Comments: What's Old

Hi Anne have you been to Aachen last year (2005)?

Posted by San at January 4, 2006 04:58 AM

No, I've never been to Aachen.

Posted by Anne at January 4, 2006 09:41 AM

Interesting how the UK story on airstrikes didn't include this part that at least even the Wash Po did:

Several U.S. officers involved in operations in Iraq attributed much of the increase to a series of ground offensives in western Anbar province. Those offensives, conducted by U.S. Marines and Iraqi forces, were aimed at clearing foreign fighters and other insurgents from the Euphrates River Valley and establishing Iraqi control over the Syrian border area.

It's also rather suspect for the UK paper to claim the spike represents a trend for the upcoming year. They don't bother to research the number of airstrikes (when a platform releases a munition on a target) relative to airsorties (when a platform is merely sent up to provide some type of air support). Did this ratio stay the same (which may indicate a true surge in the use of airpower) or did it increase (which may mean more engagable targets under the existing rules were present)?

The increase may reflect the insurgents' weakness. A rash of attacks might result from insurgents' fears that they are losing the war and must do something dramatic to reverse their fortunes. There was a spike in violence around the time of the January 2005 elections -- violence motivated by the insurgents' fear of the elections, not their growing strength.

Why should we be surprised more insurgent activity provided more targets (given the *very* restrictive ROE which the article doesn't bother to mention - did that change? become more lax?)?

Numbers without context...or the context the author wants to create so as to shape the reader's conclusion.

Posted by Col Steve at January 4, 2006 10:19 AM