Sniper Attacks in Iraq

Sniper Attacks Adding to Peril of U.S. Troops

In recent months, military officers and enlisted marines say, the insurgents have been using snipers more frequently and with greater effect, disrupting the military’s operations and fueling a climate of frustration and quiet rage.

Across Iraq, the threat has become serious enough that in late October the military held an internal conference about it, sharing the experiences of combat troops and discussing tactics to counter it. There has been no ready fix.

The battalion commander of Sergeant Leach’s unit — the Second Battalion, Eighth Marines — recalled eight sniper hits on his marines in three months and said there had been other possible incidents as well. Two of the battalion’s five fatalities have come from snipers, he said, and one marine is in a coma. Another marine gravely wounded by a sniper has suffered a stroke.

A sniper team was captured in the area a few weeks ago, he said, but more have taken its place. “The enemy has the ability to regenerate, and after we put a dent in his activity, we see sniper activity again,” said the commander, Lt. Col. Kenneth M. DeTreux.

I had noticed on Iraq Body Count an increase in casualties from hostile, non-IED causes. Whether snipers or other methods, there has been an increase in our losses from the enemy in situations where the enemy has been “willing to engage us.” In other words, an IED is a fairly low-risk proposition. But to fire an RPG, take a shot, or (the ultimate) do a suicide bombing, all require a higher level of commitment and risk-taking by the insurgents.

Troubling.

Comments

  1. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Whether snipers or other methods, there has been an increase in our losses from the enemy in situations where the enemy has been “willing to engage us.”

    Disagree. Most sniper operations don’t really fall under the category of “willing to engage us,” as they strike from a hundred or two yards away and/or from cut out trunks of moving cars. They wait, aim, shoot and move. Without counter-snipers, the posibility of engaging them back is nil.

  2. commissar wrote:

    Bill,

    Good point. Clearly the point of the article is that these guys take one shot and disappear.

    But it still seems that there is a qualitative difference, in the commitment & risk factor, between setting off a remote IED and taking a shot at some Marines from 300 yards.

  3. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Yeah, a difference, but not a huge one. They have to have spotters within line of sight for remote IED’s. Excepting muzzle fire, I don’t think it’s too too different.

    Either way, the threat from snipers is scary as hell.

  4. sockpuppet wrote:

    Hopefully technology will help. There are systems that can tell where a gunshot came from. I don’t think any of them are able to operate real time yet, unfortunately. More of a forensic tool at this point. I will try to dig up the article I saw on this. If I remember correctly, D.C. is implementing one.

  5. slugger wrote:

    This is troubling. We are withdrawing our troops into smaller and smaller fixed positions ( goodbye, Sadr City ). The other side gets better and better chances to strike. There will not be a significant increase in our fighting strength. How can this possible end in anything good for the USA?
    Our current leadership is leading us off a cliff.