DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Bomb Squad » IED Answer: Foot Patrols?

IED Answer: Foot Patrols?

Everybody seems to have an answer to the home­made bomb prob­lem: more cargo flights, more radio fre­quency jam­mers, even explosive-​​spotting lasers.
pi20051105a1.jpgThis story in the cur­rent Atlantic has a solu­tion I hadn’t seen before. The idea, from Gen. Joseph Votel, who headed the IED task force until recently, is to have troops stop rid­ing through Baghdad or Ramadi on Humvees, and start walk­ing the streets.

The grow­ing use of IEDs is forc­ing America’s mil­i­tary strate­gists to rethink cen­turies of mil­i­tary doc­trine hold­ing that in war­fare, mobil­ity equals dom­i­nance. Votel told me that given the suc­cess that IEDs have had against America’s fleet of motor vehi­cles, the Pentagon may need to switch to more foot patrols. An intel­li­gence ana­lyst work­ing on the IED prob­lem agreed, say­ing, “The answer to the IEDs is to leave the vehi­cles. It’s obvi­ous. It’s the only choice.”

Really? I don’t know much about infantry tac­tics. But I do know a sol­dier who was killed by a jury-​​rigged bomb. He was one his feet, not in a Humvee. Same goes for the British explo­sives spe­cial­ist who lost limbs to an IED.
But the vul­ner­a­bil­ity isn’t even the big issue. Coverage is. The Army equiv­a­lent on the cop walk­ing the beat works fine, if you’ve got lots and lots of cops in a very small area. In Iraq, there are 150,000 or so sol­diers and marines try­ing to con­trol a place the size of California. That means each patrol has to cover a really wide area — too wide, really, to walk. Driving is the only way.
Besides, as the Atlantic notes, more foot patrols “would expose U.S. sol­diers to other risks, includ­ing snipers. And the December det­o­na­tion of an IED in Fallujah, killing ten Marines on foot patrol, shows that sol­diers will remain vul­ner­a­ble to IEDs whether on foot or behind the wheel.“
Next…

Share |

January 27th, 2006 | Bomb Squad | 180667 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/01/27/ied-answer-foot-patrols/IED+Answer%3A+Foot+Patrols%3F2006-01-27+15%3A33%3A45murdoc You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « “What Else You Got?” | Prowling Over Al Anbar » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. am says:
    January 27, 2006 at 10:54 am

    One word. Segway.

    Reply
  2. Tim says:
    January 27, 2006 at 11:00 am

    I think the 10 marines killed in Fallujah were at a pro­mo­tion or medal award cer­e­mony — not on foot patrol. Apparently how­itzer shells trig­gered by pres­sure plate blew up at this gath­er­ing. The Marine Corps ini­tialy reported they were on a foot patrol but later corected the story.

    Reply
  3. Hugh Norton says:
    January 27, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    AM: an excel­lent call!
    On a seri­ous note, I think increased foot patrols would be of con­sid­er­able PR value to the US mil­i­tary. Right now, the US Army, which blazes around in APCs and armoured Humvees, seems indif­fer­ent and dis­tant to the Iraqi peo­ple. It also pro­motes the widely held view that the Americans rely on fire­power and tech­nol­ogy with­out engag­ing the pop­u­lace.
    I gather the Royal Army tends to do more foot patrols than their American coun­ter­parts: I’m con­vinced this makes them much more approach­able and respected by the pop­u­lace which, in turn, makes them more effec­tive at their job.

    Reply
  4. Byron Skinner says:
    January 27, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    Good Morning Folks,
    Well the arm chair Generals are start­ing to relearn a les­son that has been learned over and over agoin at least since the Seven Years that begain in 1754. The IED of that period was ambush­ing by the “Native Americans” along the side of a trail or road as troops marched in for­ma­tion.
    About about five years into the war British General Amherst, gen­er­als wern’t to bright and quick to learn then either, learned that if you send scouts our on your flanks to engage the ambush­ers before the main body of troops pass through, you solve this prob­lem.
    In Iraq the American have decided to take a low pro­file from strongly and activly patrol­ing. When the locals know that the Americans will be there 24/​7 they tend to build a lit­tle trust and intell. flows and the bad guys have to find another neigh­bor­hood to oper­ate in. When an event does hap­pen the most vio­lent of responses makes the best impres­sion.
    When Americans go in and “arrest the bad guys” and take them off in cuffs the locals know they will be back and will not be shy about extract­ing some pay­back. When they go out in body bags the prob­lem is solved for good.
    A dead Terroristis is an Exterrorist.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  5. jtw says:
    January 27, 2006 at 3:13 pm

    All hope is lost.
    YEAH SEND OUT SOLDIERS ON FOOT PATROLS.
    Not only will they be blown into tiny pieces and seri­ously wounded by shrap­nel, they will be vul­ner­a­ble to small arms and sniper fire as well. Not to men­tion poi­soned by chem­i­cal weapons.
    Awesome strat­egy!!
    Im glad our IED task­force is so sharp!
    Lets just sab­o­tage our entire army. Why not, who cares. We need pop­u­la­tion con­trol any­ways on the planet pretty soon, mine as well start now with our own soldiers.[/sarcasm]
    This is the stu­pid­est ideas I have heard in a long time. A bet­ter idea is not hav­ing vehi­cle patrols on routes you dont absolutely 100% control.

    Reply
  6. Charles says:
    January 27, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    I fail to see how foot patrols work.
    The exam­ple you give:
    “About about five years into the war British General Amherst, gen­er­als wern’t to bright and quick to learn then either, learned that if you send scouts our on your flanks to engage the ambush­ers before the main body of troops pass through, you solve this prob­lem.“
    You see the words “engage the ambush­ers”? That means…*prematurely trig­ger before the main body*. In Iraq terms, this means they set off a IED. We don’t have “main body” forces. IEDs don’t go off in FOB Anaconda.
    This applies in /​conventional warfare/​, but not in the occu­pa­tion par­a­digm.
    Switching to foot patrols means they can switch from huge 152mm IEDs to light­weight IEDs designed to shred foot sol­diers. It’s back to 82mm mor­tar rounds strung along the road­side. They’re eas­ier to place and cheaper to make.

    Reply
  7. Michael Short says:
    January 27, 2006 at 7:40 pm

    Dismounted patrols, espe­cially in urban envi­ron­ments, make per­fect sense. Allow the troops the abil­ity to meet the pop­u­lace and inter­act with the locals. It’s the best way to develop action­able intelligence.

    Reply
  8. michael eastham says:
    January 27, 2006 at 8:34 pm

    I just returned from Iraq we did a mix of foot patrols and mounted and yes we got IEDed RPGed mortered and sniped there is not a really good answer to the prob­lem. when deal­ing w/​ EFP‘s I would rather be dis-​​mounted when get­ting sniped I would rather be mounted. an aggres­sive stance at all times is mandatory!!!getting out and talk­ing w/​ the locals relly helped out .they would always tell us about an IED if they knew about it

    Reply
  9. Art says:
    January 27, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    Routine is what the prob­lem is; all offi­cers and senior NCOs seem to have this idea that miss­ing your H hour time is a dread­ful thing. Maybe its the Ranger school, J.R.T.C. men­tal­ity, but hey, these Insurgents are smarter than you want to real­ize. Operating with the Iraqi Army side by side is a big plus, but there are many who feel that the IA is cor­rupt and dirty. In which that may be true, but how can you estab­lish loy­alty and esprit de corp., when it is shoved down our throats, and you can not even trust the peo­ple you are try­ing to help take over there own Areas of Operation. Boots on the ground, you get sniped, mov­ing fast in hum­mers you get blasted, with all the issues with com­plaints, and the com­plaints with issues. We have to focus on the indi­vid­ual sol­diers lane, and allow com­bat troops to be able to be com­bat troops. We are start­ing to train our own com­bat troop to be politi­cians down in JRTC. We have ENOUGH offi­cers for all that crap, lets focus on PVT Joe in squeez­ing the trig­ger when he thinks he sees the Trigger Man.

    Reply
  10. Cornelius says:
    January 28, 2006 at 1:29 am

    Sounds more like a solu­tion to save on wrecked vehi­cles, rather than wrecked soldiers.

    Reply
  11. pedestrian says:
    January 28, 2006 at 8:00 am

    >Dismounted patrols, espe­cially in urban envi­ron­ments, make per­fect sense. Allow the >troops the abil­ity to meet the pop­u­lace and inter­act with the locals. It’s the best way to >develop action­able intel­li­gence.
    That sounds like the aim of the con­cept. It would prob­a­bly would work in an envi­ron­ment where crime rates are high with small fire arms used at the most, but this is not going to be good for an envi­ron­ment where deadly IEDs and RPGs are likely to strike.

    Reply
  12. Charles says:
    January 28, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Seems more like the “we must decrease vehi­cle losses by using vehi­cles less” kind of think­ing.
    Dismounts can’t cover as much area so you’ll still need vehi­cles to con­trol the high­ways and tran­sit areas between bases and cities. As the major­ity of IED attacks are likely to take place in the rural roads between major cities, going on foot isn’t going to pre­vent too many IED attacks on vehi­cles. In cities, instead of con­cealed IEDs the enemy may opt for car bombs.

    Reply
  13. SOCOM VET says:
    January 28, 2006 at 11:16 pm

    Dismounting sol­diers as a solu­tion to remov­ing the IED threat? Sheer lunacy. IEDs are tar­get­ing Coalition troops…either mounted or dis­mounted. Rather than dis­mount­ing, con­sider alter­na­tives. Here is how you mit­i­gate the IED threat:
    1.) Two words: Air Calvary. Air Cav can quickly insert on-​​call Quick Response Forces 24–7 (Soldiers or Marines). Air Cav pro­vides max­i­mum fire­power, max­i­mum force flex­i­bil­ity and com­plete urban bat­tle­field dom­i­nance. This would elim­i­nate the need for the cur­rently large motor­ized force that the IEDs are tar­get­ing. Having been there on the ground, there is NO bet­ter answer than a team of fast-​​roping troops safely deploy­ing from 100 ft off the ground. Considering that most of our troops/​vehicles are being tar­geted while en route, this is the only imme­di­ate answer. What about helo-​​vulnerable RPG or sniper attacks one might ask? Have you seen these peo­ple shoot? They may acci­den­tally con­nect every once in a while, but that prob­a­bil­ity is much lower than the suc­cess of a juiced 500 lb IED buried in a major thor­ough­fare.
    2.) When mounted troops must respond or when con­voys must roll, enforce and employ route diver­sity. NEVER uti­lize the same route twice if pos­si­ble.
    3.) Increase inter-​​theater air­lift. This will reduce the need for over-​​the-​​road con­voys and con­voy secu­rity details.
    Calculated risk vs. cal­cu­lated gam­ble: The risk is the process of mak­ing an edu­cated deci­sion with a higher pos­si­bil­ity of a pred­i­cat­able out­come. The gam­ble is the process of mak­ing an un-​​educated deci­sion and not remotely know­ing the pos­si­ble out­come. Riding in an armored vehi­cle is a risk…walking the streets is a gam­ble. Do not gam­ble with our Soldiers and Marines. They deserve more respect than that.

    Reply
  14. Steve R says:
    January 29, 2006 at 9:32 am

    First off, if the the threat of IED’s was nonex­is­tant, foot patrols would be a great idea for the pur­pose of main­tain­ing or build­ing pub­lic image in Iraq. Allowing sol­diers to inter­act with the pop­u­lace would breed trust and recog­ni­tion.
    However, the threat of IED’s makes this incon­ciev­able at first thought. But what we must real­ize is that whether in vehi­cle or on foot, there is no way to pre­vent an IED explo­sion, there are many ways around the US anti-​​IED tac­tics, that insur­gents have adopted.
    The only sure way of pre­vent­ing an IED from explod­ing is through intel­li­gence. Like any other crime, IEDs must be reported to local author­i­ties who in turn must alert US forces to there loca­tion so that they may be dealt with quickly and safely.
    The main prob­lem with this con­cept is that the local pop­u­lace has nei­ther the will nor means of report­ing sus­pi­cious activ­ity.
    We can give them both of these with one change. To adress the first, their will; watch­ing humvees get attacked by IEDs does not give the vic­tims of the IED a “face” they are sim­ply Americans dri­ving around in cars. However foot patrols, allow inter­ac­tion and recog­ni­tion with American sol­diers, two key aspects of gain­ing favor. Also, these foot patrols would pro­vide the means for locals to report sus­pi­cious activ­ity They sim­ply tell an American on patrol. However this sim­ple inter­ac­tion is impos­si­ble if we are in our Humvees.
    So the choice comes, we can adress the IED issue by throw­ing money and tech­nol­ogy at it, the nor­mal American way, or we can work on our pub­lic rela­tions and hope­fully pre­vent most IEDs from even get­ting close to US convoys.

    Reply
  15. Byron Skinner says:
    January 29, 2006 at 3:25 pm

    Good Afternoon SCOM/​Vet,
    I think I take execp­tion with your tac­tic of using some form of “Air Mobile” oper­a­tion to deat with IED’s.
    I see two prob­lems right off the bat. First before a force can react some­thing would have had to have hap­pened, like an IED going off. The goal is to pre­vent the ini­ci­dent in the first place.
    Second if the raid is to be proca­tive you have to be work­ing on reli­able intell. In Iraq to get that you have to have con­nec­tions on the ground. The risk here of course is the bad guys know­ing what hap­pen­ing and you find your­self ambushed in a Hot LZ. Been their done that, it’s no fun.
    Again reqular foot patrols with GI’s spend­ing days on the street and in the neigh­bor­hoods, not retur­ing to the Green Zone when a patrol is over but shar­ing the risks with the locals. Getting to know the locals and build­ing some trust and show­ing them that America doesn’t want to make Iraq the 51st. State.
    This is the model of how General Mc Arthur paci­fied Japan at the end of WWII and it still seems to be the best way to sta­bleize a for­mer enemy.
    The American sol­dier when cut some slack from the Chain of Command can do some pretty remark­able things, but the Chain has to trust it’s sol­diers. It’s clear that out Chain of Command has lit­tle trust and faith in the troops under their com­mand.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  16. Kyle says:
    January 29, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    As to whether the troops should be on foot or in a Humvee is area spe­cific and unit spe­cific. Speaking from expe­ri­ence, foot patrols are pre­ferred, for the most part. The face to face inter­ac­tion when on foot patrol is vital and the intel gained is tremen­dous. So much can be gath­ered from a per­sons body lan­guage and through repeated vis­its to locals, the troops estab­lish a repore of trust. There is a bond that is cre­ated; you can tell if some­one is ner­vous, or if the fam­ily is unchar­ac­ter­is­ti­cally miss­ing at din­ner time. This is what worked for me when patrolling the city of Hit, Al Anbar. But i feel that a few mech­a­nized patrols thrown in would give an extreme advan­tage. For one, air sup­port can not react dur­ing bad weather (sand storms). Send a foot patrol out first to sweep a large area (2–3 blocks wide) and then send the vehi­cles out. Let them work off of each other. As another post­ing men­tioned, try to always vary your routes and tac­tics. This is a sim­ple life sav­ing rule that is vastly over­looked most of the time. Usually due to time fac­tors, which should not be the proir­ity — mis­sion accom­plish­ment is priority

    Reply
  17. Charles says:
    January 29, 2006 at 6:46 pm

    The idea we can com­pletely divest our­selves from the road sys­tem is fal­la­cious. You /​cannot/​ hold a city by zip­ping around on helis and never hav­ing boots on the ground…didn’t we learn this in Mogadishu? Forfeiting even vehi­cle patrols enables the oppo­nent to have even more time to pre­pare areas for what­ever. Mortar strikes would pre­cip­i­tate a heli­copter strike, which is more vul­ner­a­ble than say, a col­umn of Humvees.
    If you go for helis they’ll just IED the civil­ian pop­u­la­tion; turn­ing the peo­ple against the gov­ern­ment and the insur­gents. More insta­bil­ity. Besides, IIRC chop­pers are more main­tainence inten­sive than ground vehi­cles. It’d also be more dif­fi­cult to sneak around.
    There are less chop­pers than Hummers. You could only be in so many less places com­pared to Humvees, giv­ing up inter­ac­tion with the pop­u­la­tion and reduc­ing the amount of points you can be, and increas­ing vul­ner­a­bil­ity at those par­tic­u­lar points.
    Since they’re unlikely to run out of 152mm shells the pre­ma­ture trig­ger solu­tion seems to work best. In rural areas dis­mounted patrols are not an option if you have large areas of road to cover. You’d be too slow to cover every­thing or your troops would be fatigued and vul­ner­a­ble to con­ven­tional sniper attack. A mix of both is the only way to go, and I’m sure the peo­ple on the ground are already play­ing it that way.

    Reply
  18. can d says:
    January 29, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    i believe the gen­eral was prob­a­bly talk­ing about a way to reduce cost of oper­a­tion in dol­lar terms as in destroyed vehi­cles vs. troops!
    foot patrol regard­less of their quan­tity and arment will be much more prone to a greater extent and vari­ety of IEDs which no longer need to pen­e­trate armour. fur­ther­more it will mean more tar­gets for hit and run tac­tics by snipers whose cur­rent arse­nal can­not pen­e­trate armour.

    Reply
  19. david says:
    January 30, 2006 at 2:50 am

    I remem­ber an inci­dent where one of my friends lost a leg. Someone called our hot­line that we had setup, giv­ing us a tip on a sus­pected VBIED. Went to inves­ti­gate. Doctrine at the time was to put out road cones at inter­sec­tions and roads. That way we knew who was hos­tile and who wasn’t. Simple enough. Anyone who runs a road­cone get’s a face­full of lead. So as they’re out to set out the road­cones, BOOM. An IED goes off.
    IED’s are a part of the game now. We just have to start using our heads and being more cau­tious. Change things up a bit. Keep the enemy on his toes.
    It’s not gonna work all the time. It’s called attri­cion. And foot patrols all the time isn’t prac­ti­cal. Like some­one else said, a city of 2.5 mil­lion or more, who’s gonna walk that with 100lbs of gear and ammo in 130 degree heat? Get real.

    Reply
  20. ohwilleke says:
    January 30, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    Like California, most of Iraq in unin­hab­ited or nearly so. Californians love the coast, Iraqis love the river. Moreover, as the arti­cle itself makes clear, this pro­posal is really intended only a for a hand­ful of cities. In this con­text, foot patrols could be a use­ful tool. No tech­nol­ogy is ever obso­lete. Mounted police and bike mes­sen­gers are com­mon in most major American cities.

    Reply
  21. jimbo says:
    January 31, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    i think air cav asy ou call it is a good idea cou­pled with foot patrols , regard­less of the ied threat ..you must focus on the mis­sion ..i would employ foot patrols and use air cav to set up snap vcp’s .and snap patrols ..the enemy still has to have the bot­tle to plant these things …he will not only have to look out for OP,s and foot patrols he will also have to be aware of ran­dom patrols inserted by helis ..if you have all this with maybe armour dom­i­nat­ing ter­rain and a good QRF then you may start to reduce the ide threat , engage with the locals and gen­er­ally dom­i­nate the ground

    Reply
  22. Brit Soldier says:
    January 31, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    The brit solu­tion to IEDs in Ireland was to have mul­ti­ple small patrols orbit­ing on foot in the same area, with portable jam­mers to defeat the radio con­trol and helis over­head. In rural areas the “Eagle VCP” — heli borne, drop in, check the traf­fic for a short period, move on by air to another loca­tion. The basic unit in Iraq now is the “Multiple” 3x4 man teams. 1 com­manded by the Pln Comd the other by the Pln Sgt. Very flex­i­ble and 12 men means its still a lot of fire­power.
    The “mobil­ity = Dominance” thing is an illu­sion if all you are doing is dri­ving about. No inter­face with the locals, lit­tle feel for whats hap­pen­ing — if any­thing its counter-​​productive, just alien­ates those locals who might be on-​​side. Infantry boots on the ground. Thats what infantry are for !

    Reply
  23. mudpup says:
    February 1, 2006 at 11:08 pm

    Hey I was sta­tioned at EODMU 2 so I know all about IEDs. Ive seen a lot of peo­ple dying over there in Iraq. Id say the best way to beat the IEDs is to go out on foot. Look for any hos­tiles and take care of them. If we keep dri­ving over them then were gonna keep dying. So lets keep our heads together and walk it out.

    Reply
  24. Infantry Guy says:
    February 2, 2006 at 6:31 am

    Make a change for the Yanks to do foot patrols, they have been reliant on Tech for far to long, get on the ground meet peo­ple face to face, look at the way the Brits do it.

    Reply
  25. BoB McC says:
    May 19, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    I have been to Iraq on Op Telic, where as the invading/​Liberating Force we were seen by some as friends and by oth­ers as ene­mies. Now in Op Telic 8, we have come to the cross­roads of this oper­a­tion. The Iraqis/​foreign insur­gent forces no longer want us in their country/​middle east, and are find­ing more tech­ni­cal ways in the form of IEDs to deter us from car­ry­ing out our duties.
    We now have to make a deci­sion on how to com­bat these types of attacks. I per­son­ally feel that foot patrols are the best way of com­bat­ing this type of threat, this is mainly due to the way you can vary routes and observe sus­pi­cious pack­ages, peo­ple and vehi­cles and like some­one has said before, you also get the added bonus of inter­act­ing and assist­ing the peo­ple.
    Mobile patrols are good for the wider area but have to be kept to a min­i­mum, as the routes mobile patrols take are very pre­dictable. As such allow the enemy plenty of time to pre­pare and exe­cute attacks with ease.
    As far as the con­cerns with snipers etc go, these threats have always been there and will remain so for as long as UK Troops and US Troops are in Iraq. I fear how­ever we are now engaged, in a war we can­not win con­ven­tion­ally and we have to reassess what it is we hope to achieve in Iraq, and it is now down to the gov­ern­ments of the UK, US and Iraq to do their job, as we the Soldiers have done ours with the pride pro­fes­sion­al­ism and exper­tise that those gov­ern­ments have only dreamt about since they have engaged us in this operation.

    Reply
  26. Ted Williams says:
    October 30, 2006 at 9:47 pm

    I agree that foot patrols have a place,but must be used spar­ingly; I have long advo­cated the use of com­bat track­ing teams using visual track­ing to detect road­side iedsI have spent the last two years devel­op­ing course work using track­ing skills to detect ieds. Visual track­ing is not the com­plete answere to the ied prob­lem, how­e­vere when used in com­bi­na­tion with good intel­li­gence, and tech­nol­ogy it can be very effective.

    Reply
  27. tony says:
    May 23, 2007 at 2:42 am

    I would like to say that I know a lot about how these things are being detonated.The first step,is to com­pletely ban radio transmission.We need to intercept,and destroy any trans­mis­sion that does not meet our protocol.One satellite,or the shuttle..is capa­ble of decid­ing friendly or foe..Its old school,but thats how the lit­tle fukkers are killing our kids.Every tower,and every­thing that looks like a radio tower,must come down.And what about foot patrols with bomb sniff­ing dogs?What about infrared that can tell if the soil has been turned?Right now we have tech­nol­ogy that can be sen­si­tized to actu­ally see tnt,or c-4.Other trips are being engaged by laser…Duh..which can eas­ily be seen by the right gear..I just dont get it…I say smoke the fukkers and be done with it.Iraq is now the lat­est state in the Union.

    Reply
  28. Matt says:
    November 26, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    Gen.Votel is an idiot. Obviously, he never went out­side the wire. Keep watch­ing the war from the J-​​lens you jackass.

    Reply
  29. david layne says:
    March 8, 2008 at 6:42 pm

    As a for­mer com­bat­ant (Viet Nam) I can say that IED’s are just another name for what we called booby traps. As a for­mer canine han­dler in that war (Combat Tracking) I can attest to the fact that dogs know a hell of a lot more about per­form­ing jobs we wish them to do than we give credit. As a for­mer civil­ian instruc­tor train­ing com­bat track­ing to Marines in 05 and 06 I can tell you that there are ways to get the bad guys with canine, but the pow­ers that be decided to go with an Air Force retiree (who never worked out­side the wire) as a prin­ci­ple instruc­tor. As a mat­ter of fact our sec­ond class of seven had 28 finds dur­ing their first tour, so that’s evi­dence that it does work. These weren’t IED finds, but human finds…those who actu­ally planted the bombs.
    When an IED is det­o­nated where do you think the human scent of the planter is located? It’s located within a 360 degree cir­cle due to the blast, and given a few min­utes the dog will work out the scent path and do his job.
    One prob­lem seems to be that those in charge just can’t bring them­selves to use a piece of ‘equip­ment’ as anti­quated as canine. If it doesn’t have joy sticks, it doesn’t work.
    Another prob­lem is, quite sim­ply, that visual track­ing doesn’t work in urban war­fare. I’ll watch as a visual tracker fol­lows a track across concrete…or for that mat­ter across lime­stone base mate­r­ial. A com­bat track­ing team is trained not only to track but to become a self sus­tain­ing fire team if the need arises, and the pow­ers that be can’t seem to grasp this con­cept as well. Their belief is that all canine oper­a­tions should be routed thru the PM, but how man MP’s have you seen out there track­ing or work­ing SSD canines?
    “We have met the enemy and he is us.”\
    dlayne
    25th ID Combat Tracker
    1967

    Reply
  30. 2moon dil says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:53 am

    Moreover, these may save your more time and more 2moon dil.

    Reply
  31. rappelz gold says:
    August 12, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    I rec­og­nized her is an occa­sional, When I was just upgrade and earn rap­pelz gold. She also just through, and she is a new player, she saw me my num­ber is high. So she asked me how to play. And I said I was a bad peo­ple, I asked if did you not heard in this game. She said she heard, but she did not believe. I smiled. So I took her to play, I told her how to play, how to upgrade.

    Reply
  32. goonzu money says:
    August 12, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    So I decided to closed my own heart, I played lonely, I gave up to find, put aside feel­ing. I upgrade, take account and earn goonzu money a per­son. I live a lit­tle good; I think I have been really put aside.

    Reply
  33. GuildWars Gold says:
    August 12, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Initial con­tact this game, I did not very like. Since find good rea­son to release point, I also began to like it. Every day after work, I always go to play this game. Perhaps lit­tle girls will like me, in order to give went to all I like it. I dull play­ing a few weeks, very few speak to peo­ple and I have 26 lev­els and also I earn a lit­tle GuildWars Gold.

    Reply
  34. buy Habbo gold says:
    August 13, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    Master, I am really very think of you, what a pity that we as if already parted for­ever. Now, I buy Habbo gold for your come back.

    Reply
  35. LOTRO Gold says:
    August 13, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Finally, I gained have suf­ficed the LOTRO Gold, had the fam­ily. We were in together finally.

    Reply
  36. last chaos gold says:
    August 13, 2008 at 9:22 pm

    Remember we just met with each other by chance, we prac­ticed the level and made last chaos gold together.

    Reply
  37. cheap mabinogi says:
    August 13, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    I was excited, orig­i­nally it was such sim­ple, and it also needs a lit­tle cheap mabinogi.

    Reply
  38. Tibia Gold says:
    August 18, 2008 at 11:04 pm

    One day, I read a arti­cle about Tibia Gold game. I was very dispir­ited and couldn’t help to give up Tibia coins.

    Reply
  39. buy sro gold says:
    August 18, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    If you’re won­der­ing how to look out for bots, how to avoid them and what to do buy sro gold, you have come to the right place.

    Reply
  40. Silkroad gold says:
    August 18, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    Thanks for read­ing and hope­fully there will be a lot more Silkroad gold where that came from!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "Now please tell me where in the Bible Jesus or his disciples...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      No, I am not a muslim. And no, the Koran does not say anything about...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      You aren't. You're just annoying. Like a paper cut between...
      bdwilcox
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      Zandor, Don't you have to go play in traffic or play...
      bdwilcox
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage