Why do our troops need to go on "Reconnoissance by Fire" patrols?

[bigtree]

I saw a report on the news today where a camera was following some troops as they were out on a patrol they called "Reconnoissance by Fire". Basically the troops drive on the perimeter of hostile neighborhoods to draw fire. When they are fired on, they return fire into the darkness, with no clear target. This night, after they had been fired on and returned fire, it was determined that they had killed six "suspected militants".

This bothers me. I don't see a need for our troops to provoke fire this way. Shouldn't this type of provocation end?


Me Book

[DarkPhenyx]

1. No.

When you are dealing with an enemy that can hide as well as this one then drawing their fire, and making them reveal their position, is an excellent tactic. It is dangerous of course, but at least you are readier when they open fire instead of getting caught flat when they attack and you aren't ready.

The best thing, of course, would be to not have to shoot or be shot at. Sadly that is not the situation we are in at the moment. I do not agree that this is a war we should be fighting, but until someone can get us out safely, I am not going to prevent troops from using reasonable and lawful methods of conducting this conflict.

[Warren Stuart]

2. They are shooting in the dark towards residential areas

Ya think some innocent people might get killed?

Why are we there? To draw fire and shoot blindly in the night?

Winning hearts and minds one grave at a time.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. and the insurgants are hiding in those residental areas...

...and shooting out at our troops. Responsibility runs both ways.

[Pepperbelly]

15. i think what they're doing ...

is ascertaining the perimeters of the insurgents. The hard way.

[voice of reason]

25. It's only dark from your perspective

Our guys have disco sweet night vision devices that give them supernatural powers.

Oh and they have 2nd sight.

And mojo.

v.o.r.

[bigtree]

26. What about x-ray vision?

Can they see through walls?

These missions should be referred to as 'trial by fire', as those killed are reasoned by our forces to be militants by virtue of their proximity to our flying bullets and concussion grenades.

[voice of reason]

27. Well of course

that goes without saying. Good thing they have ESP, too, and don't need to say anything.

v.o.r.

[DoNotRefill]

29. you don't need NVG...

to spot muzzle flashes. It's pretty amazing, really. If you shoot a gun like the AK-47 in the dark, you'll see FIRE come out of the end of the barrel. In the dark, that shows up pretty good, and lets you know right where the fire is coming from.

[Warren Stuart]

33. OK you'll see fire in a general area

And then it goes dark, so you shoot in that area, blindly. Any houses, schools or municipal buildings in that area will be covered by bullet holes. Anyone unlucky enough to be in the line of fire will be dead or wounded. And the insurgent? He ducked out of there before the Coalition troops had a chance to sight in on him.

When we were hunting Nazi's this may have been an effective technique because we were fighting a total war. We are not fighting a total war, we are not striving for an unconditional surrender. We are trying to stabilize an extremely fractious country.

It's hard to see how we are going to achieve this goal with stupidity. And that is the only word to describe this sort of tactic. It assumes that there is a finite number of insurgents, and there very well may be, but with asinine tactics like this, we are sure to be creating them just as fast as we are killing them.

[DoNotRefill]

36. No, you'll see a muzzle flash coming from one very distinct point...

When you see a nightlight in a dark room, you can identify the source of light, right?

If they're shooting at you, it's a line of sight thing. You can see the actual source of light. You then shoot at where you saw the muzzle flash, not just hose down the area.

[Warren Stuart]

40. Wrong anology

You ever heard of three on a match?

This was from WWI, we learned a long time ago not to show a consistent light at night. So your nightlight anology is just wrong. Fireflies would be more like it, a flash of light that comes and goes. Plus there is no depth perception, just darkness. Depth perception you say, what's up with that? Bullets rise when fired, if you don't know how far away a object is you have no way to adjust your sighting. Windage and elevation, are critical factors for accurate shooting. You are assuming a degree of accuracy that is unreasonable.

It's hard to hit what you can't see. A night vision scope is of limited use, unless you are focused right on a suspected area.

Keep in mind, what is the purpose of our being there? Is it to kill people? If so we are doing a great job.

Is it to win hearts and minds? If so then tell me how do these tactics contribute to achieving this goal?

[Postman]

4. Is it reasonable or lawful what the US is doing in Iraq?

I say no.

It's certainly not reasonable to be shooting blindly into the night possibly creating more insurgents by killing innocents.

Pull back out of the cities. Then out of the country.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. and we can't under International Law.

We've been over this before.

[Postman]

8. we can't do WHAT under international law?

n/t

[DarkPhenyx]

10. Just leave the country.

Once we occupied it were became bound by IL to stay and fix what we broke. Yes, I know...we're fucking it up royally. That dosen't change the rules.

[Postman]

14. you make me laugh. How convenient an excuse to stay there.

did the US break IL when they left Vietnam?

[DarkPhenyx]

18. Vietnam was a full fledged retreat.

Small, itty bitty, difference there. Not surprised you missed it.

[Postman]

35. Your logic is ridiculous

Bush broke IL by invading Iraq

So now you want him to follow IL by staying there causing more harm.

I say break IL and get the hell out.

[DarkPhenyx]

37. Yes. That is what I said.

Why is it illogical? We are willing to compound our crimes simply becasue it advances our cause? I'm sorry, but that is the illogical course.

If we want to throw IL in Bush's face and use it against him, we can't violate it ourselves and justify it. That would be called...um...oh yeah. Hypocrasy.

[Postman]

38. I'm glad you're insignificant.

Because you really are a scary person.

And your logic is still assinine.

[DarkPhenyx]

39. No, it's just logic.

A lost art on both sides of the political spectrum. It's also woefully lacking in most of my opponents. They prefer arguing from political expedience or emotion. Sad really.

[bigtree]

7. What defines enemy when you are the invader of a sovereign nation?

I think the patrols are an unnecessary provocation of legitimate citizens who are under a unjust occupation. The abuses by our occupying forces are well-known throughout Iraq, and fear of our forces may drive a lot of the resistance now. We haven't established ourselves as harmless to the population there with our defensive shootings of innocent civilians, indiscriminate cluster bombings, and the well-documented instances of abuse and torture. We will not be able to force the population to accept our military rule.

They will have even less of a justification for these patrols outside of our imposed authority, if that day ever comes. I wonder if we would respect any entreaty to restrict our patrols when and if there is a legitimate, elected authority?

[DarkPhenyx]

9. Theoretically...

...we will leave the country if they ask. That remains to be seen.

The solution is to not shoot at the patrols. It isn't hard really. We may be teh occupying force, but the Iraqi's are not entirely blameless.

[bigtree]

11. There is this American attitude that we are correct in every action

How can this be? Is there never a point where we can legitimately be considered an enemy? I fail to see why some unreconciled, flawed motive behind our aggression should immunize our occupying forces from blame for an unjust, occupation which has by some accounts, claimed over 10,000 civilian Iraqi lives by the force and design of our invasion and occupation.

Our exercise of power is not a substitute for authority. At some point we have to deal with the fact that this was a unjust war, that our wanton killing there is creating a circle of violence where today's aggression becomes tomorrow's reprisal. We are creating the environment there for an endless cycle of violence. We bear a greater responsibility for the violence in Iraq because of Bush's false justifications for waging the war and because of the false authority we have imposed on the Iraqi people. We have lost any moral superiority over any resistance because of this.

Survival of our troops is important, our provocation of these neighborhoods puts them at risk, and endangers the wary citizens. I expect most folks who respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi people to understand this. We are indeed creating more enemies in Iraq as we continue in our attempts to consolidate power through our aggression.

[DarkPhenyx]

12. We were the enemy in WWII...

...if you were an Axis power. Also in 1812. I think we were an enemy during the Revolution, but I'd have to check my history books to make sure.

[Eye and Monkey]

32. "we will leave the country if they ask." - who is "they"?

Perhaps pot-shots at American troops is a sort of non-verbal communication. Perhaps it's a bit like a request to leave the country.

[bigbillhaywood]

17. I'm going with DarkPhenyx on this one. I think this is an immoral war for

many reasons, but if insurgents are hiding in residential neighborhoods it is unreasonable to expect there will be no collateral damage. And drawing fire to locate their positions is an acceptable tactic. War is dirty business. If you want a clean war, the best way to do it is to avoid war altogether. Sometimes it cannot be avoided-- Iraq is an example of where it could have been avoided.

[bigtree]

19. All who resist our false authority and occupation are insurgent to the US.

The only justification I hear is that we are Americans and we are right in our actions, even where we are clearly wrong. I wonder where we draw the line in our occupation and aggression. The citizens of Iraq will eventually refuse to be cowed by our forces and resist however they can. For our forces, this resistance can mean injury or death, but it is also the case for the Iraqis that our continued occupation threatens their lives and well-being.

There should be, at some point, some moral equivalency in the citizen's expressions of self-determination, as our efforts to consolidate our false authority there are portrayed as benign and necessary. Our hold on their resources still is in place and our control of their government seems permanent under Bush, despite his assurances that he doesn't want to possess Iraq. Where and when will we treat Iraqis as equals and respect their authority over their own country. We have no right, by international law, nor by our weak justifications for our invasion, to dominate Iraqis. We do so only because we can.

A common mantra coming out of the White House during the early days of the war was echoed by Vice President Cheney in a speech this October before the Heritage Foundation: "We are fighting this evil in Iraq so that we do not have to fight it in our own cities," he counseled.

"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is 'bring them on'," Bush said to reporters.

What is the value in using Iraq as a terror magnet? It has resulted in daily attacks on our soldiers by an Iraqi resistance - possibly aided by some outside terror network; likely no more than remnants of the Republican Guard or the like.

The random exercise of our military strength and destructive power will not serve as a deterrent to those rouge, radical terrorist organizations that Bush claims to be defending America against in Iraq, who claim no permanent base of operations. The wanton, collateral bombing and killing has undoubtably alienated any fringe of moderates who might have joined in a unified effort of regime change which respects our own democratic values of justice and due process.

Our oppressive posture has pushed the citizens of these sovereign nations to a forced expression of their nationalism in defense of basic prerogatives of liberty and self-determination, which our false authority disregards as threats to our consolidation of power.

What is it about our operation in Iraq that would support the argument that we won't have to fight them (terrorists) on our shores? Most observers predict another devastating attack in the U.S. is inevitable if not imminent.

Further, by likening Iraq to the worldwide Muslim terror offensive the president does what Hussein could not; he binds Iraqis to the Muslim extremists. He practically invites them to join the battle there and ally with the forces that threaten our soldiers daily.

This will not establish Iraq as a democratic wedge against Muslim extremism in the region. Democracy cannot be imposed. If they don't understand that, they don't understand democracy.

Sadly, American soldiers serve as targets in Iraq, and their lives are no less important than ours here in the states. Inviting attacks on Americans overseas is an amazing retreat from the peaceful influence of a great nation of justice; humbled by bloody, devastating wars; and witnessed to the power of liberty, and to the freedom inherent in the constitution we wisely defend with our peaceful acts of mercy, charity, and tolerance.

All that we pursue in Iraq should be a means to that peace; and a wholesale rejection of violent postures which just invite more violence.

[DarkPhenyx]

24. I have never said that we are Americans therefore we are right.

That would be a mistaken conclusion on your part. I am also not going to say we are wrong simply because we are Americans.

Your portrayal of the resistance is a bit too "rosy and clean" to be anywhere near reality.

Other parts of your post are entirely accurate.

Unfortunately completely rejecting violence is not an option. Not right now and not as the situation sits in Iraq. IT might be possible at a alter date, but I'm not holding my breath. Mankind has never existed in a state of complete absence of violence. Laudable as the goal is, and agreeing that it is a goal we need to be working toward, We aren't even close to being there right now.

[htuttle]

3. It's because they are totally out of ideas...

Bankrupt strategically, ideologically and morally.

So to pass the time, they go shoot up Iraqi neighborhoods. It keeps the enlisted personnel busy, instead of fragging the officers back at Camp Crusade.

More often than not, instead of 'flushing out insurgents', they end up creating many more of them.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. In other contexts...

...I believe this is called a 'drive-by shooting'.

[DarkPhenyx]

20. Except the people driving by...

...aren't the ones shooying first. Yet another small, but important, fact.

[Eric J in MN]

16. I don't approve of that tactic.

The people who open fire might have never done so if they weren't afraid that their neighborhood was about to be taken over and they were about to be taken prisoner with no due process.

That tactic kills people for nothing.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. That is a moronic tactic

[DemoTex]

22. Recon by fire. Tactic from the 'Nam.

Ask the LRRPs. The more we bog down in this quagmire, the more things look like Vietnam (Republic of).

[dogman]

23. This is stupid.

We don't need to expose our forces as bait. We need to keep our presence small until an enemy has been identified by the Iraqi forces who should be responsible for their country if we are giving it back to them in 45 days. We should be held in reserve to provide a strike force when the enemy position has been identified. This is looking more like Viet-Nam every day.

[DoNotRefill]

28. Hate to pick nits...but that ain't recon by fire.

"Recon by fire" is when you go out looking around, and shoot anyplace where you think the enemy might be hiding. You don't wait to get shot at first to open up.

What they're describing is "trolling for guns". You act as bait, they shoot at you, and you pound the hell out of where you see the muzzle flashes. It's fairly effective, provided you don't get killed when they open up on you. True, you can't see WHO is shooting at you, but if you're being shot at and see the muzzle flashes, you can hit the people shooting at you.

[bigtree]

30. The report said their misson was described by the soldiers as

Reconnoissance by Fire.

I thought they said in the report that these patrols were shooting first into the dark, but that wasn't fully fleshed out in the report and I didn't mention it. I wondered if anyone would. That was the term used though. I don't actually believe that the forces are restricting their aggression to defensive actions.

This is clearly provocation, even without the element of shooting first. There is no telling who they are firing on, and their offensive presence in these neighborhoods serves those who would organize violence against our aggression, and alienates any fringe of moderates who might align with us.

This imposition of power is a contradiction of everything Bush claims to be defending. The patrols make no sense outside of our consolidation of our false authority.

Wish I could nail this down more. I was hoping that someone could confirm this.

[DoNotRefill]

31. Just because a soldier says it...

doesn't mean it's so. The military has it's share of idiots, too.

It's an inaccurate use of the term.

[bigtree]

34. I don't know what you're trying to do here

The reporter said that the military was describing these missions as recon by fire. Whatever that entailed was provocation. It had nothing to do with what a soldier said. The military termed the missions as recon by fire, and the reporter stated, as you described, that they would fire into suspected neighborhoods, unprovoked, as well as draw fire. It appears that the term is accurate.
____________________________

"The tanks and brads rolled over parked cars and fired up buildings where we believed the enemy was. This must be expected considering the field of vision is limited in an armored vehicle and while the crews are protected, they also will use recon by fire to suppress the enemy."

The Inside Skinny Of The Biggest Battle Since The Iraq War Ended
12/01/03: (David Hackworth)http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5329.htm
____________________________

In the suburbs of Baghdad and the Sunni cities to the north the American military policy of 'recon-by-fire' and the breakdown of law and order is exacting a heavy toll on a war-torn people.

..." Though light years from the atrocities of Saddam's security forces, the US military here is turning out to be as badly disciplined and brutal as the Israeli army in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Its "recon-by-fire", its lethal raids into civilian homes, its shooting of demonstrators and children during fire-fights, its destruction of houses, its imprisonment of thousands of Iraqis without trial or contact with their families, its refusal to investigate killings, its harassment - and killing"

by Robert Fisk
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/iraq.cfm
_____________________________

Secret slaughter by night, lies and blind eyes by day. In the suburbs of Baghdad and the Sunni cities to the north the American military policy of 'recon-by-fire' and the breakdown of law and order is exacting a heavy toll on a war-torn people, reports Robert Fisk in his first major dispatch since returning to Iraq, The Independent, September 14, 2003
By Robert Fisk
Sep 18, 2003, 17:43

http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=14&num=1612

_______________________________