The front page of the WaPo for Sunday, 6-3-07, has a story regarding the dismaying increase of killings of Americans in Iraq that has accompanied the recent surge.  Aspects of the article are equally applicable to the Afghan theater.  It begins like this--

Attacks on U.S. Troops in Iraq Grow in Lethality, Complexity
Bigger Bombs a Key Cause of May's High Death Toll

By Ann Scott Tyson and John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 3, 2007; A01

As U.S. troops push more deeply into Baghdad and its volatile outskirts, Iraqi insurgents are using increasingly sophisticated and lethal means of attack, including bigger roadside bombs that are resulting in greater numbers of American fatalities relative to the number of wounded.

The article correctly points to the armor-piercing weapons known as explosively formed projectiles as a major factor in the new killing spree.  As mighrt be expected, there is no mention of Iran, which has been identified as the source of these deadly new IEDs.  Let it be known that--in the right circumstances--the MSM can bow to administration policy in the way it  presents the news.  It would seem that the Department of State has ditched the Bush Doctrine in favor of creating the appearance of reaching out to the main state-sponsors of terrorism, Iran and its lackey, Syria.  For the time being, at least, aggressive action to protect the lives of American troops is on the back burner.

This has to change, and the current modest proposal is intended to suggest a possible mode of defense, which might be termed "Operation Bellwether."  The basic technology of robotically-controlled vehicles is already well developed as, for example, in the popular spectacles called demolition derbys.  Why not create robotic unarmored Humvees that could precede military convoys by, say, fifty yards or so? To make them irresistible to the IED crowd, they could have generals' stars painted on the sides, and fly flag-rank pennants on the front fenders.  Visible personnel could be realistic rifle-toting dummies.

On the other hand, why not dress up prisoners in US Army uniforms, and let them serve as decoys?  We have an ample supply of Al-Qaeda types in military detention centers.  We hear constantly of how badly mistreated they are.  Why not put them out of their misery by letting their comrades dispatch them to Paradise?  There is ample precedent for this sort of thing.  The Red Army in World War II regularly marched Gulag prisoners through German minefields in front of their armed troops.  If that practice ever led to prosecution of Russian officers as war criminals, it is a well-kept secret.

Admittedly, prisoners captured in combat are different from common criminals.  Questions regarding Geneva Conventions--however irrelevant they may be in the light of the actual status of detainees--are sure to arise if the details became known.  Strict secrecy would have to be maintained. Operation Bellwether would be a natural for detachments of Special Forces, who are not renowned for blabbing to reporters.

The story merits careful reading.  It ends with a quotation from a British expert on Iraq, Toby Dodge:

Military officials and analysts say the factors contributing to the increased deaths will likely not ease soon. "We are looking at a very nasty summer," Dodge said.

Wouldn't it be nice if these officials and analysts were less resigned to the prospect of losing lots of lives, and  more disposed towards the "creative destruction" for which the capitalist world is justly famous?

Contributed by 72nd TCS on June 3, 2007 at 02:35 PM in Afghanistan, Current Affairs, Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, War? What war? | Permalink

Comments