Reply #58: I agree with your cautious assessment

[markses]

Certainly, we should not fall over wildly at the report of Al Jazeera (and you do a nice job of highlighting the rhetorical chicanery in the first line), anymore than we should fall over wildly at the report of US media. Both parties mentioned by the reports (residents, CENTCOM) have an obvious interest in skewing this incident in one way or the other.

However, I would like to point out a few curious facts from this story. If the US media accounts - delivered by CENTCOM - are to be believed, the insurgents in Samarra were lying in wait with damn near two full platoons (46 dead + 18 wounded). We have not heard of ambushes of this size since the war ended. In August, the accounts of ambushes included several that spoke of 4-5 people. The reports from the early part of Operation Iron Hammer had 6-12 people pulling mortar operations in Baghdad. Even if the US reports are accurate, in other words, this level of organization seems astounding, and - if it is not a new development - at least belies the stories we have been hearing to date. The stories, that is, from the same US media that we are to believe this time around.

Now, we have insurgents at double platoon strength, lying in wait, and - by some means or other - the US forces catch wind of it and, I presume, ambush the enemy instead. Have we heard reports of gunships being used? Or does all this happen in ground combat? If it's the latter, we have 64 casualties on one side, and 5 (minor) on the other. This is an astounding rate, given the circumstances.

Let's posit a scenario. This is the first time the insurgents attempted a large-scale ambush. Because of its size, they were unable to maintain the secrecy they needed to pull it off. Some informant learns of the ambush and informs US troops. Remember that there was a soldier "seriously wounded" in Samarra on Friday. Folks are pissed. So, the US forces with tactical advantage and surprise manage to turn the ambush around. That sounds plausible to me.

I'm still, however, a bit iffy on the size of the ambush force. If it's true, then it is quite a turn for the US forces. At the same time, it's troubling in the scope of organization. I'm leaning a bit more to the other side. US forces caught wind of a platoon-strength ambush, and things got a bit out of hand. Several of the killed were bystanders. To me, this is just as plausible as the previous scenario. 70 guys lying in ambush, and nearly all of them casualties - against 5 minorly wounded on the US side. Nope. I don't buy that anymore than you buy the tank firing in all directions.