I have been looking into the Jessica Lynch story a bit more in-depth than I originally did and find myself confused(not the first or last time). The news reports call what happened an “ambush” but according to all accounts, her convoy drove into an enemy held city because of being lost and was attacked by Iraqi forces. How is this considered an ambush? After watching the movie based on these events, I’m now more uncertain of it being an ambush. It seems that if you define this action as an ambush, then all attacks on military forces entering enemy territory can be called an ambush. From an objective military point of view, was this action an ambush?
For ease of use, I’d stick to the BBC for anything on Lynch - there’s been too many lies from the other side of the pond about her.
Still, I can’t really see anything wrong with calling it an ambush. In military terms,there’s nothing dishonourable about “ambush”. If you accept that, then any attack against an unsuspecting opponent is an ambush and that appears to have been what this was.
I just reread that and I think I may need to apologise. I have not read any of the Lynch stories in the US papers and didn’t mean to insult anyone.
However, I was watching CNN and BBC constantly during the war and I formed the opinion that the BBC was much more trustworthy on the issue then. Given that they don’t have to worry about being seen as unpatriotic, assuming that is a concern for the US media, I’d still stand by my earlier post.
An ambush may be a legitimate attack. In this context the convoy was wandering around lost. They went the wrong way, and the enemy made the (correct) assumption they would be coming back. Knowing where they would pass, they were able to ambush the convoy by sending forces there. Again, note that an “ambush” is not an underhanded or dishonorable way of fighting, it’s good tactics. Permitting the enemy to predict your movements is a bad mistake, but occasional mistakes are inevitable.
(This is based on claims of what happened without any direct knowledge on my part.)
My question may have come across wrong because I consider ambush to be a valid tactic, not underhanded or dishonorable. I suppose the way I look at an ambush is the dictionary form of the word, to be attacked by suprised from concealment.
From dictionary.com
From what I have read and the movie based on events, they drove into enemy territory, saw the enemy, tried to find a way out of enemy territory but didn’t make it and were fired on, eventually being overcome by enemy forces. Based on that, it seems faulty that the media keeps calling it an ambush. I might be splitting hairs but it just sounds incorrect when I think about it.
I may not be using the word in the dictionary sense, but to me ambush means trickery. If you are just hiding, that’s called “wanting to live another hour.” Has nothing to do with ambushing. Were the Germans at Normandy waiting in ambush for the allied forces? Don’t think so.
There is nothing about the incident to indicate trickery. E.g., that the signs had been doctored to ensure they got lost.
The way to hit a travelling column is, of course, with surprising, sudden, cooordinated fire from troops in concealed fire positions at a well-chosen point along the march route. That tactic is known as an ambush.
If the column somehow blundered into an enemy formation that hadn’t planned for the fight to take place there and then, it would be more of a meeting engagement. (Actually, it would be a fuck-up, as supply columns are not supposed to seek battle.)
On the beaches, where their position was known and surprise was impossible to achieve? No. They fought a defensive battle. In the hedgerows afterwards: You betcha.
The column could certainly have been taking sporadic fire while in enemy territory, just because the enemy holds the town does not mean they are laid out in fighting positions all over, ready to fire at a moments notice. A good scenario (I do not know that this happened) is that three of four Iraqis saw the column go by, and knowing the lay of the land, figured that it would be coming back. They grabbed a boat load of soldiers and weapons, and focused them at one point on the return route. When the column, which had probably been taking potshots for an hour, got to that spot, RPGs slammed into the lead and trail vehicle, trapping the column, and a more focused, intense barrage of fire began. That is a hasty ambush, where you lie in wait along the predicted path of the enemy and fire when they hit the “kill zone”.
Can I suggest Abandoned?
I was up all night on March 23 after hearing about the ambush of the 507’th - a supplies/support group. Even then I targeted blame at the Command who reckoned sending all the forces, relentlessly towards Bagdad would be written in West Point textbooks in the same light as Ol’ Stormin Norman (General Schwartzkopf).
Alas, it’ll be recorded as a dumbass plan by folks who may actually have believed the lies they professed about soldiers being welcomed as liberators. Cakewalk. The margins for error were thin. If the least bit went wrong, the fit hits the shan.
The support units were abandoned. I’ll start the blame at CentCom (General Tommy Franks) and work on up to SecDef Rumsfeld, the CakeWalkMeister. Front-line troops cannot be seperated from support troops.
The 507’th was abandoned and mercilessly ambushed. WTF else could be expected? Lots of blame should go to the Captain who couldn’t interpret maps. But that was not his training.
CentCom is ultimately responsible.
Well, the Germans couldn’t have “ambushed” the Allies because the Allies knew there were Germans there. It’s not as if they landed and were surprised to find Germans defending the beaches. As Spiny Norman points out though, ambushes were the order of the day throughout the war. Luring the enemy into a kill zone for an ambush is Tactics 101 in any army.
In military terms, an ambush is simply being in a position to fire on a moving enemy when the enemy isn’t expecting you to. It means you did a good job in getting into a concealed position, or as one general once put it, getting there the firstest with the mostest. Clearly, though, the government and media have been using the word “ambushed” over and over again to paint the situation in the best/worst possible light, e.g. “We wouldn’t have had those people killed if only those sneaky Iraqis hadn’t AMBUSHED us!”
Corbomite, I must disagree with your claim the 507th was “abandoned.” Support troops follow the combat troops, and that’s what they were doing. They got lost and - whammo. An army does not move as a blob, combat troops on the outside like wagons facing Indians in an old western; on the move it marches in varying degrees of march/combat formations. The flanks will naturally be exposed in direct correlation to the speed of march. In this case the army got bitten on one of its flanks. Let’s get this in perspective, we’re talking about a little machine gun skirmish, not some devastating flank attack by an unseen armored division. It’s a normal occurrence for such an operation. If you don’t want casualties, don’t fight wars.
RickJay - I understand the concept that ground forces don’t move as discrete blobs, yet even the front-line mechanized were pushing on with significant, if ‘acceptable’ levels of vehicles conking out. The wreckers (tow-trucks) that traveled along with support groups such as the 507’th were probably meant to assist the mechanized groups rather than towing a truck full of C-rations. That the 507th fell out of radio contact is unacceptable today.
The “brilliant” idea was the USA didn’t need the 4th - we’ll just send/spank the 3rd on their way and suprise those Iraqis. If they don’t welcome our forces as liberators, surely they’ll whither facing down the teeth of the infantry and mechs, who in turn have like no water or food.
The Iraqi’s knew that Nasariyah would be bypassed. But keep those pickups gassed, fellers, and just for yucks - the 'muricans don’t know how to keep their weapons clean.
The 507’th were soldiers, certainly, yet they were not well trained. The Fedayeen knew the desert, they knew how to keep their weapons clean and fire-able, and they knew the coyote-like tactics that bring down bulky, un-maneuverable vehicles. What happened in Nasariyah was a slaughter. The US Army was out-flanked and that’s big-time embarrassing even for the coldest, lines-on-the-map General.
Hit them in their supply lines and they get bogged down. Maybe ‘abandanoned’ isn’t quite the term, yet mistakes were made by CentCom who should have known better. I rather think they did - and that fuck-up Rumsfeld over-rode the plans.