US fuel tankers burned in North Baghdad ambush

MIL-LD IRAQ-UNREST
US fuel tankers burned in North Baghdad ambush

BAGHDAD, May 12 (KUNA) -- Three US fuel transport tankers were set on fire Thursday in an attack by militants in North Baghdad, eyewitnesses said Friday.

The witnesses told KUNA unknown militants attacked late last night a convoy of US army trucks near Al-Mshahda, North Baghdad. They added three fuel tankers were burned completely.

The witnesses also said US forces quickly returned fire and surrounded the scene while helicopters were seen hovering in the area in search for the perpetrators.

According to witnesses' accounts, civilians are still banned approach to the area and it is not possible to assess damage as yet.


http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=865018

But what the heck? Maybe we should try decoys in Iraq too.

If Evan Bayh, of all people, can suggest to Don Rumsfeld to his face that he should consider resigning in the best interests of the country, it does seem as if the president could figure out that his Defense Secretary is a spectacular failure.

A case couldn't very well be made that Evan Bayh is a fire-belching, America-hating socialist.

But a real strong case could be made that Rumsfeld's conduct of the Iraq War is a holy mess.

From this site: http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/iraq/1831.html

--is this excerpt of an exchange between Rumsfeld and Bayh after the disclosure of the photos from Abu Ghraib:

_ _ _ _ _

Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, pressed Mr. Rumsfeld on whether his resignation might not help cauterize the wounds to America's image.

"Even though you weren't personally involved in the underlying acts here, would it serve to demonstrate how seriously we take the situation — and therefore help to undo some of the damage to our reputation — if you were to step down?" Mr. Bayh asked.

Mr. Rumsfeld replied tersely, "That's possible."

_ _ _ _ _

eom

base of the Republican Party is at last dumping him.

Not all for the reasons I'd prefer, but at least it's clear to Bush, thick as he is, that he's tanking big time.

And god knows he deserves what he gets in those polls.

They can claim that the distroyed fuel impacted the U.S. supply.
(Do I need a sarcasm thingy?)

been doing this all along, well they have we just haven't heard about it. There is an awfully long supply train in Iraq, if it gets cut our position is for shit.

They were talking about WWII, the Germans had 1200 Panzer tanks ready to repel the Russians on the eastern front. The trouble was none of these tanks could move, they were out of gas and couldn't get any.
They became unmovable field pieces, these people should bead history, a modern army without fuel doesn't work very well.

So guess why the US military, unlike the civilian side of Banana Republican Washington, is VERY interested in pursuing alternate energy as well as looking into hybrid technology for powering military vehicles?

Well, by this fascinating book anyway:

The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost
Author(s): The Russian General Staff
Translated and edited by Lester W. Grau and Michael A. Gress

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/grasov.html

I read this a couple years ago. It has a lot of information about mujhadeen tactics used against the Russians from 1979-89. Apparently nobody on Rumsfeld's side of the Pentagon ever read it...

For pretty obvious reasons, I guess, the Afghan insurgents always targeted fuel trucks first in any Russian convoy. Those things burn like Roman candles and they can't be camouflaged well enough to hide their purpose.

The Russians made some attempts at adding armor to the fuel trucks, but that quickly runs up against the immutable laws of diminishing returns in military logistics: adding armor increases weight, causing the trucks to burn up even more fuel as they are simply carrying the fuel to where it is needed. (A hundred years ago, the same laws applied to transporting horse fodder for the cavalry.)

As a side benefit, blowing up the fuel trucks meant that a Russian motorized unit or aviation unit out in the hinterland was going to be short of fuel for a while.

I highly recommend that book. You'll see a LOT of parallels to the problems Another Certain Superpower is currently having in Iraq.

As a weird side note, when the Russian General Staff tried to publish this book in Russia, the government didn't have the money to publish it. At least that was the official story. So it eventually appeared in the West first.

for fuel the other day. Wait a minute, this burn off just happened today, my costly fill up was a few days ago.

'insurgents'? What is the difference? How can they tell?