Iraqi Police, Multi-national Forces Foil Insurgent Attacks

United States Central Command posted this news release today:

MOSUL, Iraq -- Iraqi Security forces and Multi-National Forces decisively defeated anti-Iraqi insurgent attacks in western Mosul Dec. 3, thwarting attempts to seize police stations and destabilize the city.

Four Mosul police stations came under attack by indirect fire and small arms fire during coordinated attacks by insurgent fighters. The Iraqi Police at these stations successfully repelled these attacks preventing a reoccurrence of the events of Nov. 10 when many stations were abandoned and later looted.

Insurgents also attempted a large-scale ambush of a Stryker patrol along a 2 km. stretch of road with eight to 10 roadside bombs and an estimated 70 insurgent fighters armed with rocket-propelled grenades, AK-47s and machine guns. A patrol from 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment quickly maneuvered to engage the insurgents and later broke contact to conduct a deliberate offensive operation to clear the ambush site of insurgent fighters.

Shortly thereafter, MNF and ISF executed a large scale offensive operation to restrict the freedom of movement of insurgent fighters and clear the pockets of resistance. While clearing the area, Soldiers received significant enemy fire from a nearby mosque. Iraqi Security Forces cleared the mosque eliminating the enemy while finding a large cache of weapons that consisted of RPG rounds, anti-tank grenades, and machine guns. Soldiers also engaged in multiple direct fire situations defeating the insurgent fighters each time.

The combined ISF and MNF offensive operation quickly reestablished security in the city.

At Blogs For Bush, Matt Margolis posts that we shouldn't expect to see this story in the main stream media. I wish Matt was right. Unfortunately, the New York Times did cover the story of the U.S. and Iraqi forces defeating the terrorist insurgents. The defeatist Times headlines the story about this victory - "27 Civilians Die in New Attacks by Iraq Rebels." What a disgrace.

By combining the Mosul story with the one about the bombing in Baghdad the Times is able to highlight the damage the terrorists did and downplay the victory in Mosul. Here is what the Times article reported about the defeat of the insurgents in Mosul:

In Mosul, insurgents struck at least three police stations, hit American bases with mortars and staged elaborate ambushes involving synchronized explosions of remote-controlled bombs. At least 22 insurgents were killed, while 7 American soldiers suffered minor wounds, according to American commanders.

The violence, coinciding with several smaller-scale attacks throughout the country, demonstrated the continued power of the insurgency here and the ferocity of the militants' campaign against the fledgling Iraqi security forces as the January elections approach.

Shortly after the police station attack, an Islamist Web site posted a message from the network of the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi claiming responsibility. The statement was impossible to verify. But it suggested that Mr. Zarqawi, who claimed responsibility last week for attacks in Mosul that left 17 Iraqi national guardsmen and an American soldier dead, may still be capable of planning attacks here.

American military officials have said that Mr. Zarqawi appears to be setting up new cells in the wake of the American-led offensive in Falluja last month, but that he has lost the ability to communicate effectively with cellphones and messengers.

[. . .]

In Mosul, United States officials had received intelligence that a major attack was being planned. Insurgents there had largely avoided direct confrontations with the Americans since the uprising three weeks ago, when more than 100 guerrillas were killed.

After the attacks began late in the morning, American troops shut down three of the five bridges over the Tigris River and sealed off much of western Mosul, as insurgents roamed the streets. Overhead, fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters swooped in.

The Mosul attacks appeared to have been planned well in advance, according to American commanders. "The terrorists told the civilians they were going to attack the Americans and to stay indoors," said Lt. Col. Erik Kurilla, the commander of the First Battalion of the 24th Infantry, which controls much of western Mosul. Shops near the biggest ambush closed just before the attack, the commanders said.

The attacks started as a patrol of American Stryker armored vehicles chased insurgents who had fired mortars at an American base. Eight insurgents ambushed the patrol, and United States forces killed three.

Traveling back to its base, the patrol was attacked in what American officials described as a milelong ambush along a main thoroughfare in western Mosul. According to Maj. Doug Sims, the operations officer for the brigade that controls Mosul, as many as 35 insurgents lined up on either side of the road, armed with rocket-propelled grenades, Kalashnikov rifles and other weapons.

What made the ambush distinct was a string of very powerful bombs made from 152-millimeter artillery shells. At least 10 of the bombs were lined up 150 to 200 yards apart and detonated as the Americans drove past, according to Colonel Kurilla. The Stryker vehicles, which also received at least nine direct hits from rocket-propelled grenades, suffered only minor damage and were able to continue fighting, he said.

Later, troops returned and killed 15 insurgents along the same route, he said. Iraqi troops also stormed a partly built mosque where insurgents had fired at American soldiers. Inside, they found five rocket-propelled grenade launchers and seven Russian-made machine guns among other weapons, military officials said.

The Times' "27 Civilians Die in New Attacks by Iraq Rebels" headline provides no inkling of what happened in Mosul, or that the Terrorist insurgents were badly defeated by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

At Rantingprofs, Cori Dauber sums up the Times skewed perception:

Given everything we hear from Iraq over and over and over again, you could look at that headline and legitimately think that you hardly need to read the story: once again the (oh, excuse me, now they're rebels, have you noticed that in the effort to avoid using a negatively charged word, the words used to describe the enemy have gotten progressively less neutral until they're now actively charged with positive meaning?) have launched attacks and innocents have been killed.

Professor Dauber also points out that the Times' headline, besides being misleading is inaccurate.

The article only reports 15 civilians were killed when the terrorists, my word, detonated car bomb detonated outside a Shiite mosque in Baghdad.

The Times has become worse than defeatist about the War On Terror, Articles like this make me wonder if the Times isn't rooting for the terrorists, or rebels as the Times now refers to the evil doers.

Comments

[Michael Connolly]

"The Times has become worse than defeatist about the War On Terror, Articles like this make me wonder if the Times isn't rooting for the terrorists, or rebels as the Times now refers to the evil doers."

Your language in this posting is a disgrace. It is the language traditionally used by communists and fascists denouncing journalists for presenting politically incorrect news. It would be silly, too, when you say the Times is "rooting for the terrorists" - if that weren't tantamount to accusing them of treason. You owe your readers an apology.

By the way, the article was not about the "War on Terror." It was about Iraq.

[Michelle]

Just surfing by courtesy of Blog Explosion. Have a good one!

Michelle