I’ve spoken to a couple of company commanders in Iraq who say they don’t have much of a problem with roadside bombs. The big reason why: they avoid the main streets in their neighborhoods, travelling where their enemies aren’t.
Now, the Pentagon is looking to use that technique all over Iraq, according to Inside Defense. “Rather than trying to defeat improvised explosive devices (IEDs) head-on with new technologies and tactics, the Defense Department is looking to… construct new roads for supply convoys that simply bypass densely populated, high-threat areas.”
The Army is seeking $167 million in military construction funds as part of the Pentagon’s soon-to-be detailed $65.3 billion supplemental spending request for fiscal year 2006 to pave roads capable of supporting two-way traffic, complete with shoulders, drainage structures and interchanges to connect with existing supply routes, according to a draft version of the request.
Failure to provide these routes will result in continued exposure of U.S. and coalition forces as well as Iraqi non-combatants to unacceptable insurgent threats to include IED and vehicle borne IED and direct fire exposure, states the draft budget document obtained by InsideDefense.com and set to be delivered to Congress soon.…
There have been approximately 28,000 IED incidents in Iraq between April 2003 and November 2005, according to Jan. 24 briefing slides prepared by Multi-National Force-Iraq.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
I thought about this in the past. My question is, why build roads? Why not just use the rivers all the major population centers are along the rivers. Just get yourself some sort of shallow draft transport craft. If there are any low bridges just rebuild them. It would be much easier than building whole roads.
Hello!
Just like Israel in the West Bank. “Exclusive roads” for the occupiers. On who’s land BTW?
The Iraqis will love this.
>I thought about this in the past. My question is,
>why build roads?
>Why not just use the rivers all the major population centers are along the rivers.
I have lot of disadvantages coming to mind, but I will just say the terrorists use them too, and likely you are going to see them to target those on the river. There are also terrorists attacking oil transported by train in Iraq. Was this ever news? Usually the railroads follow along the roads in Iraq so that may be expected. The best solution is to build subway transportation system way under ground, but that is going to take for decades to build something across Iraq. That leaves building new isolated roads as a solution. It is not a silver bullet, but better than going through populated areas where terrorists could blend in.
Terrorists usually respond to security measures by going for easier targets that aren’t covered. So they will simply stick to blowing up Iraqi police, military, civilians and anyone else who doesn’t get to use the exclusive roads. Not much of a ‘solution’.
Why not just pave the entire country?
surely thats the direction we are going.
That way every bit of land is a road.
I think the road idea is a great one, this would save countless soldier’s lives.
I still think that you would be better off on the water. While there is trafic on the water it is much less than on the roads. You have greater stand off distance from the sides, which would make shaped charges ineffective. Mining a river is 10 times harder than mining a road.
Why not just get out?
Tim: you are mistaken. Water mines are much easier to place (drop it over the side), much harder to detect (because they are covered by the water) and much, much harder to clear. Mass-produced bottom mines are bad enough, but at least you know what you’re dealing with once you’ve identified the type in the field. One-off improvised versions would have to be examined and cleared one at time. Underwater. Think about it.
A nation is not a squiggle on a map. It is comprised of people. If we are this determined to avoid even incidental contact with the people in Iraq then that is an even graver sign than all the “negative reporting” of all the networks combined.
Come to think of it, a underwater blast produced by eight or nine arty shells would be spectacular: problem being the arty shells might get degraded, or the detonation mechanism would degrade. Additionally, it is unlikely they would have magnetic sensors for detonating IEDs or they would have used them already. Most landmine sensors are pressure-based, IIRC. On land, they can use radio, infra-red or regular comdet. In water it’s gonna be a cable under a bush snaking out to a apartment next to the river, if the explosives can remain functional after long time underwater (and I wouldn’t underestimate the insurgency at this point…maybe store em in watertight drums, caulked just before rolling into the river?)
As for building your own roads: This merely gives the enemy SOMEWHERE BETTER TO GO. It guarantees where you will be and seperates you from bystanders, so THEY can engage you without alienating the population. Then the “kick out the occupier” people won’t see all the collateral damage from /their/ side of things, and will have greater short-term incentive to kick us out (namely, supporting us no longer means stopping the civilian casualties, they won’t have to hurt civvies to get at us).
Wembly is correct, and Aaron is silly.
The reason we cannot use rivers is because the river system cannot possibly support all of our logistical needs, nor can it give us the striking power we need to touch all points within Iraq. In RVN the river was wide and deep, capable of supporting boats from the tiny Swifts to large “tenders” and at some point, freighter vessels converted to house personnel and boats. This does not exist in Iraq, thus we cannot hope to use the river system as our end-all solution. At best, the river allows us to control points along the river without getting car bombed. What the river does give us is the ability to bypass enemies by allowing us to bypass bridges or obvious chokepoints where a IED would do a world of good. Of course, this means ferries or amphib capable vehicles.
So whats to stop them from placing bombs on these new roads? What a dumb@ss idea.
>Terrorists usually respond to security measures by going for easier targets that aren’t covered.
No problem, that’s not the point of the issue anyways. Did you really read the article and understand what ii is being built for?
How are you going to transmit a detonation signal to an underwater mine? No, I’m quite certian I’d rather be on a boat than in a truck!! The rivers of Iraq have supported the supply needs of the people of Iraq for thousands of years! Man…what a bunch of naysayers!!! Way to show that “can do” American spirt. You all must be French, well your English is getting quite good, at least I can say that for you.
Tim: you don’t need a “transmission signal.” The mine is actuated by the pressure wave from the moving hull. The technology has been around since the 1940′s and it’s quite difficult to sweep because it can only be activated or detonated by a pressure wave equal to that of a moving hull. In rivers, all mines are essentially bottom mines that don’t need to rise or be anchored.
Even detecting the mine would be problematic. Right now, aircraft fly over Iraqi roads looking for signs of disturbed earth that would indicate a mine has been planted. This would not be possible with a riverine mine. They can only be detected with bottom-scanning high-frequency sonars. Good news is that these exist in considerable numbers for civilian use. Bad news is that every suspicious device has to be treated as a mine. Worse news is that rivers have a high turnover on the bottom because the water is moving. The picture changes every day. Worst news is that the mine can be constructed to drift on or just below the surface, or with a very slight negative bouyancy so that it rolls along the bottom. Drop a bottle of Pepsi in the river and figure it out for yourself.
Insist on command detonation? Attach a slim wire on a reel and let it spool out as it rolls downriver to your target. Ever hear of a wire-guided torpedo? The Vietnamese used floating mines to attack pontoon bridges; the Americans used ordinary aircraft bombs fitted with magnetic fuses to block channels used by VC sampans; the Confederate Navy used moored mines detonated by electric current from shore stations. If the Confederate Navy was able to solve the technical problems, I reckon the insurgents will dope it out, unless your “can-do American spirit” enables you to project your own vacuous ignorance into the minds of your enemies. We can only hope.
James your just plain wrong. Presure waves wire guided torpedos!!! Listen, what is killing the most people over there is a simple artillery shell with a blasting cap hooked up to a cordless phone base or garage door opener. And the reason It is killing so many people is that any idiot can figure out how to make one. Sure there are technically complex IEDs but they constitute a small, small percentage of devices found. Constructing a hydro mine would be more difficult in many ways, you would need more explosive, you would have to find a way to anchor it in place, you would have to do this out in the main channel. you would need a boat, which most people don’t have. That alone would keep the majority of jihadis from trying this type of attack. Sorry, you seem to think all of the bad guys are explosives experts, with scuba training. They aren’t.
Hey James,
You know what a WIT team is?
If the insurgents could make water mines they would have tried this already against the river patrols. That’s my thought.
The reason they won’t mine the new roads is because we’ll be the only ones on it. No other vehicles will be allowed. Most of these improvised explosives are car bombs, or are at least transported in vehicles. If you use new roads and let no one else on it, they can’t deliver the explosives.
Water mines are easy to make. Why don’t they mine for the river patrols? Not enough reward. They’re too infrequent. There’s not enough river traffic to make it worthwhile.