It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Simply Hilarious .. (Haifa Street Battle)

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:28 PM
I was reading in the media about the very recent '10 hour battle on Haifa street' between US and Iraqi forces versus Sunni & al-Qaeda Insurgents, where 50 or so Insurgents were reported killed and 20 captured, including a few Syrians and Sudanese nationals. I'd link to a story on any of the major news outlet websites for the thread but honestly, you can find it frontpage news right up there with Bush's 'new plan' lol, so I dont feel a need to post it. I'd rather discuss it and give my opinions on it.

Have any of you readers seen an overhead map of Baghdad? Theres that lazy bug kicking in again, I really could find one and show you, but just goto google images and type in baghdad and if that doesnt work add the word satellite or overhead. Anyways, Right along the west side of the Tigris river is the "Green Zone", nestled up against it in an ideal defensive position (I guess..). This is where all the Iraqi government higher ups like the President and Prime Minister carry out their basic existance because of the dangers just a mile outside of their homes.

Well on an overhead map of Baghdad, Haifa street runs vertically starting above the 'Green Zone' and cutting straight down into the green zone itself. This road must not be longer than 30 odd miles maximum, for everyone except americans (the global community) that would be about 55 or so kilometers max.

How is it that this street became a "major terrorist al-qaeda haven" completely under the nose of the US forces and the current government, huddled together in their green zone. Now I will admit that only a portion of the street is the problem, the northern half, but this actually makes the case even more laughable. how could this happen, so close to the direct maximum numero uno headquarters of the US & Coalition & Iraqi Govt Forces?

No, they arent in cahoots you silly billy conspiracists, the US forces simply ignored the damn place and allowed it to fester to such a state of Insurgency, directly under their nose.

Now call me crazy, but I dont understand how these Commanders, as well as these members of High Parliament and the Executive Iraq Government can sleep at night knowing there is a major Insurgent & Al-qaeda base a mere 20 miles up the road. It boggles my mind how it even came to be. The entire perimeter of the Green Zone should be secure, that means outside of the Green Zone, for miles and miles in all directions. This is what we assume our military is easily capable of doing, yet perhaps they aren't. Or perhaps it's the leadership, no one gave the orders to go kill the bad guys next door to Command HQ.


Well, up until now even I thought we, the US & Coalition, had the upper hand or the "drop" on the Insurgent forces to a degree where we were tracking them and hitting them and making them run around in chaos and disorder. But it seems that not to be the case, if a major Insurgent base could sit mere miles from the Green Zone. And its been that way for a couple of years now since the invasion. So now even I feel that now 'we' are not winning at all at the moment, and I dont have much faith in Dubya's plan, considering I've read on Debkafile that the centre of it involves a 4 step plan to 'secure Baghdad' .. like .. actually do it for real for once. They dont even have control over the freaking capitol! And insurgent bases are just miles away?

DEBKAFile Reports - Bush Plan to Retake Baghdad

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:45 PM
This is a clear indication of how serious the situation has become. It has been fairly widely reported that the Americans and British forces are now effectively contained within the Green Zone and their own bases. Not exactly a siege situation but really only one step removed from it.

Retaking Bagdad may not be that easy even with the surge!

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 02:30 PM
There are 144,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, what the hell are they doing there?

I think this is a propaganda stunt for bush to put 25,000 extra soldiers in Iraq

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 02:35 PM
Are you asking that we should just kill everyone and destroy everything around the Green zone? There are thousands of Iraqis that are also living in the Green zone, as well as outside the areas. And insurgents disguise as innocent civilians can just easily walk close to the zone and launch mortar attacks and so on. Don't think of it as American troops as stupid to think they don't know. The hard part as in identifying who the enemy is. Remember the kidnappers of Jill Carroll the reporter? They held her in secretly close to an American base few hundred yards away.

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by buddhaLight
There are 144,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, what the hell are they doing there?

I think this is a propaganda stunt for bush to put 25,000 extra soldiers in Iraq

But only about 13,000 are currently in Baghdad, and till now, many of the neighborhoods have been off limits to us(remember- it's a sovereign nation so we have to get approval from the Iraqis). Also, before areas would be cleared, and then the US/Iraqi forces would move on to other areas, and the insurgents would come back. The new plan is to have enough forces to maintain a presence in these areas, to keep the insurgents from getting back in, or at least greatly dimish their ability to operate on their terms.

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 08:33 PM
Lets not forget washington dc is a cesspool also... So it shouldn't be a surpirse that it could happen in a war zone.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by American Madman]

posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 10:50 PM
lol. i bet if all the homelesss got militant in DC and all armed themsleves via some country providing guns thered be insurgency in that city too lol!!

"gimme your crack NOW!!"

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:56 PM
Threadstarter it should not come to you as a surprise that insurgents have a major base 20 miles north of the green zone.

The type of force we are fighting is an insurgency: guerilla warfare. It is not as if we are fighting a conventional army. This enables the enemy to covertly organize and assemble as such. If we were fighting a major army, then perhaps one should be alarmed and have raised suspicion, as a regular army is far more conspicous and easier to track than what the United States is facing.

20 miles is also a relative long distance, considering it is in a major city with thousands of people per square mile.

When a conventional army, such as the U.S is fighting against guerilla tactics, those who use guerilla tactics depend on staying close enough to the enemy to strike and have the ability for hasty retreat while still mainting a comfortable distance.

I would say that the haifa street battle is not laughable but merely demonstrates how we are using a conventional army to fight guerillas which in almost all cases in history has failed, and the need for the U.S to rethink their strategy as a whole, and not think that deploying 21,500 more troops is an actual change in stratgey, but rather an augmentation of the current one.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by Think About IT]

[edit on 13-1-2007 by Think About IT]

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Think About IT

I would say that the haifa street battle is not laughable but merely demonstrates how we are using a conventional army to fight guerillas which in almost all cases in history has failed, and the need for the U.S to rethink their strategy as a whole, and not think that deploying 21,500 more troops is an actual change in stratgey, but rather an augmentation of the current one.

That is precisely why it is laughable.

Takfiri Jihadi guerrilla warfare is different from regular vanilla guerrilla warfare. The media campaign is different, the ground campaign is different, the influence on the population happens in a different manner, the will to attempt to fulfill their strategy comes from a different source, religon and not just a political system which tries to bring true equality, such as Marxism. This ones are much more willing to die for their cause, and they incorporate it heavily into their tactics much more so than a vanilla guerrilla army. This is why it is similar yet different at the same time. Certainly not close enough to be lumped into the same category, a marxist insurgency and a jihadi one.

We have to adopt a new strategy there I agree.

At this point its "go all out or go home" for the US. A surge of 20k troops temporarily isnt 'go all out'. Reinstating the draft is going all out. I'm not suggesting it, but if we really wanted to succeed in Iraq we really shouldve had at least 300,000 troops there at all times, twice as many as current.

We know that wont happen. We know the Democratic Congress doesnt even want to allow the 20k surge of troops, im sure they'd shoot down something even bigger. So honestly Bush has his hands tied; it's risk impeachment and take a gamble, disregard the Congress and keep on doing whatever he wants at our countries sake, like conflict with Iran, or keep what he has there, draw them down and bring them home slowly and then hope for the best.

I have a feeling Bush is the type of President that will do anything he feels ultimately will protect the country, even if its breaking or bypassing law and legislation, and even if its wrong and not a good or correct move to begin with. So .. I suppose we can all sit and wait until January 2009 for the next shmuck to take office eh?

Lets hope no nukes go off in the mean time.

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:29 PM
Haha yeah hopefully Bush WILL NOT make the next guy look good.
Sometimes you wonder though what goes through his head - why invade Iraq with inadequate troops when your best generals are telling you exactly that. Now we are damned if we do and damned if we dont - that is we are damned if we leave Iraq and pretty much damned if we dont.
21,500 troops might seem like a lot, but as you and I both agree will not have effective and decisive results.
I forsee a political soluiton as ultimately being the key to ending our involvement with this "country", if you still dare to classify it as that,however, as of right now if we pull out and seek a political solution it will not work, as Iraq barely has any form of stable government.

Its a mess that should have never escalated to this point, but it is futile to reminisce about what could have been done.
We need to really think about what can be done.

A lockdown of 300,000 troops at the begginning of the war could have stopped the insurgency perhaps a few years ago, but with even that number today it would be a true feat to supress and take charge of the situation at hand. 21,500 troop increase might yield more enemy casualites, and perhaps Bush will try to sell this as meaning a better situation, however the fact of the matter is that it will not yield a decisivie vicory which is vital in Iraq.

new topics

top topics


log in