways away. Rafts are quiet.Excellent! I had thought of the noise issue, but had not remembered the bank height issue. My engineer skills are getting rusty. I know Amtracs are there though, so they must have crossed via the pontoon bridges. I've read one instance of Amtracs being used as ambulances, which is a standard technique.Second is the availability of suitable river entry and exit sites. It could be that the banks are too steep for the amtracs to negotiate when either entering or leaving the waters, or that they are too soft and would leave the vehicles at risk of becoming mired. It's also possible that suitable sites for the amtracs were defended, and the rafts were used to land troops to outflank those defenders.
2. Another Alert Commenter says thus:
Ummmm. Do they have internet access in that town? Should people be posting detailed maps with Marine positions and descriptions of ongoing activities? Or is this info sufficiently dated to where we can be assured it is of no value to an already dead enemy?These are of course very legitimate concerns, so let's address them.
First, who knows? They may have internet access and folks who can read English. But the bad guys are all probably pretty busy hiding right about now . . .
Second, yes, I think the info is sufficiently dated. The map describes a snapshot of activities on Sunday in Iraq. Today is Wednesday. These things move very fast. All articles in today's papers and news sites, which is about all there is to go on, describe actions that took place on Tuesday. And they are getting more detailed about the events of Sunday, but less detailed than Sunday's accounts of Sunday's events. The journalists probably had a pretty good idea of the plan for the attack, but are losing the ability to accurately report how events on the ground have departed from the plan.
Third, I've figured out that the map, as I stated it would, has mistakes. There were probably two river crossing sites, since the most recent news stories detail a crossing near New Ubaydi, and a crossing near Ubaydi. They also detail crossing from the south to the north, and receiving fire from the south side of the river during the crossing. The crossing plotted is from east to west. Also, I've received an email from an Alert Reader who points out that, yes, in fact 2/2 is deployed right now -- to 29 Palms. So there may only be two battalions participating in the fight, 3/2 and 3/25, or the third may have not been named yet. In any case, it's not 2/2. I'll have to investigate this later.
I don't think the map is any more detailed than those which usually appear in MSM outlets. Two graphics from USA Today and the NY Times from the Battle of Fallujah spring to mind. The difference is that I've used doctrinal symbols and terminology as much as possible. Reporters often mix up unit sizes, battalion vs company for example, or names, or ranks of officials. And they don't use doctrinal symbols. During these rapidly evolving situations, clarity is key though, that's why we have doctrinal symbols. Speaking of journalists, this brings me to . . .
3. It seems that the journalists are all relying on each other. Not many are actually there. Take today's USA Today story on page A7. The byline is a USA Today writer, but at the bottom it notes contributions by the AP. But the USA Today story is different from each of these. It's like the USA Today journalist took someone else's story, made a few phone calls of his own to expand on a few topics, then printed his own version. Nothing wrong with this, just want to point out how much this is like (gasp!) blogging.
4. An interesting question of terminology has arisen in two stories: First, Los Angeles Times: Marines Push Into Rebel Areas on Day 3 of Offensive in West Iraq:
Some U.S. commanders believe the area contains insurgent training camps and high-ranking members of the Iraq arm of the Al Qaeda terrorist network, including its leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi. As of early today, no camps or Al Qaeda leaders had been found.Then, from USA Today, Iraq insurgents' strength surprises U.S. troops; Militants set up base near Syrian border:
BAGHDAD — U.S. forces on an offensive across a remote desert region in western Iraq have encountered surprisingly stiff resistance from insurgents who have established a base of operations near the Syrian border.Apparently, Solomon Moore of the Times, who is on the scene and has been reporting on this battle for days, doesn't think that the terrorists who he watches the Marines fight actually live anywhere nearby. They just came in for the weekend. Or perhaps he expected a large camp in the desert, surrounded by barbed wire and a sign: "Zarqawi's Secret Lair - No Trespassing." When we've discoveredThe insurgent sanctuary has been used to launch a wave of deadly attacks in Baghdad in recent weeks, sometimes using foreign fighters coming through Syria, U.S. officers said Tuesday.
bulletproof armor and foreign clothes. In the towns, they reported finding caches of weapons and suicide-bomb vests, as well as car bombs rigged to explode,it's fair to say that the towns out there are the bases. If a mere camp in the desert was what Mr. Moore was expecting, he should know better: we can destroy that without even using people, with a UAV and Hellfire special. His statement about "camps" is misleading at best. Tomorrow the LA Times will probably run an editorial asking how we could have let these bad guys coalesce out there . . .
Another new aricle, just out, and some video to boot: Chicago Tribune | `Floor it!' GI shouts amid hail of gunfire
Posted by Chester at May 11, 2005 12:17 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/676