(
From the diaries -- kos)
A total of 94 US. soldiers have been killed in Iraq so far in October - this is the highest rate of casualties since January 2005. Seven were killed today (Oct. 31), one was killed yesterday, and four were killed Saturday. All were the result of IEDs.
This is no longer an issue of body armor of thin-skinned HUMVEES. Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Abrams tanks with uranium supplemented and reactive armor are routinely blown to bits in Iraq these days.
One description of what happens when a round or mortar manages to pierce these heavily armored vehicles - "Once the shrapnel gets in, it cannot get out. It spins around inside the cabin like it's in a blender, grinding soldiers like meat."
UPDATED RE URANIUM IN ARMOR: Lest I reveal something I shouldn't, I will simply cut and paste from the NATO website:
Why is DU used in ammunition and armor?
Alloyed with 2% molybdenum or 0.75% titanium and after a special thermal treatment, uranium is as hard as hardened tool steel. Combined with its high density, it is a material well-suited for armor-piercing ammunition.
According to the US technical literature, upon impact on armor a projectile made from DU keeps its form better than one made of tungsten or steel; the penetrator "sharpens" itself on impact, in contrast to the more expensive tungsten projectiles, which tend to mushroom. After penetrating the armor and as soon as the DU projectile again comes into contact with air, the part of DU, which is now in the form of a liquid or powder starts burning, thereby increasing its destructive effects. Often, this leads to setting the fuel tank on fire and/or detonating the ammunition stored in the tank.
In battle tanks, such as in the new version of the US Abrams, DU plates are built in to improve the protective properties of the conventional steel plate armor.
Because of the superiority of this type of ammunition, it has already been introduced by the military forces of several countries. The impressive results in the Gulf War may encourage more countries to procure DU-armor and -ammunition. By the way, Switzerland gave up the development of anti-armor ammunition containing radioactive material twenty years ago.
Here's a 2004 photo of one of the armored vehicles in our son's unit...as you can see, our troops have a sense of humor:
The WaPo reported a few days ago:
After 31 months of fighting in Iraq, more than half of all American fatalities are now being caused by powerful roadside bombs that blast fiery, lethal shrapnel into the cabins of armored vehicles, confronting every patrol with an unseen, menacing adversary that is accelerating the U.S. death toll.
U.S. military officials, analysts and militants themselves say insurgents have learned to adapt to U.S. defensive measures by using bigger, more sophisticated and better-concealed bombs known officially as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. They are sometimes made with multiple artillery shells and Iranian TNT, sometimes disguised as bricks, boosted with rocket propellant, and detonated by a cell phone or a garage door opener.
The bombs range from massive explosives capable of destroying five-ton vehicles to precision "shaped charges" that bore softball-size holes through thick armor, the main defense of troops in the field, and they are becoming a key factor in the fast-rising U.S. death toll.
It took about 18 months from the start of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq to reach 1,000 U.S. deaths; it took less than 13 months to reach 1,000 more. A major reason for the surge, statistics show, is the insurgency's embrace of IEDs, together with the military's inability to detect them...
...when the 116th combat team, an Idaho Army National Guard unit, arrived last December, the insurgents employed "backwoodsy stuff" -- often tiny bombs fashioned from items as basic as Coca-Cola cans. Now, he said, they often consist of one or more 120- or 155-mm artillery rounds, 15 or 20 pounds of rocket propellant or shaped charges that concentrate the blast and punch through armor plating.
"Clearly we are not winning the competition over tactics and counter-tactics," said Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst who heads Brookings' Iraq Index. "The insurgency's ability to hide IEDs better, detonate them more remotely and build them more powerfully has been at least as effective as our improvements in better armor and better tactics."
In some instances, insurgents have constructed IEDs powerful enough to kill soldiers inside 22-ton Bradley Fighting Vehicles, which are more heavily armored than Humvees.
Even though U.S. commanders have placed huge emphasis on countering IEDs, O'Hanlon said, "We are still suffering as many casualties as ever, which makes me wonder if we've found the limitations of our reconnaissance measures." Militants may have discovered, for instance, how to avoid being spotted by surveillance flights, he said...
...The development of shaped charges appears to be a direct response by insurgents to the Americans' use of more heavily armored vehicles, according to soldiers and U.S. military explosives experts. Those vehicles -- principally five-ton, armor-plated Humvees -- are used by all U.S troops traveling outside military bases. The Pentagon drew criticism last year for failing to provide adequate protection for soldiers patrolling Iraq's increasingly dangerous streets.
To fashion a shaped charge, one end of a cylindrical object such as a pipe is welded shut, and is then packed with explosive material and a conical piece of metal that becomes a molten projectile when the device is detonated. The charge is designed to focus the blast on a small area. In the case of a Humvee, the charge blasts a hole in the armor plating, propelling the scorching metal into the vehicle's cabin.
July, a Humvee belonging to Alpha Company was out on patrol in Kirkuk when it was hit by a bomb equipped with a shaped charge, said Capt. Paul White, 39, the company commander. The explosion drilled a hole the size of a softball in the driver's door, he said. The red-hot shrapnel severed the driver's legs while the Humvee was still moving.
"He probably would have bled out except the shaped charge made [the metal] so hot it actually cauterized his legs as it cut his legs off," White said.
When a soldier yelled to stop the vehicle, White said the driver replied: "I can't stop. I don't have any legs."
"He literally said that," White recalled, adding that the Humvee came to a halt only after it rammed into a store.
Last week, another military mom, Linda Englund, spoke at a service recognizing the sacrifices that our soldiers are making:
I am making very personal remarks tonight as the mother of a soldier who spent all of 2004 in Iraq. My son John was wounded twice and has been awarded 2 purple hearts and the Bronze Star for Valor. He has been told he must go back to Iraq this coming March.
The only stated reason to start this war and send our children to be killed has long ago evaporated. No admission of error or apology will ever be made by Bush and his people. Our soldiers are expected to go along quietly as the mission in Iraq changes. But what does not change is the Bush administration's dependence on the honor, decency, discipline and courage of our children to carry on their war. They depend on their discipline to carry on when they send them to Iraq, still to this day, without all the necessary equipment. They depend on their honor, while the man with no honor who sent them joked about searching for missing weapons and taunted insurgents to "bring em on". What kind of person, what lack of basic humanity, could allow their commander to have done these things? Bush depends on their courage to get out every day and face terrifying situations, while Bush could not work up the courage to talk to one mother whose son's death he is responsible for. He keeps calling for sacrifice, but only one small group has to make any sacrifice - our troops and their families. Has he asked any contractors or corporations to sacrifice any of their profits or asked members of congress or members of his cabinet to sacrifice anything at all? Has he asked any of us?
Congress has not been much better. They bowed their heads and solemnly observed a minute of silence for our dead children yesterday, but they will continue to calculate how many more of our children can die before their chances for holding onto their jobs will be hurt. Imagine if you or I figured our future chances for employment by how many of our soldiers we could let die. It is unimaginable for most of us. They tried to cut funding for veterans, they vastly under-funded the budget for returning veterans health needs. They travel to Iraq on fact finding missions, and depend on our children to surround and protect them from harm while they are there. If this sacrifice is so worth it, why don't they take a chance with their lives?
The best way to honor the sacrifices of our troops and their families is to demand action and accountability from our leaders.
Mike Huffman, one of the founders of Iraq War Veterans against the war, poignantly wrote about his perspective on the "2000" dead soldiers and what the future holds:
2000 Dead: How Many Is Too Many?
By Mike Hoffman
When I left for the Middle East in February 2003 with a Marine artillery unit, I was told Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, had been assisting Al Qaeda, was partly responsible for 9/11 and was an imminent threat to the United States and Iraq's neighbors.
We destroyed Iraq's under-equipped and demoralized military - the imminent threat to our nation -- in a little over a month. Since the invasion, no weapons inspection team has found evidence of any weapons of mass destruction and the claims that Saddam Hussein was working with Al Qaeda have been shown to be nonsense. When I left Iraq for home in May 2003, after President Bush told us "Mission Accomplished," 139 Americans had died.
After the invasion was over and the occupation began, Iraqis didn't throw flowers and candy at our feet. Instead roadside bombs and ambushes awaited us down every street. The administration said we were about to turn a corner. We were told that once Saddam and his sons were captured or killed the insurgents would give up, demoralized by the loss of their leader; peace would reign. By the time Saddam was captured in December 2003, 463 Americans had died in Iraq.
The capture of Saddam had no effect, and daily attacks against American forces and Iraqi security forces continued. It was during this time that the bloody Shiite Rebellion occurred. This was some of the fiercest fighting yet in Iraq. Even with this rebellion happening, we were told there was still hope. Sovereignty would soon be handed over to the Iraqis and another corner would be turned. But we needed to stay and provide the Iraqis security until we could "officially" turn the country back over to them. This would empower the Iraqis and end the Insurgency. By then, June 2004, 958 had come home in boxes.
Most Iraqis didn't seem to care they had sovereignty, since we still occupied their country. They were still without electricity and faced an average unemployment rate of 70%. Every time US soldiers walked outside the wire they were still taking their lives in their hands. Then, we were told, elections would fix this. The Iraqis would have their own government in place and begin drafting a constitution. This would demoralize the terrorists and end the fighting. On the day of the elections, January 30, 2005, the U.S. death toll was 1,537.
What's wrong with this picture?
The first time we were told the war was over we had lost 139 American; now we have lost 2,000 American lives in Iraq. Time and time again we are told things are getting better, that we have "turned a corner."
In the Viet Nam War we didn't "turn corners;" instead policy makers talked about the "light at the end of the tunnel." We know now that by 1968 President Johnson knew there was no light at the end of the tunnel; he knew his war was lost. The Pentagon Papers showed this; Robert McNamara admits it today. Over 22,000 American troops died in Viet Nam after 1968 in a war our leaders knew was hopeless and just piling up American and Asian bodies.
Again, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, and we've turned so many corners we're going in circles. Our leaders know they can't win this war, but, like Johnson and McNamara, they refuse to admit it to the American people. Meanwhile, our troops remain a huge provocative force in the region and each individual soldier a prized target. Failure to face this reality is exacerbating the current chaos in Iraq and preventing real regional diplomatic solutions.
So the question falls to ordinary Americans: How many more brave men and women are we willing to sacrifice before we force our leaders to bring the troops home? I pray that it does not take another 56,000 like it did in Viet Nam.
I pray for the same thing.