“Civilian casualties in Iraq’s volatile Anbar province would have been greatly reduced over the past 20 months if an inexpensive, hand-held laser system had been sent to the Marines operating there, according to a series of e-mail messages between troops in the field and acquisition officials in suburban Washington” obtained by the Tampa Tribune. “A military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said close to 50 innocent Iraqis were killed and nearly 140 were wounded in Anbar between March and December by Marines who did not have the dazzlers as an alternative to lethal force.“
The decision to deny delivery of the Compact High Power Laser Dazzler has touched off an internal debate, the messages reveal, with highly charged phrases such as “unnecessary carnage” being used to describe the situation…
The dazzler is a nonlethal tool for steering unwelcome vehicles and people away from U.S. checkpoints and convoys. Without it, U.S. forces must open fire when Iraqis fail to heed warning signals and get too close…
Made by LE Systems, a small company in Hartford, Conn., the compact laser creates a wall of intense green light that stops or redirects oncoming traffic by temporarily impairing the driver’s vision.
In June 2005, Marine Corps leaders in western Iraq filed an “urgent universal need” request for several hundred of LE Systems’ dazzlers, which cost about $8,000 each. The request, which was repeated less than a year later, has gone unfulfilled.
The dazzler order appears to have been made by Marine Corps Major General Richard Zilmer, who’s heading up the coalition effort in western Iraq. He is emerging as a extremely interesting figure. First, he tells Congress that the Marines “needs [the] capability” to deploy through space. Then, once he gets to Iraq, he sends an “urgent request” to the Pentagon, asking for new gear. At the top of his list: a “priority 1″ plea for 183 renewable power stations, equipped with “solar panels and wind turbines.” By reducing the need for [petroleum-based fuels] at our outlying bases, we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our Marines, soldiers, and sailors,” the request stated. So far, however, the response to Zilmer’s renewable-power request has been limited. A single station is being examined for research and development, sources tell Defense Tech. And the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force is putting together four alt-power units: two trailer-sized, and two as big as “connex” cargo containers. It’s a start, for sure. But it’s a far cry from what Zilmer asked for.
(Big ups: Haninah)
| 50 Iraqis Dead from Laser Shortfall?« « Rapid Fire 02/01/07 | Iraq Re-arms » » Leave a ReplyNOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces. By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement | |
»> Without it, U.S. forces must open fire when Iraqis fail to heed warning signals and get too close…
Umm, so then they are actually dead because they wouldn’t heed warning signals and put US troops in danger, yes? Why is it that everything, and I do mean *everything*, has to be couched as some kind of failing on the part of the troops or Bush?
Couldn’t this article just as easily be: “Thousands saved by troops deployment of Dazzler system”?
Why is it that the great majority of good is ignored and the fact that we live in an imperfect world where we can’t have everything we want, all the time, why is that always the headline?
I swear, this *&^%ing self-loathing peddled unrelentingly by the US media is gonna be the death of us all.
If the US media were unrelentingly peddling self-loathing, you’d be seeing quite a few more wounded and dead Americans on TV and far, far more suffering Iraqis.
On topic, would solar or wind power sources be more vulnerable to attack than generators? I assume so, but I’m not expert.
Finally some real leadership. To leverage our tech advantage to finally reduce casualties is nothing but a good thing. I’m really intrigued (and relieved) to see that there is a Flag Officer thinking about trying to reduce the amount of convoys over there. Solar panels and wind generators to produce power might sound like tree hugging but its a good thing if it keeps our guys off the roads. As far as the dazzler is concerned, if it keeps some Marine or Soldier from whacking an innocent, then i’m all for it. Its called FORCE PROTECTION…protecting his Marines from the bad guys and protecting his Marines from JAG.
The laser dazzler has a very long and extremely chequered history (it’s one of my thicker files).
They can be very valuable, but I would say that this method of ‘selling’ them is highly counterproductive — it’s simply a a back-door way of admitting how many civilians are being killed by US troops, which is a far bigger story.
Any Sabre 203 sleeping in the warehouse ready for use? Meanwhile, I guess several NGOs will cry that these laser dazzlers could cause permanent blindness if they catch attention for use in Iraq.
Interesting. I think General Zilmer may make an unusual chief for one of the R&D/procurement agencies when he does a staff tour.
Ah David…let me grab my loin cloth and ax –I need to let you see my truly barbaric thinking on this subject…I like the dazzler and any other new non-lethal wonder weapon because it provides me with plausible denial when asked if I took every action before taking shooting a vehicle that would not stop. I also like it because it lets me off the hook with the REMF’s in the JAG office who only come out to see who’s career they want to ruin. The civilian casualties (in my opinion) are horrible but are “the cost of doing business.” Any blame has to be placed on the civil war, insurgency, Al Queda(?) and the war planners, not the troops.
Mycroft– yeah, I think he’d be a great one at DARPA but the Commandant’s got this thing that everyone gets into the fight so he’s got to do his time in the “sand” (about 33,000 other Marines that haven’t been deployed yet too).
Now if they could take this laser and make it into some kind of method like produce a static electric spark to explode a suicide bombers vest then we could all have the carnage and save our guys. So we could all be pussies and pricks at the same time eh?
Solomon — the idea that innocent civilian deaths can be shrugged off as ‘the cost of doing business’ is madness. When the British Army killed 13 civilians (in what they beleived was self-defence) in 1972, it triggered a 30-year insurgency.
Support for an insurgency has a lot to do with the way the locals feel they are treated by the occupying forces. What message do they get from statements like yours?
The message they get is that this is no longer an insurgency but a civil war…If it were still at the insurgency stage then I would be all for “winning hearts and minds” but we’ve moved way beyond that. IF you can explain how an external force could have entered our own civil war and brought about a peaceful conclusion then I’m all ears…if you can’t then you must reconcile yourself to the thought that civilian casualties in a CIVIL WAR are unavoidable…As far as any message that the Iraqi people get from this thread, then let me be clear…It is their country…It is up to them to solve their problems…WE removed a dictator, now its time for them to stand up and Get’er Done!
Your remark is irrelevant — US troops killing civilians has little to do with civil war.
In any case, I doubt whether many in the are concerned about civil war in Iraq per se, what they worry about are the anti-US factions which may gain control. And what feeds the anti-US movement is civilian casulaties caused by the US.
We agree to disagree …I still luv your work!
Once again its the military getting blamed for political shortcomings. If they really had the desire to help over there, they’d be giving the military what it requires to do the job.