Tuesday | July 01, 2003
Another four soldiers killed in Iraq (maybe)
Sunday and Monday were good days for the US occupation, as US forces staged two major offensives designed to root out Iraqi guerillas.
Rebels lay low, waited for the storm to subside (as guerrillas are wont to do), and then struck to deadly effect:
Four US soldiers were killed and two others wounded in a rocket-propelled grenade attack on their vehicle by unknown assailants in central Baghdad, witnesses told AFP.At least six more soldiers were hurt around Iraq Monday. While an explosion killed eight at a Mosque in Sunni Iraq, which is now being blamed, rightly or wrongly, on American forces. Nothing good can come from that.
Rumsfeld continues to deny the US faces a guerilla war, making various excuses, likening the attacks to petty criminal behaviour.
To admit otherwise would lay bare his claim that 100,000 troops would be sufficient to occupy and pacify a conquered Iraq.
Military analysts are laying waste to Rumsfeld intrangisence, arguing the US needs a larger international presence more boots on the ground, and greater self-rule for Iraqis.
Heck, it doesn't take "military analysts" to see things aren't going well in Iraq. Steve and I have been saying these things for months, even as our pro-war friends blather about how "alarmist" and "shrill" we are. Fact is, so long as we've got dozens of US body bags piling up, this war ain't over. Not by a long shot.
The lack of allies, much heralded by the Cabal in the runup and immediate aftermath of the war, is now presenting the biggest obstacle to a successful resolution to the conflict. "Freedom fries" suddenly doesn't sound so cute anymore, huh?
Update: The four soldiers referred to as dead by the referenced article are merely confirmed wounded at this point. Sorry for the late correction, but between work and poring over server specs I didn't catch the changing story.Posted July 01, 2003 08:42 AM | Comments (160)