http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/03/operation_swarm.html

Operation Swarmer: a "Pyrrhic Failure?"

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/03/operation_swarm.html

Operation Swarmer: a "Pyrrhic Failure?"

Perhaps "some skeptical military analysts" see Operation Swarmer as a
failure, nothing more than a "photo op." But in fact, it was a perfect
demonstration of how capable the Iraqi Army has become. They've
demonstrated that they are capable of collecting accurate intelligence,
dropping into the target area, and efficiently nabbing suspects and
weaponry without taking any casualties at all. They only need help with
air transportation, not having much of an Air Force yet.

A few more "pyrrhic failures" like this, and Iraq may end up a stable
democracy after all!

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/03/operation_swarm.html

Operation Swarmer: a "Pyrrhic Failure?"

The Antique Media's ability to spin a successful operation into a
failure never ceases to amaze me.

In an article in today's Time Magazine, Brian Bennett and Al Jallam
claim that Operation Swarmer -- the operation just undertaken by the
Iraqi Army and the 101st Airborne -- "fizzled," simply because it did
not live up to the exciting fantasy that Time mistakenly expected.

Evidently, Time anticipated a spectacular fireworks show that could make
a four-color cover, with missiles and Willie Pete and maybe a couple of
MOABs (or at least puny, little Daisy Cutters).

But contrary to what many many television networks erroneously
reported, the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower
since the start of the war.... In fact, there were no airstrikes and no
leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical
military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What’s more,
there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance,
said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

Time complains that planes and helicopters didn't come screaming in like
a World War II strafing run. But this operation was never supposed to be
an airstrike; it was an air assault, a fact that even Time itself
supposedly understood. The part I clipped out above with the elipses is
this parenthetical explanation:

("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to
transporting troops into an area.)

In other words, Time already knew that we weren't planning a huge,
Clintonian barrage of missiles all over the place, blowing up wedding
parties and Boy Sprout jamborees with glorious abandon. Operation
Swarmers was, according to Wretchard of the Belmont Club, a cordon and
search operation... which is exactly what the Iraqi Army and the
Americans did. And they found a bunch of weaponry and a lot of potential
insurgents, making this a very, very successful "fizzle":

Iraqi and U.S. troops on the ground had netted 48 suspected
insurgents, 17 of which had already been cleared and released.

This means 31 suspects are still in custody, formerly dangerous
terrorists who now are nothing more than intelligence sources for us.
Plus, they made it clear that no place in Iraq can be considered "safe"
for terrorists... that we and the Iraqi Army can hit anybody anywhere.

The operation, which doubled the population of the flat farmland in
one single airlift, was initiated by intelligence from Iraq security
forces, says Lt Col Skip Johnson commander of the 187 Battallion, 3rd
Combat Brigade of the 101st Airborne. "They have the lead," he said to
reporters at the second stop of the tour....

With the Interior Ministry's Samarra commando battalion, the
soldiers had found some 300 individual pieces of weaponry like mortars,
rockets and plastic explosives in six different locations inside the
sparsely populated farming community of over 50 square miles and about
1,500 residents. The raids also uncovered high-powered cordless
telephones used as detonators in homemade bombs, medical supplies and
insurgent training manuals.

Note that in this air assault, the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police (the
"Interior Ministry's Samarra commando battalion") raided together, just
as promised as part of the brokered deal to regain control of the
police. As we reported Wednesday:

As for the Shiite militia attacking Sunni citizens, there has been
an amazing new development: the Iraqi Defense and Interior ministries
announced yesterday that from now on, anti-terrorist raids will be
conducted with the Iraqi Army and the police operating together:

So what is this nonsense about "no shots fired at all?" Is Time saying
that the mission "fizzled" because we didn't get shot at and didn't have
to return fire? It's a failure when the enemy is overwhelmed by our
presence and flees, abandoning its weaponry, equipment, and personnel?

Perhaps "some skeptical military analysts" see Operation Swarmer as a
failure, nothing more than a "photo op." But in fact, it was a perfect
demonstration of how capable the Iraqi Army has become. They've
demonstrated that they are capable of collecting accurate intelligence,
dropping into the target area, and efficiently nabbing suspects and
weaponry without taking any casualties at all. They only need help with
air transportation, not having much of an Air Force yet.

A few more "pyrrhic failures" like this, and Iraq may end up a stable
democracy after all!

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/03/operation_swarm.html

Operation Swarmer: a "Pyrrhic Failure?"

The Antique Media's ability to spin a successful operation into a
failure never ceases to amaze me.

In an article in today's Time Magazine, Brian Bennett and Al Jallam
claim that Operation Swarmer -- the operation just undertaken by the
Iraqi Army and the 101st Airborne -- "fizzled," simply because it did
not live up to the exciting fantasy that Time mistakenly expected.

Evidently, Time anticipated a spectacular fireworks show that could make
a four-color cover, with missiles and Willie Pete and maybe a couple of
MOABs (or at least puny, little Daisy Cutters).

But contrary to what many many television networks erroneously
reported, the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower
since the start of the war....
In fact, there were no airstrikes and no
leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical
military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What’s more,
there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance,
said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

Time complains that planes and helicopters didn't come screaming in like
a World War II strafing run. But this operation was never supposed to be
an airstrike; it was an air assault, a fact that even Time itself
supposedly understood. The part I clipped out above with the elipses is
this parenthetical explanation:

("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to
transporting troops into an area.)

In other words, Time already knew that we weren't planning a huge,
Clintonian barrage of missiles all over the place, blowing up wedding
parties and Boy Sprout jamborees with glorious abandon.

Operation
Swarmers was, according to Wretchard of the Belmont Club, a cordon and
search operation... which is exactly what the Iraqi Army and the
Americans did. And they found a bunch of weaponry and a lot of potential
insurgents, making this a very, very successful "fizzle":

Iraqi and U.S. troops on the ground had netted 48 suspected
insurgents, 17 of which had already been cleared and released.

This means 31 suspects are still in custody, formerly dangerous
terrorists who now are nothing more than intelligence sources for us.

Plus, they made it clear that no place in Iraq can be considered "safe"
for terrorists... that we and the Iraqi Army can hit anybody anywhere.

The operation, which doubled the population of the flat farmland in
one single airlift, was initiated by intelligence from Iraq security
forces, says Lt Col Skip Johnson commander of the 187 Battallion, 3rd
Combat Brigade of the 101st Airborne. "They have the lead," he said to
reporters at the second stop of the tour....

A few more "pyrrhic failures" like this, and Iraq may end up a stable
democracy after all!