blair maynard

Any idea if it is standard procedure to use powder detectors in Iraq
on suspected enemy fighters?

Obviously it is not proof that one is a enemy soldier, but it is some
indication. I can't imagine what standards the current forces are
using in their arrest decisions during these "sweeps." I would guess
it is mostly age and gender of the suspect. Positive indications of
gunpowder would be some indication that the suspect was recently
involved in shooting. If he was in an area of known Saddam
sympathizers, this would be pretty a good indication he had recently
been training to attack US troops or had actually been involved in an
attack. Otherwise, he could explain where he could have picked up the
powder residue.

IMHO. The only thing which is going to stop the killings of US troops
in Iraq is good detection and investigation. Of course, numerous
factors contribute to having the ability to do this, not just
technology.

But technology is useful, gunshot location microphones, surveilance
cameras, artillery locating radar, and gunpowder detectors couldn't
hurt any.

I am not advocating the use of anything exotic like genetic
fingerprinting. Just simple practical devices used by competant
detectives, BUT LIBERALLY DISTRIBUTED TO UNITS DOING SWEEPS IN IRAQ. I
know this will cost money, and require training, but so will staying
around in Iraq until more US soldiers die and the Iraqi killers
finally make a stupid mistake.

I get the feeling that no money is going to be spent on these items
and many more US troops are going to die, not because of any kind of
large scale resistance, but because of incompetant investigatory
techniques that make the US forces susceptible to a few chicken shits
who hate Americans.

Then again, I guess this is nothing new. The ability to take orders in
the US military has always been considered a much more important
quality than common sense.

stephen harding

It would certainly be useful, but IMHO, the only thing that will stop
the attacks on US troops in Iraq are jobs and a sense the country is
moving ahead economically.

I'm astonished there hasn't been a CCC, WPA, etc., etc. formed up to
employ, at least for a time, the 60% percent of Iraqis that were employed
by Saddam's government.

There are tons of projects to be done, in cooperation with international
groups: National park creation like restoring the Tigris-Euphrates marshes
drained by Saddam; Investigation and excavation of archeological sites;
roads/infrastruction reconstruction and expansion; water and conservation
projects along the Tigris-Eurphrates; Army/militia creation; police; some
basic *local* self government and on and on it goes.

Most of these people would be pleased to get a buck a day! Once they're
employed and busy, with life getting better, the "Saddam gangs" will fade
away, to be considered for what they are: banditos, to be turned in to
authorities by Iraqis themselves!

And of course, some time is needed.


SMH

stephen harding

If worse comes to worse, we can bail out by becoming big brother to the Kurds in
the north. Keep sizeable forces, and watch the bedlam that results when Sunni
and Shite factions fight it out for control of the rest of Iraq. That could keep
anti-American energies "redirected" for years to come! At least ensure Saddam
doesn't come back into the picture (which he certainly could do if we left now).

The Kurds actually like us and we'd be well supported there, at least for a while,
and still able to keep Syria, Iran and Iraq "honest" to some degree by our presence.

Of course the Turks wouldn't be too pleased. A de facto "Kurdistan" really isn't
their cup of tea!


SMH

blair maynard

Ideally, getting the population on our side is the best way to make
detection of terrorists easier. You see, employing all the people in
Iraq (WPA projects, soldiers in a new army ,or whatever) is not likely
to change the minds of the people who are killing US soldiers. But it
will encourage some people, those who do not necessarily agree with
them, to turn killers in or make it more difficult for them to hide.

But we come to the chicken and egg problem right now. It is hard to
employ people in useful tasks, except maybe as soldiers, if somebody
is going around blowing up everything they do and them to boot.

The US Army regular troops are not trained (nor does the US government
seem willing to equip them) to fight this kind of urban guerilla
warfare. They are just walking targets. Though I must admit they do an
excellent job of this.

It is abundantly clear that they are not going to find Saddam in their
sweeps. Its like trying to kill a fly ten feet away with a .357
Magnum. You are better off sneaking up on it with a fly swatter.

We need high-tech surveillance systems positioned at the major
structures in Baghdad (sure there is a power problem, but cameras
require little power and could easily be solar powered, or use a
generator as a last resort). Fences and barricades, guards in bullet
resistant structures. Soldiers shouldn't be allowed to roam around the
city, shopping, waiting in lines for food or whatever. Soldiers should
be kept in protected encampments to be called in by security forces if
needed.

Unless of course, the strategy is to ferret out the opposition by
putting expendable personnel on the chopping block, hoping the
terrorists will make a mistake after they have killed a dozen or so US
soldiers. If that is the current strategy, it does seem quite
reminiscent of Vietnam.