Chopper Shot Down in Iraq, Killing 15 GIs http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20031102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_112 By TINI TRAN, Associated Press Writer FALLUJAH, Iraq - Insurgents shot down a U.S. Chinook helicopter in central Iraq (news - web sites) on Sunday as it carried troops headed for R&R, killing 15 soldiers and wounding 21 in the deadliest single strike against American troops since the start of war. The attack by a shoulder-fired missile was a significant new blow in an Iraq insurgency that escalated in recent days — a "tough week," in the words of the U.S. occupation chief. Other U.S. soldiers were reported killed Sunday in ground attacks here and elsewhere in central Iraq. The only day that saw more U.S. casualties came March 23, during the first week of the invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). Sunday's attacks came amid threats attributed to Saddam's party of a wave of violence against the U.S. occupation. Saturday had been planned as a "Day of Resistance" in Baghdad, though no widespread violence was reported there. The aircraft was hit at about 9 a.m. and crashed amid cornfields near the village of Hasi, about 40 miles southwest of Baghdad and just south of Fallujah, a center of Sunni Muslim resistance to the U.S. occupation. At the scene, villagers proudly showed off blackened pieces of wreckage to arriving reporters. Others celebrated word of the helicopter downing, as well as a fresh attack on U.S. soldiers in Fallujah itself, where witnesses said an explosion struck one vehicle in a U.S. Army convoy at about 9 a.m. Sunday. They claimed four soldiers died, but U.S. military sources said they couldn't confirm the report. "This was a new lesson from the resistance, a lesson to the greedy aggressors," one Fallujah resident, who wouldn't give his name, said of the helicopter downing. "They'll never be safe until they get out of our country," he said of the Americans. A U.S. military spokesman, Col. William Darley, confirmed the casualty count of 15 but said the cause of the crash was under investigation. He said witnesses reported seeing what they believed were missile trails. "It does appear that a U.S. helicopter was probably shot down from the ground and it crashed, and a large number of Amercians, possibly 12, 13, maybe more even have died," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Washington. Rumsfeld called it "a tragic day for America and for these young men and women. I must say, our prayers have to be with them and with their families and their loved ones. Witnesses said they saw two missiles fired from a palm grove at the heavy transport copter. The missiles flashed toward the helicopter from behind, as usual with heat-seeking shoulder-fired missiles such as the Russian-made SA-7. The old Iraqi army had a large inventory of SA-7s, also known as Strelas. The 10-ton Chinook — the military's heavy-list workhorse used primarily for moving troops and equipment_ was the biggest U.S. target yet shot from the skies. The downed craft belonged to the Army's 12th Aviation Brigade, supporting the 82nd Airborne Division Task Force. Insurgents have fired on U.S. aircraft before, downing two helicopters since Saddam's regime fell — though only one American was injured in those incidents. American military officials have repeatedly warned that hundreds of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles remain unaccounted for in Iraq since the collapse of Saddam's regime in April. The U.S.-led coalition has offered rewards of $500 apiece to Iraqis who turn the weapons in. The death toll surpasses one of the deadliest single attacks during the Iraq war: the March 23 ambush of the 507th Maintenance Company, in which 11 soldiers were killed, nine were wounded and seven captured, including Pvt. Jessica Lynch. A total 28 Americans around the country — including the casualties from the ambush — died on that day, the deadliest for U.S. troops during the Iraq war. The helicopter was part of a formation of two Chinooks carrying a total of more than 50 passengers to the U.S. base at the former Saddam International Airport, renamed Baghdad International Airport, which the military calls BIA. "Our initial report is that they were being transported to BIA for R&R flights," a U.S. command spokeswoman in Baghdad said. She said at least some were coming from Camp Ridgway, believed to be an 82nd Airborne Division base in western Iraq. Command spokesman Darley said he didn't know whether the troops were bound for leaves at home or abroad outside Iraq. Villagers said the copters took off from the air base at Habbaniyah, about 10 miles northwest of the crash site. One villager, Thaer Ali, 21, said someone fired two missiles from the area of a date palm grove about 500 yards from where the stricken copter crashed. Another witness, Yassin Mohamed, said he ran out of his house, a half-mile away, when he heard an explosion. "I saw the Chinook burning. I ran toward it because I wanted to help put out the fire, but couldn't get near because of American soldiers." Witnesses said the second copter hovered over the downed craft for some minutes and then set down, apparently to try to help extinguish a fire. The downed, 84-foot-long copter was already destroyed. At least a half-dozen Black Hawk helicopters later hovered over the area, and dozens of soldiers swarmed over the site. Injured were still being evacuated at least two hours later. In a separate incident, the U.S. command said a soldier from the 1st Armored Division was killed just after midnight when a makeshift bomb was exploded as his vehicle passed while responding to another incident. In Abu Ghraib, on Baghdad's western edge, U.S. troops clashed with townspeople Sunday for the second time in three days, and witnesses reported casualties among both the Americans and Iraqis. There was no immediate official confirmation. Local Iraqis said U.S. troops arrived Sunday morning and ordered people to disperse from the marketplace and remove what the Iraqis said were religious stickers from walls. Someone then tossed a grenade at the Americans, witnesses said, and the soldiers opened fire. The U.S. command said it had no immediate information, but Iraqi witnesses said they believed three or four Americans were killed and six to seven Iraqis were wounded. Last Friday at the same marketplace, attempts by U.S. troops to clear market stalls from a main road led to sporadic clashes that left two Iraqis dead, 17 wounded and two U.S. soldiers wounded. The Pentagon (news - web sites) announced Friday it was expanding the home leave program for troops in Iraq, to fly more soldiers out of the region each day and take them to more U.S. airports. As of Sunday, it said, the number of soldiers departing daily via a transit facility in neighboring Kuwait would be increased to 480, from 280. The shootdown of the Chinook came after what U.S. occupation chief L. Paul Bremer on Saturday called "a tough week" in Iraq, beginning with an insurgent rocket attack on Sunday against a Baghdad hotel housing hundreds of his Coalition Provisional Authority staff members. One was killed and 15 wounded in that attack. A day later, four coordinated suicide bombings in Baghdad killed three dozen people and wounded more than 200. Attacks against U.S. forces had already stepped up in the previous week, to an average of 33 a day.
This is an all too predicatable tragedy. This type of thing is bound to keep happening. Support the troops; bring them home. There are no wmd. We can always buy Iraqi or other oil. Send Bush, the deceiver, home.
Timing you seriously disgust me. You are truly a small, small man if you think that 15 brave americans getting hurt is a topic you can lob your "I told you so" Bush-hating remark (title) at. Grow up. I can just picture you getting a broad smile across your face when you read the headline on cnn.com or nytimes.com or whatever news source you get your info from. The broad smile was due to the fact that you figured this would cause Bush to lose ground in some stupid public opinion poll and your candidate's agenda would be advanced due to this awful loss of life. How about we show some support for our troops instead of immediately throwing out a Bush-hating comment. For real...
It's about time someone said it like it is, BigTexxx. And Glynch, you'd have us run away like petty cowards before we finish the job because of a little bloody nose? What would that do to our standing in the world? What would it say to terrorists? Kill a few Americans and they will run away: they have no stomach for a real fight. You are a naive coward, Glynch and I'm glad we no longer have a coward [Clinton] running this country.
Do you think Bush shouldn't be called on that remark? When somebody makes the remark, they will be called for responsibility on that remark. I can't believe that anyone would be happy about this news. I can think that someone would be so mad that a President who was AWOL during a war when he should have been serving, then sends other young brave Americans into harms way, and issues a statement like, 'Bring 'em On.' I think the headline is out of anger at what's happened and the attitude our President has about the whole situation in regards to the situation. He talks tough, but is at no real risk himself. I think that's where this was coming from. I can't be sure, but it's just the way I read it.
Clinton was Coward? He didn't believe in the war and didn't fight in it. Bush however, signed up for duty, and then was AWOL for a year during the war. Which one is the coward?
bigtexx, you have no monopoly on concern for these troops. Your attempt to portray war supporters as having this monopoly is typical, but nonetheless insulting. I frankly am disgusted and outraged that these working class folks, many of whom are just trying to save some college money to portake of a bit of the good live that Bush inherited, have to die because a dry drunk who is too lazy to get his own news, lied and is getting them killed for no good reason. For real. Let's face it. Many a chickenhawk and tax cut proponent, would rather have their tax cuts than pay these soldiers more or give them better health care.
Big/Alabama your unwavering love and loyalty for George Bush is sweet in a 1950's sort of way. Unfortunately you must be reminded again that George issued the challenge to the radicals in Iraq to come and try to kill our brave troops and that is exactly what they are doing. Why do whole heartedly support a man who invited the enemy to try and kill our troops? You boys and those who support such nonsense are the true cowards - afraid to even speak out against a politcian who you will never even see face to face.
I would have thought all of this was pretty obvious. I'm disgusted that our AWOL President is out there giving movie action hero lines at the expense of our troops. He's a joke. This whole thing is a joke. Young Americans getting blown up and killed every day for what? It pisses me off.
In addition to the deaths, there about ten wounded for every death, many of them amputees, heading straight to Walter Reed. I guess this means things are getting better and better in Iraq. Adding Salt to the Wound On Oct. 13th, the Washington Times reported a soldier as having said, "if one person dies, five or six are getting wounded....but people are only hearing about the one man who is killed.” In fact, as of October 30th the total number of American soldiers wounded since the war began has reached 2084. That’s 1745 wounded in hostile combat and 339 in non-hostile action. New Republic senior editor Lawrence Kaplan recently wrote on “America’s near-invisible wounded.” Bob speaks with Kaplan about covering the wounded and why the media seem to be steering clear. http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/ http://rochester.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/1291.php Press Underreports Wounded in Iraq by Seth Porges Thursday October 23, 2003 at 08:18 PM sporges@editorandpublisher.com Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely. (The tally is current as of Oct. 20.) Of this number, 1,590 were wounded in hostile action, and 337 from other causes. About 20% of the injured in Iraq have suffered severe brain injuries, and as many as 70% "had the potential for resulting in brain injury," according to an Oct. 16 article in The Boston Globe. Press Underreports Wounded in Iraq Thu Oct 23, 5:20 PM ET Add Industry - Editor and Publisher to My Yahoo! NEW YORK -- When newspapers reported this week on poor medical and living conditions for Americans injured in Iraq (news - web sites), it might have come as a shock for some readers. For months, the press has barely mentioned non-fatal casualties or the severity of their wounds. E&P reported in July that while deaths in combat are often tallied by newspapers, the many non-combat troop deaths in Iraq are virtually ignored. It turns out that newspaper readers have also been shortchanged in getting a sense of the number of troops injured, in and out of battle. "There could be some inattention to [the number of injured troops]," said Philip Bennett, Washington Post assistant managing editor of the foreign desk. "And obviously if there is, it should be corrected. Soldiers getting wounded is part of the reality of conflict on the ground. I think if you were to find or discover that those figures are being overlooked, that would be something we'd want to correct." Few newspapers routinely report injuries in Iraq, beyond references to specific incidents. Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely. (The tally is current as of Oct. 20.) Of this number, 1,590 were wounded in hostile action, and 337 from other causes. About 20% of the injured in Iraq have suffered severe brain injuries, and as many as 70% "had the potential for resulting in brain injury," according to an Oct. 16 article in The Boston Globe. Current injury statistics were easily obtained by E&P through U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon (news - web sites), so getting the numbers is no longer a problem. According to Lawrence F. Kaplan, author of an article on injured troops in the Oct. 13 issue of The New Republic, this information has only recently been readily accessible. "Pentagon officials have rebuked public affairs officers who release casualty figures, and, until recently, U.S. Central Command did not regularly publicize the injured tally either," Kaplan wrote. The difference between "hostile" and other injuries, according to Army spokesman Maj. Steven Stover at the Pentagon, is that "one is gonna get you a Purple Heart, and one's not. One's for wounds inflicted by the enemy. It could be any type of injury inflicted by someone who intends you harm." A United Press International investigation, published Oct. 20, revealed that many wounded veterans from Iraq, under care at places such as the Fort Stewart military base in Georgia, must wait "weeks and months for proper medical help" and are being kept in living conditions that are "unacceptable for sick and injured soldiers." One officer was quoted as saying, "They're being treated like dogs." The Army has said it is attempting to remedy the situation. In The New Republic, Kaplan reported on the state of many injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. According to Kaplan, modern medicine and rapid response techniques allow many wounded soldiers to survive injuries that would have killed them in previous wars. Many of these wounded soldiers are left with debilitating injury or loss of limb. Newspapers that only track hostile combat deaths fail to capture the human toll of thousands of troops left injured and crippled, he wrote. "The near-invisibility of the wounded has several sources," Kaplan wrote. "The media has always treated combat deaths as the most reliable measure of battlefield progress, while for its part the administration has been reluctant to divulge the full number of wounded." Even now, when the injury information is easily available, many newspapers neglect to report or keep a tally, as an informal survey of some top papers has shown. This comes on the heels of reports Wednesday that attacks on American troops in Iraq had increased in recent weeks from an average of 15 to 20 attacks per day to about 20 to 25 attacks a day, with a peak at about 35 attacks in one day, according to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. According to an Oct. 3 report by UPI, nearly 4,000 soldiers had been medically evacuated from Iraq for non-combat reasons. As for the tally of total deaths in Iraq, most of the media continues to only cite those killed in hostile action. On Oct. 20, for example, The New York Times reported: "Since President Bush (news - web sites) declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq on May 1, 106 American soldiers have been killed." But this number represents only those killed in combat by hostile fire. A total of 200 American troops have been killed in this time period from all causes, such as vehicle accidents, drowning, and suicides, a figure that is rarely mentioned in the press. --Seth Porges (sporges@editorandpublisher.com) is a reporter for E&P.
You can't honesly believe that Bush saying Bring it caused even one of these casualties. The Islamic Terrorists are at war with America. They have not shown the ability to attack us on our soil, so they attack us abroad. In Iraq, they have the opportunity to attack us from an area that is not under controal and has some areas with a sympathetic population where they can hide. To blame their deaths on some comment is idiotic.
Isn't this a war, people die. This is not child's play. We should have expected deaths and casualties. Going in Iraq with our heads up our A##'s shows how well prepared we were. In many ways i do believe that underestimating them has let the Attackers of our Soldiers be succesful. Remember lexington and Concord. This is guerilla warfare, people will stand for their country be it wrong or right, they will stand by their country and fight in the nastiest of ways. hey we've done it before, why the shock when others do it?
Our military leaders need to learn simple statements can have much larger effect than intended-- did this comment cause those troop deaths? No of course not, but that comment and many others by the Bush team add fuel to a fire that needs to be put out not fanned. http://www.warstories.cc/mirror/1066836615.html
So, you agree that people who say that those who speak out against the war are helping the terrorists are idiots?
outlaw, I meant post 9/11, ooops. RM95, I do agree with that. People that speak out against the war are annoying, are wrong, and are fighting a battle they have already lost (ie we are already over there, we are not going to just pack up and leave for a long, long time), but they are doing very little if anything to help the terrorists.
The Bushies attitude *was* exactly the same as the former Iraqi information minister, good news all the time, every time. If nothing else, it kills their credibility. ( Whoever is fighting us in Iraq can't hear most of what they say due to the combination of scant VOA type news there and electric outages. ) Finally the Bushies are wising up a bit. Don't see them sending in more troops, though, too stubborn for that. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...s3nov03,1,436143.story?coll=la-home-headlines Bush Administration Tones Down the Bravado on Iraq By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- President Bush and his aides sound distinctly less triumphal these days about the prospects for early success in the continuing war in Iraq -- a deliberate change in tone after a week of setbacks on several fronts. A series of newly sophisticated attacks by anti-American insurgents --including a missile strike on a U.S. helicopter Sunday that killed more than a dozen troops, the deadliest single attack since U.S. forces invaded Iraq in March -- has made the administration's claims of progress look shaky, at least in the short run. And as political sniping over the war stepped up in Washington, it became clear that the president faces not one but two implacable enemies: the rebels in Iraq plus the relentless pressure of time in an election year. Military experts say it takes time, and troops on the ground, to defeat a well-entrenched insurgency -- more time and troops than the Bush administration initially wanted to spend. But the longer the struggle takes, they warn, the greater the danger that support for the war effort, among both Iraqis and Americans, will waver. "The longer this lasts -- the longer the enemy can create chaos -- the more likely the advantage will shift to his side," warned retired Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales, a former commandant of the Army War College. "I happen to believe that's not going to happen. The indicators of stability are progressing, and the number of Baathists is finite. ... But it could." So as Bush and other top officials last week launched a new round of their public campaign to bolster support for the war, there was less bravado than before and franker warnings of further setbacks ahead -- even before Sunday's deadly attacks. "Iraq's a dangerous place," Bush said in a news conference Tuesday. "I can't put it more bluntly than that. I know it's a dangerous place. And I also know our strategy to rout them out ... is the right strategy." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was more blunt. "In the last three or four weeks, we've seen an increase in the number of incidents per week," he said. "I think that reasonably we have to expect that that will go on for a bit. ... I'm not putting a positive spin on it," he said. "This is a rough business. ... It's a war, a low-intensity conflict that's taking place." That was a shift, in tone at least, from earlier pronouncements, when Bush said the escalating attacks were a reaction to U.S. progress. Those comments drew public criticism from Democrats, including several presidential candidates, as well as from some Republicans. . "When there's a rocket attack on the Rashid Hotel when the deputy Defense (secretary) is there, it is not a sign that we're winning," said Sen. John S. McCain, R-Ariz., one of the GOP's most frequent critics of the administration. "`Duhhh,' as my kids say." Bush, asked Tuesday whether voters might be impatient with a long war, responded mildly: "I think the American people are patient during an election year, because they tend to be able to differentiate between, you know, politics and reality." But an aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged rising irritation inside the White House about the sharpening domestic debate. "There are a lot of people who have honest criticisms of our policy, but there are more who want to make facile comparisons to (the Vietnam War) for political purposes," he complained. Public support for the U.S. occupation of Iraq has remained strong in recent weeks, but polls have found increasing doubt about Bush's handling of the situation -- doubt that has become a central theme of the Democratic presidential candidates' campaigns. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz complained last week that the debate over Iraq in the presidential campaign was harming U.S. efforts to recruit Iraqi allies. "It sends a very unsettling message to Iraqis that our elections might decide their future," he told students at Georgetown University. "When they hear the message that we might not be there next year, they get very scared, and that fear leads them not to give us information about where the bad people are; it leads them not to want to serve on the town council; it leads them not to want to risk their lives as policemen." No major Democratic candidate has proposed withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Nevertheless, Scales and other military experts said, it is true that Iraqis are trying to gauge the depth of the U.S. commitment, to decide whether siding with the Americans is worth the risk. "We're looking, in essence, at a test of will," said Scales, co-author of "The Iraq War," a book on the U.S. invasion. "They have little military power, but enormous will. Our situation is just the opposite: we have enormous military power, but our will is uncertain." "In the Middle East, indigenous armies fighting against Western-style armies are 0-7, you could argue, since 1948 -- but in unconventional warfare, they're 5-0," he said, citing the 1983 bombing of U.S. Marines in Beirut as an example. Administration officials, many of their critics and outside experts agree that more forces are needed to defeat the insurgency; the question is where they come from and how soon. "Everyone agrees that we need more troops on the ground in Iraq; they just can't agree on more of what," said James Dobbins of the Rand Corp., an expert on postwar reconstruction. "Conservatives want more U.S. troops. Liberals want more allied troops. The Pentagon wants more Iraqi troops. My view is that they're probably all right: We're going to need all three." So far, the Bush administration has said there is no need to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq above the current level of about 130,000. Instead, the Pentagon plans to replace some of the heavy infantry units in the country with lighter units more attuned to small-scale, counter-insurgency warfare. Much of that rotation is scheduled to occur next spring, as units now in Iraq complete a one-year deployment. Rumsfeld said Sunday that he suspected he would be able to reduce the number of U.S. troops soon. "It's come down from 150,000 to 130,000, and I suspect it will continue going down ... if the security situation in the country permits it," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Meanwhile, Rumsfeld and aides say, they are working to accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces -- principally policemen and civil-defense units -- to take on more of the anti-insurgent campaign. "It will not be long before they will be the largest (contingent) and outnumber the U.S. forces," Rumsfeld told reporters last week, displaying a chart that showed the total number of Iraq security forces, including guards at public buildings in Baghdad, already at about 100,000. But that progress is not fast enough for some. "The time window is three to six months in which we have to succeed, in my view," McCain said. "We've got to address the problem by more troops of the right kind -- counterintelligence and counterinsurgency. ... We still need more Marines. We still need more Special Forces. We need people who speak the language. And we need it quickly." Moreover, U.S. officials appear to have largely abandoned their hopes for significant additional help from allied countries. Turkey had agreed to send 10,000 troops to southern Iraq, but objections from Iraqi leaders have put that plan on hold. "We're going to need to increase the number of indigenous forces or get somebody else to do it," Scales said. "You just have to look at the math. ...There are probably only about 60,000 people out of 1.2 million (U.S. troops) that do this kind of work -- patrolling, low-intensity engagement. Most people don't understand how tiny the American military really is ... when it comes to close combat." "Over time, somebody else is going to have to take up the heavy lifting," he said, "or this force is going to break."
