When 25 Americans were killed last Saturday, it marked the deadliest day in Iraq for U.S. forces in two years. It was also the first day in a considerable while that an American helicopter had been brought down by enemy fire. Since then, two more helicopters have been shot down—a Blackwater USA helicopter on Tuesday and a U.S. Army helicopter during today’s fighting in and around Najaf. That makes for a total of three in eight days.
At the same time, we’re hearing of a new level of "sophistication" regarding the insurgents, highlighted by their brazen assault in Karbala and today’s attempted large-scale attack on Najaf .
There are several alarming reasons as to why this may be happening now, all of which suggest we should begin leaving sooner (read: now) rather than later.
First I’m going to discuss the recent spate of helicopter shoot-downs, and then I’ll briefly go into why the insurgency is becoming more "sophisticated."
The Helicopter Shoot-Downs
Though the U.S. government would have you believe otherwise, insurgents and terrorists rarely (if ever) hold back and wait for the "perfect" time to attack. They couldn’t care less about American holidays or anniversaries. As terror tactics have evolved over hundreds of years, terrorists and insurgents have learned that such delays often prove fatal—as authorities are constantly hunting them. Thus they don’t wait around. When they obtain a fancy new weapon, they use it. When they learn a brilliant new tactic they use it. When the entire team is assembled, they strike. For example, after years of training, the 9/11 attacks were launched less than seven weeks after the last hijacker entered the United States. Similarly, when terrorists or insurgents have the capability to shoot down helicopters, they do. Which brings me to my point: Suddenly, Iraqis have somehow gained the ability to shoot down helicopters more efficiently than in the past.
Now, one commentator mentioned on CNN today that it is possible to bring down a helicopter with an AK-47. And yes, it is possible. But it’s not easy—not by a long shot. I’ve seen Apaches peppered by gunfire sitting safely on a tarmac after limping back to base. When most helicopters are brought down, the offending weapon is usually an RPG or an SA-7 surface-to-air missile. What concerns me here is the cluster of recent shoot-downs. As far as I know, fewer than 20 American helicopters have been brought down by enemy fire in Iraq in four years. That’s less than five per year.
Most American helicopters are capable of jamming older versions of the SA-7, thus they shouldn’t be much of a threat. At the same time, RPGs are terribly unreliable when fired at helicopters, and they’re always unguided. This makes me think the Iraqis are getting help. Of course, it’s no secret that Iranians have been assisting elements of the insurgency in Iraq with weapons. But thus far, the speculation has centered on roadside bombs—not more sophisticated surface-to-air missiles.
If Iraqi insurgents are indeed getting new weaponry from Iran, this could represent a serious escalation by the Iranians to counter George W. Bush’s troop surge. Who knows where that could lead? Not anywhere good, I’m quite certain.
There is also the possibility that the recent downings have occurred as the result of a simple increase in attacks—with no outside help. Maybe. But that in itself is alarming. If insurgents are launching so many attacks that they can shoot down three American helicopters in a week, we are in a world of trouble.
The Increasing Sophistication of the Iraqi Insurgency
There are two ways in which a fighting force can become more "sophisticated." The first is through better equipment. The second, and more important, method is through better training. It is never random. Therefore, if the insurgents are becoming more sophisticated, it is for one or both of those reasons.
Let’s look at the attack in Karbala last week in which five U.S. soldiers were killed. In this case, the Iraqis used American style vehicles and uniforms, spoke English, and had clearly trained for and rehearsed the operation. They carried it out with shocking ease and efficiency. According to the New York Times:
The sophisticated attack hinted at what could be a new threat for American troops as they start a fresh security plan centered on small bases in Baghdad’s bloodiest neighborhoods, where soldiers will live and work with Iraqi forces. Military officials have said that one of their greatest concerns is that troops will be vulnerable to attack from killers who appear to be colleagues.
Vulnerable to attack from killers who appear to be colleagues? Do you think it could have anything to do with this?:
President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are pledging to accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces so the Iraqi government can fight terrorists and provide stability for the country.
We can expect more sophisticated attacks as the days and weeks go by. As we accelerate our training of Iraqi forces, they will get better and more talented. They will learn how we fight—how we train, how we rehearse, how we maintain security. They will learn our weaknesses. And they will launch more and more sophisticated attacks meant to exploit those weaknesses. It will be proportional. I am certain that the insurgents who carried out the Karbala attack had some level of American training.
This bolsters the argument that we should begin leaving immediately. By staying in the cities we set ourselves up for attacks supplemented by outside help. It is quite plausible that if we left, the Iranians would be forced out as well—as their influence is only tolerated in Iraq because of our presence there. We could even leave training units in Iraq, but away from the cities. By doing so, we could become immune to betrayal at the hands of infiltrators. We could train them on American bases and then send them off on their way to defend their own cities.
This is like a three-ring circus from Hell.