I'm guessing "oops" doesn't quite cover it this time...

[minsue]

Goddamnitgoddamnitgoddamnit!

U.S. Bomb Error Kills at Least 5 in Iraq

45 minutes ago

Middle East - AP

By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The United States military said it dropped a 500-pound bomb on the wrong house outside the northern city of Mosul on Saturday, killing five people. The man who owned the house said the bomb killed 14 people, and an Associated Press photographer said seven of them were children.

The strike in the town of Aitha, 30 miles south of Mosul, came hours before a senior U.S. Embassy official in Iraq (news - web sites) met with leaders of the Sunni Arab community to apply political pressure against their threat to boycott Jan. 30 elections. The Arab satellite broadcaster al-Jazeera said the Sunnis asked the Americans to announce a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

Violence also continued, with at least eight Iraqis killed.

American officials repeatedly have insisted the vote go ahead, but it is an extremely delicate time, with Iraq's government perceived by many as closely tied to the U.S.-led coalition.

Late Saturday, a U.S. military statement said an F-16 jet dropped a 500-pound GPS-guided bomb on a house that was meant to be searched during an operation to capture "an anti-Iraqi force cell leader."

"The house was not the intended target for the airstrike. The intended target was another location nearby," the military said in a statement.

The homeowner, Ali Yousef, told Associated Press Television News that the airstrike happened at about 2:30 a.m., and American troops immediately surrounded the area, blocking access for four hours. The brick house was reduced to a pile of rubble, according to an Associated Press photographer at the scene.

An Associated Press photographer said from the scene that 14 members of the same family — seven children, four women and three men — were killed, and six people were wounded, including another child in the house and five people from neighboring houses. By evening, all 14 victims had been buried in a nearby cemetery, Yousef said.

The U.S. military statement said coalition forces went to the area to provide assistance and said five people were killed. It said there was no other damage.

"Multi-National Force Iraq deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives," the statement said, adding that an investigation was underway.

American troops recently sent more troops to Mosul, which has seen heavy clashes in recent weeks between insurgents and American forces. U.S. officials acknowledge the area is still too unsafe for the elections to take place there safely.

The election is the first democratic vote in Iraq since the country was formed in 1932, and the Sunnis are certain to lose their dominance to the Shiites, who comprise 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people. Sunni leaders have urged the vote be postponed, largely because areas of Iraq where they dominate are far too restive for preparations to begin.

In particular, the Association of Muslim Scholars, a powerful Sunni Muslim group, has demanded the vote be put off and threatened a boycott. On Saturday, a senior embassy official met in Baghdad with members of the group, U.S. Embassy spokesman Bob Callahan said. He described the surprise meeting as an "exchange of views."

"A senior officer in the embassy met with them to discuss how participation would benefit the Sunni community," Callahan said.

He would not identify the American official who participated, but he said it was not Ambassador John Negroponte.

Earlier, al-Jazeera reported that the Americans met with Harith al-Dhari, the association's general secretary, and several others. It reported that al-Dhari asked the United States to announce a timetable for withdrawing its forces from Iraq.

Callahan would not say if that was discussed, but it is unlikely the United States would consider such a request. In Washington, President Bush expressed optimism Friday about the Jan. 30 elections, saying they will be "an incredibly hopeful experience," despite rising violence and doubts that the vote will bring stability and democracy.

Authorities in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit said Saturday that gunmen abducted a deputy governor of a central Iraqi province and two other senior Sunni officials after they met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most prominent Shiite leader, in the holy city of Najaf to discuss the elections. A fourth person also was abducted.

The officials were kidnapped about 40 miles south of Baghdad on Friday. The area is in the so-called "triangle of death," a string of Sunni-controlled towns that has been the scene of frequent attacks.

The U.S. military said the delegation was traveling in two cars, one of which escaped the ambush.

"Those insurgents and terrorists who intimidate and resort to kidnapping public officials are the true enemies of the Iraqi people," U.S. military spokesman Maj. Neal O'Brien said.

A Shiite Muslim cleric close to al-Sistani said the kidnappings of Tikrit's deputy governor and three other officials meant to "prevent any contacts" between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. The insurgents are believed to be primarily Sunni.

"They don't want to see a delegation from Tikrit visiting a Shiite religious leader," Jalaludine al-Saghir said.

At least eight more people were killed in ambushes and attacks, capping a brutal week of assassinations, suicide car bombings and other assaults. The attacks killed about 100 people, mostly Iraqi security troops, who are seen by the militants as collaborators with the American occupiers.

Iraq's insurgents repeatedly have targeted police and security forces, which tend to be poorly armed and less trained than their American counterparts, resulting in higher casualty counts.

A State Department report to Congress this week said despite "considerable progress" in recent months, the performance of Iraqi security forces has been mixed.

While overall capabilities have improved, "recent insurgent activity has tested Iraqi security forces and their efforts to develop and perform."

In other violence, insurgents in Baqouba beheaded a translator working with the U.S. Army, police said Saturday. An Iraqi policeman was killed by masked gunmen as he left his house in Baghdad's southern Dora neighborhood.

A booby-trapped car exploded Saturday at a gas station in Mahaweel, about 35 miles south of Baghdad, killing two people and wounding 19, including two critically, said Dr. Mohemmed Dhia, head of Hilla Surgical hospital.

In Baghdad's western Khadraa neighborhood, gunmen shot dead Abboud Khalaf al-Lahibi, deputy secretary-general of the National Front for Iraqi tribes — a group representing several Iraqi tribes, said his aide, Ibrahim al-Farhan. A bodyguard was killed and three others also were wounded, he said.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

That is a tragedy.

I hope we don't cheapen this unfortunate loss by turning into a political finger-pointing side-show.

 

[cantdog]

That's the breaks, though. War sucks. Innocents die, including good soldiers.

 

[minsue]

And somehow it never stops hurting

 

[cantdog]

I and many millions of others did our best to stop it, by nonviolent means. Perhaps we could have done otherwise, but we stopped at nonviolent means. I wrote a good deal, and spoke, and showed up at demos. It didn't stop the empire builders.

Now that they "have" Iraq, it seemes to be slipping out of their fingers. W e are, though, now, as they willed it. We are a player in the middle east itself, directly. I still regret that my country took this course, but we have done so. These details are bad, not just the killed but the maimed and burned. Not just the ruined bodies, but the ruined society, the destroyed houses, shops, markets, hospitals, roads, fields, mosques, and so on. The U.S. alone has sustained nearly twenty thousand casualties.

(I call them casualties because that is the Pentagon definition. They died or else they became sick or injured sufficiently to be transported out of theater. We have a very large proportion, in this war and occupation, of injured and sick as compared to killed personnel.)

It's not been a very glorious war, even as wars go.

 

[shereads]

It's not been a very glorious war, even as wars go.

It's heartbreaking, all the more because as an American I feel a shared responsibility, no matter that I was against it. As you say, many people tried to stop it but we couldn't, so we went back to our lives, we pay our taxes, and we each own a share of every bomb and bullet. You tried harder than most. I did some letter writing and phone calling, but I took no risks. I can't turn away from news about Iraq because it's mine. It's my war, no matter that I was against it, because I continue to fund it. it couldn't happen without the willing cooperation of taxpaying citizen. The alternative is anarchy, and I'm not willing to go there. So it's my war, and my shame.

I feel a different kind of grief watching the tragedy in Iraq than with those I'm not paying for.

I feel like the worst sort of villain: a passive one, whose life goes on no matter how many die over there, in my name.

 

[shereads]

I hope we don't cheapen this unfortunate loss by turning into a political finger-pointing side-show.

I hope we don't cheapen this unnecessary loss by turning it into another forgotten news story. If enough fingers were pointed, with enough vehemence, we might prevent some of these tragedies. As a country, we are too complacent by far.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
I hope we don't cheapen this unnecessary loss by turning it into another forgotten news story. If enough fingers were pointed, with enough vehemence, we might prevent some of these tragedies. As a country, we are too complacent by far.

If too many are pointed to complete an agenda of bitterness or unproductive vehemence, it becomes a freak show that doesn't prevent anything. As a country, I think we have a fine tradition of turning tragedy into a remix of politics...

...but, then again, I suppose we can identify a very long list of "if's" and "things we are, as a country".

 

[BlackShanglan]

That is a tragedy.

I hope we don't cheapen this unfortunate loss by turning into a political finger-pointing side-show.

If the tsunamis are anything to go by, there's not a chance.

Emotion is a form of power. It's too tempting for people to leave alone. If they can't sell it - and certainly the news channels are busy doing that - they'll try to focus and direct it. On all sides.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

So we should stand in awe of the natural forces that blew up the neighborhood?

What exactly is a nonpolitical response to the war news, gents?

 

[BlackShanglan]

So we should stand in awe of the natural forces that blew up the neighborhood?

What exactly is a nonpolitical response to the war news, gents?

Personally, I don' think that there can really be a nonpolitical reaction to a political action.

I'm just depressed and disgusted with the way the news channels are hawking human anguish and misery in the wake of the tsunami tragedies. It's utterly repulsive. As bad as the worst of the post-September-11th logo-enhanced marketing of death and loss.

Shanglan

 

[English Lady]

I'm with Joe and Shanglan here.

What is obviously going to come from this is lots of people going "I told you this would happen if so and so did such and such." and we'll have a whole list of "if this didn't happen or if that had happened instead" and after it all people will be regretting some historic bit of political tripe and onions instead of remembering and regretting the innocents killed in this accident.

 

[hunting_tiger]

I don't think that there is a risk that someone turns it into politics after statements like this.

"Multi-National Force Iraq deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives"

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The lesson to be learned from this is that there is no such thing as a clean war. There are no such things as precision bombs.

When you unleash the miltary, people are going to die, and inevitably in this day and age, many or most of them will be innocent bystanders.

This is a lesson that we need drummed into our heads over and over again, regardless of who's in power. You don't go to war without a damned good reason, and if you do go to war, you should be forced to own up to the consequences.

---dr.M.

 

[impressive]

It's heartbreaking, all the more because as an American I feel a shared responsibility, no matter that I was against it. As you say, many people tried to stop it but we couldn't, so we went back to our lives, we pay our taxes, and we each own a share of every bomb and bullet. You tried harder than most. I did some letter writing and phone calling, but I took no risks. I can't turn away from news about Iraq because it's mine. It's my war, no matter that I was against it, because I continue to fund it. it couldn't happen without the willing cooperation of taxpaying citizen. The alternative is anarchy, and I'm not willing to go there. So it's my war, and my shame.

I feel a different kind of grief watching the tragedy in Iraq than with those I'm not paying for.

I feel like the worst sort of villain: a passive one, whose life goes on no matter how many die over there, in my name.

Extraordinarily well said!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

People die in wars. Combatants and noncombatants a like. Fewer civilians die in large, set piece battles, which are generally faught away from population centers. More perish when economic warfare is waged, destroying infrastructer and sometimes even targeting the civilians themselves. Tons die during asymetric campaigns, insurgencies and rebellions. That is the nature of the beast.

Precision munitions can and do limit civilian casualties. Nothing can eliminate human error however and as well as civilians, allied troops will also die by their own compartiots guns. This isn't pretty, it's in direct contradiction to the "glory" of war. But it is a fact none can deny.

When nations choose the military solution it is an unspoken understanding that innocents will die. No matter how righteous the cause, this has been true since man first grouped together and the idea of statehood emerged and possibly long before that.

Large scale military interventions do not generally target civilians. An assumption is made that some will perish, a realistic asessment of targets will put some in areas where civilain deaths are assumed. But by and large, the military dosen't plan on killing civilains in most cases.

An insurgency however, dosen't just assume civilan casualties, it expects them and in some case actually plots them. That too is the nature of the beast, with anyone joining an insurgency accepting full well that they will be responsible for the deaths of innocents.

The main failure in Iraq, from a tactical standpoint and ignoring political implications, is that the military was not prepared for an insurgency. If in fact any military force is ever prepared for one. There are practical steps you can take to deal with an insurgency, but again, the nature of the beast is that you can't expect to win that war. Insurgents don't expect to win either, in the tactical sense. And there you come to the crux.

The military views things from a tactical/strategic view point. The insurgent views it from a political standpoint. The military cannot win the political battle, because accidents are bound to occur and the very methods of fighting an insurgency dictate action against the civilian populace who are harboring the insurgents. The insurgents cannot hope to win the tactical battle, as they are incapable of taking and holding the field in the face of the military's fire power. The insurgent is not equipped to win a tactical victory, the military is not equipped to win a politcal victory.

The battle quickly devolves to one of attrition, where the insurgent wins each day he stays alive and in the field and the military wins each time they manage to kill or capture insurgents. Through it all, the civilian population suffers most, because they populate the battle ground.

An invasion of Iraq should have been handled in one of two ways. A quick victory, folowed by installation of an interim government and elections to follow as quickly as possible, followed by a puill out. Or plans for the long haul, modled on the lessons learned in vietnam and from the israeli handling of the Palestinian insurgency.

Tactical victory could have been achieved with a quick pull out. Political victory could have been achieved with draconian measures and counter insurgency teams, read targeted assassination if you like. In the abscence of planning for a political victory or a tactical victory, you are left with stalemate. A war of attrition. A war you cannot win in any defineable terms, but one you cannot loose, so long as you have the politcal will to continue.

In either case, the civilian populace stood to be the big looser. In the final analysis, that too is the nature of the beast in modern warfare.

-Colly

 

[rgraham666]

Much as I hate to quote him, Henry Kissinger had it right.

"The regular army loses if it does not win. The guerilla wins if he does not lose."

The problem is that a standing army is the wrong tool for an occupation. It requires more police work and intelligence than combat.

It's understandable that a precision guided munition was used rather than a strike team. Political considerations. We here in the West are no longer willing to have too many of our own die. PGMs generally only kill enemy combatants and neutrals with little loss to ourselves.

The people that decided on this war are worried about their support on the home front. They fear this support will be lost if too many of the soldiers they sent become casualties. They're far less concerned about 'collateral damage'.

 

[oggbashan]

'Friendly Fire' or 'Blue on Blue' is a major disaster in a shooting war but it happens. Unfortunately US Forces have a reputation for such incidents dating back to WWII. The UK has had several deaths and injuries from US fire in this war.

Use of precision guided munitions is supposed to avoid such mistakes but when they happen the political fallout is dangerous.

There is no substitute for men on the ground identifying hostile combatants face to face. That is expensive for the attacking force yet that is what war is about - occupying territory with infantry.

Unless a political solution to Iraq's problems is found there will be more incidents like this. Each one sets the objective of a peaceful Iraq further from achievement.

I regret that the allied forces are still using these methods. Ultimately they are counter-productive and give more evidence for those who do not want peace in Iraq.

Og

 

[cantdog]

Cogently put, Og.

House-to-house is the premier role for infantry.

 

[JohnMorrison]

the general public has no business second guessing military actions. End of Story

 

[minsue]

the general public has no business second guessing military actions. End of Story

I'll remember that when your house is bombed

 

[Colleen Thomas]

the general public has no business second guessing military actions. End of Story

I would say you are right. Without full knowledge of conditions, troop strength and overall strategy the General public has no business second guessing military action. I haven't seen anyone here second guess the military side of it, only the politics that got us there and are keeping us there. In that respect, the general public has not only a right, but an obligation to question.

 

[JohnMorrison]

but questioning the politics and everything surrounding this has nothing to do with 1 bomb missing its target. J-DAM's are over 95% of the time on target. not calling the airstrike supporting our troops would be negligent...bomb just missed

 

[Colleen Thomas]

but questioning the politics and everything surrounding this has nothing to do with 1 bomb missing its target. J-DAM's are over 95% of the time on target. not calling the airstrike supporting our troops would be negligent...bomb just missed

It has everything to do with one bomb missing. Five people are dead. gone. Irreplaceably lost to the world. Their lives deserve consideration, even if the best consideration they get is an apology. In the wider scope of things, if you feel storngly the war was a bad mistake politically, then those five lives are sacrificed to the gods of war in what amounts to a travesty.

I don't personally feel we shouldn't have gone in to remove Saddam, but to those who do, such accidents are defintely the source of soul searching and debate.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

the general public has no business second guessing military actions. End of Story

Actually, they have not only the business to second guess but an obligation. This administration and the military represent this country and are supported by its people (in the case of the military at least). They are employees of the American people, and I know I am at least thankful for the protection provided by our armed forces. But that doesn't mean that I have no right to question the way in which they are used or how they go about doing it.