How Technology Won Sadr City Battle

U.S. Military Gives Rare Access To 60 Minutes In Discussing Aerial Footage And Weaponry

(CBS)  One of the reasons violence in Iraq has subsided so dramatically was a significant battle that U.S. forces won in Sadr City just five months ago. Sadr City - part of Baghdad - is home to two million Shia, and the turf of fiercely anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

For years, insurgents in Iraq have been stymieing U.S. troops with homemade, low-tech weapons, like car bombs and improvised roadside explosives.

But in this battle of Sadr City, as 60 Minutes learned in a high-level debriefing with the U.S. commander in Iraq, the Americans overpowered the Shiite militias with hi-tech, including the most advanced, sophisticated, whiz bang hardware and software on Earth, like electronics, lasers, and high-resolution cameras that can literally cut through the fog of war.

---

When 60 Minutes was in Iraq to interview the new commanding general, Ray Odierno, we went with him as he surveyed the former battlefield, through neighborhoods now pacified and into a market returning to life. At his side was the brigade commander who led the battle there, Col. John Hort.

"This was some of the heaviest fighting that we had experienced during our two months in Sadr City," Hort told Stahl. "Right where we're standing."

Standing there, or any place in Sadr City, could not have been done just five months ago - the area was off-limits to Americans. For years, the fiery cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Shiite militia controlled the streets.

Last March, they began using the neighborhood as a launching pad to lob rockets into the nearby "Green Zone," the seat of the Iraqi government and site of the U.S. Embassy.

"Not just one or two, but we're talking 20 to 30 rocket attacks coming out of Sadr City," Hort explained.

Col. Hort gave General Odierno his first briefing on the battle, and 60 Minutes was invited to sit in. It's rare that reporters can videotape sessions like this. We were asked to turn our cameras off only once, and were allowed to broadcast only a few slides that were later de-classified for us.

The U.S. military had wanted to mount an attack in Sadr City, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki balked for a year because the militias are Shiites like him, and that made a decision to fight them politically risky.

Odierno waited for the prime minister, saying the decision to go ahead was Maliki's to make. "I think what he finally realized were that the militias that had safe havens in Sadr City were really trying to destabilize the government of Iraq, and he realized it would add instability to his own government," the general told Stahl.

Once Maliki gave the go-ahead, a U.S. Stryker battalion went in, but they confronted a steady stream of militia reinforcements. "I mean every day, it was 20, 30, 40 new guys that were coming down to fight," Hort recalled.

So Hort and his men had to do something to keep them out. They decided to build a barrier straight across Sadr City. It would also create a buffer zone wide enough to prevent militia rockets from reaching the Green Zone.

To build the wall, Col. Hort's Charlie Company began putting up massive T-shaped concrete slabs. Fighting erupted almost immediately, as sniper fire came in from every direction; Charlie Company retaliated with massive tank fire.

"We fired 800 tank rounds in this fight. We haven't fired that many tank rounds since the start of the war," Hort told Stahl.

Col. Hort said "the building of the [so-called] T-wall became a magnet for every bad guy in Sadr City." This was one of the most intense engagements in the entire war. Yet even as the battle raged, the wall went up.

"It was literally concrete barrier by concrete barrier. We just wasn't goin' out there puttin' up some barriers. I mean, it was a fight every inch of the way," he said.

"Guys would climb the ladders to unhook the crane chains from the wall unarmed, while people are firin' at 'em. So it was high adventure," Lt. Col. Brian Eifler remembered, whose team laid down cover fire while some soldiers, wide open and exposed, unhooked the chains from the crane.

[america_1st]

Quote: "Again, I recommend speaking to a professional in the mental health field. Your delusions of repression, malevolent and monstrous entities in our Armed Forces, the need to "punish" the oil industry, conspiracies to drive up the price of oil, and so on indicate some very serious issues that may cause you to be a danger to yourself or others."

Bush is Big Oil, and he sees the oil-producing nations as his business competitors. He used our military to knock out these competitors, and send pump prices sky-high. (At the moment, gas prices are lower, only to try to save McCaine.) And these oil people betray the American people, and ally themselves to Israel instead. Not only is Israel situated in a strategic location for cutting off the supply of Mideast oil (increasing the value of US domestic oil), but Israel also kicks back money; the politicians vote $$$ billions of OUR money into Israel, and Israel kicks it back to them. No wonder that in the recent VP debate, Palin gushed over how much she LOVED Israel.

[ssgs_words]

Before I leave this forum, I happened to be skimming the subsequent forum postings regarding 60 Minutes'' "How Technology Won Sadr City Battle" piece and although I didn''t see much that was actually on topic, I DID see someone talking about the Geneva Conventions which is a subject that I am MORE than intimately familiar with. In point of fact, I happen to have a copy of FM 27-10, %u201CThe Law of Land Warfare%u201D, which contains the doctrine and stipulations that are found in the Hague and Geneva Conventions right in front of me to reference, so I guess we%u2019re all in for a big %u2018ol treat.

In Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 25 which is entitled %u201CEnemy Status of Civilians%u201D %u2013 and I will summarize to keep this short %u2013 %u201C%u2026one of the consequences of the existence of a condition of war between two States is that every national of the one State becomes an enemy of every national of the other. However, it is a generally recognized rule of international law that civilians must not be made the OBJECT of attack directed EXCLUSIVELY against them.%u201D It has never been the intention, as far as I am aware, of the United States to make an enemy of the people of Iraq. However, so long as certain people of Iraq harbor and aid those that inhibit our mission in Iraq, there will sadly be casualties. I pray that everyone who reads this is clever enough to discern between "casualties of war" and "unconscionable killing of civilians". But maybe not.

[ssgs_words]

I would like to apologize for the "Post-Script" being in near the front of my comment. This reflects a typing error I made during its composition.

Again, I''m sorry. I guess everyone makes mistakes, eh?

[ssgs_words]

First, I would like to congratulate you, 60 Minutes, for presenting a story to the American public that showcases the US troop''s achievements rather than painting them as criminals and/or villains as so many others are wont to do.

Post-Script: Officers should learn to keep their mouths shut as well.

However, there is a fine line that you must walk when it comes to presenting these troops laudable accomplishments.

I know it makes for a fairly dry story, but in the future please remember: It is actually COUNTER-productive to tell the "enemy" what it is that the "good guys" are doing with any level of detail. It is absolutely NOT a good idea to discuss what capabilities the U.S. troops have nor is it very smart to broadcast the fact that we were able to achieve victory because the insurgent radicals did ... insert tactical strategy here. I am almost certain that the internet - along with any 60 Minute broadcasts that are uploaded to it - can be, and this may come as a shock, viewed by anyone, anywhere in the world if they have a modem.

Again, I truly thank you for showing the men and women of the United States military in such a positive light. Next time, for their sakes, do it while understanding the need for Operational Security for future engagements. The story may not be as exciting but at least you may be able to save the lives of those men and women that appear on your show.

[afghanvet08]

jmkyoga: I''m sorry that you are ill. How you''ve dragged health care into this debate is unclear, but I presume it is as a distraction, as your other points are completely without merit.

Referring to militias who are seeking to destabilize the elected government of their own country under the leadership of a religio-political faction leader in legitimizing terms while concurrently denouncing American veterans as "wannabe chest thumping heroes" is insane and demonstrates a lack of reasoning ability and a preconceived ill-will towards the forces of our own country.

Your strident anti-American rhetoric, along with the even more ridiculous rhetoric of "America 1st," sounds to me like the delusional ramblings of some schizophrenics I have had contact with in the past, imagining vast conspiracies, attributing good intentions to organized criminals and attributing unimaginable evils to those who are clearly recognized as positive leaders on our part.

Again, I recommend speaking to a professional in the mental health field. Your delusions of repression, malevolent and monstrous entities in our Armed Forces, the need to "punish" the oil industry, conspiracies to drive up the price of oil, and so on indicate some very serious issues that may cause you to be a danger to yourself or others.

Good luck.

[america_1st]

High tech drones murdering 700 men fiercely defending their people, while we destroy their home city, and turn it into a large open air prison. Stinks of Israel.

War supporters think that our intervention in Iraq was to gain more oil for the benefit of the US public; the true object was to shut the oil supply down, and drive our pump prices sky-high.

Odierno and Hort are claiming that the fancy high-tech gizmos were effective in fighting urban guerilla warfare, which contradicts the conventional wisdom. The elaborate wall, mass-murder and oppression of the impoverished citizens of Sadr city may have eliminated the bombings of the Green Zone, but the loss of life was huge. They admit to killing 700 of the active fighters, but how many civilians also were killed?

And, Sadr City is Shia; the government which we support in Iraq depends heavily on Shia support. Did Odiorno win the battle only to lose the war?

Add that this stupid and unnecessary war is costing us $1B/day (at the very least). The war is sinking our economy, and accomplishing nothing.

Instead of the nationalizing the banks, we should at least temporarily nationalize our oil industry. Not that socialism is the answer, but the oil industry,
its beneficiaries and its executives need to be punished.

[jmkyoga]

Health Care in the U.S.A.? That''s only for the privilged elites, or those punching their ticket by government fiat. For the rest of us civilians with pre-existing conditions: in my case cancer and musculo-skeletal pain issues, obtaining health care of quality and with continuity is almost a budgetary impossibility: declare bankruptcy and sell the house. Maybe with Obama''s health care plan, those issues will be resolved, once we U.S. citizens and red-blooded Americans cast our vote defund the diastrous Iraq War to pay for it.

Sorry, all of you wannabe chest-beating heroes.

[jmkyoga]

Geneva Conventions Protocol II sets forth lengthy criteria distinguishing combatant from non-combatant. Armies of national resistence may be privilged by Protocol II, since having fancy uniforms, heavily armored vehicles, and millon dollar aircraft might be prohibitive for the budget.

Civilians providing food, clothing, and shelter to a resistence army''s irregular combatants are provided further protections in Protocol II not found in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Sanctioning the unconscionable killing of civilians by an invading army or in colonial or neo-colonial wars (WW II, Vietnam, Algeria, etc.) was the apparent goal of the ratification of Protocol II.

Iraqi resistence combatants who do not dress in regular uniforms or who use camoflauge do not commit perfidy, and Iraqi civilians who provide Iraqi resistence combatants food, clothing, or shelter may NOT be targeted as combatants. Although under the Bush-Cheney-Petraeus anti-terrorist doctrine (as stipulated in the U.S. written Iraqi constitution), any and all violations of what the U.S. military defines as the Rule of Law in Iraq, could be cause for summary execution.

Does AfghanVet believe the U.S. is REALLY not after Iraqi Oil? That he is NOT supporting the establishment of a U.S. counterinsurgency client state?

[afghanvet08]

Uh huh.

Nice words, again delusional and propagandistic. Like I said; not unintelligent, but not living in reality, either. Good vocabulary meets thinking disorder.

Again; were you there? Do you have evidence that any application of firepower was not proportionate? Have you ever been shot at to give you an idea of what a proportionate response is? Are there any criminal penalties, in your mind to a)hiding amongst and thereby endangering civilians and b)fighting as an un-uniformed fighter (hint: the Geneva Conventions did.)

You quote Conventions without regard to actual application, you proclaim criminality with no evidence other than your own suspicions, and you make personal accusations of criminal wrongdoing by two men whom you do not know and have no evidence against.

Take the aluminum foil out of your hat and get a referral. This type of behavior, directed against anyone in your home town, would have you in court and then in doctors offices getting treatment.

[jmkyoga]

I''m all for Command Responsibility: Lock up Bush, Cheney, Franks, Sanchez, Casey, Petraeus, Odierno. Let the grunts of the hook, for the most part.

Yoga, my friend (to paraphrase John McCain), concerns nonharming, a concept inimical to an invading army:-)

[jmkyoga]

The Geneva Conventions use intent as just one criteria to measure compliance with the Conventions. More important are the requirements of discrimination, proportionality, and military necessity. A military assault with high-tech, up armored weaponery on a warren where hundreds of thousand of Iraqi non-combatants reside, risks by sheer demographic numbers breaching thresholds of discrimination, proportionality, and military necessity. Civilian casualties "incidental" to military action, may be examined in any court of law exericising universal jurisdiction, and those found responsible for those casulaties could conceiveably be found guilty of trangressing humanitarian law.

Ms. Stahl choose not to pursue sources of information about subtantial Iraqi civilian casualties in Sadr City, including Iraqbodycount, the BBC, and the Washington Post, to contrast with U.S. military officials claims about alleged precision strikes. The 60 Minute report lacked journalistic objectivity and became propaganda precisely because it failed to address the question of civilian casualties directly, but instead proferred the journalistic sleight of hand of allowing the audience to make the inference that "unknown" civilians killed didn''t amount to much, qualitatively or quantitively.

By not mentioning Iraqi civilians as potential victims of warfare she fosters a unconscionable disregard for innocents killed in wartime.

[afghanvet08]

jmkyoga: While it could be assumed from your handle that you could be of Japanese descent, it may also just be a handle that you have assumed. In reference to your post about Iraqi jurisdiction over US military personnel, do you know what the situation is in Japan. Who successfully prosecuted the Marine recently for rape?

Was it the Japanese?

When you speak out about the justice of a non-existent status of forces agreement, compare it to status of forces agreements in Japan, Germany, and Korea. Maliki is, of course, trying to look strong to Iraqis.

You would certainly like to see American soldiers imprisoned in Iraqi prisons, wouldn''t you? It would perhaps dissuade a few young men and women from serving in the US Armed Forces, don''t you think?

That''s why the United States will not sacrifice its young men and women to the vagaries of a fledgling Iraqi judicial system and prison system. Americans would never support such an agreement, either.

Nice try, though. Once again, the seeking of a crack to continue to attempt to defame and distract. You are not living in reality, kyoga. Not living in reality is called insanity.

[afghanvet08]

jmkyoga, if you have read the Geneva Conventions, then you know that the protections are against wanton or purposeful destruction, injury and death. Purposely targeting civilians in order to sow terror would be an example of this.

If you have been given the impression that war is surgical, then you need to disabuse yourself of this notion immediately. There is no safety in war. That point is inarguable. The Geneva Conventions recognize this and recognize that, while regretable, there will be civilian casualties when there are civilians on the battlefield. That is why the Geneva and Hague Conventions set a threshold for what is criminal behavior.

What you are doing is unilaterally and without evidence casting about accusations and aspersions about the actions and intentions of people in situations you were not present for nor have any real knowledge of. Your statements are made as a general politically-motivated cry quoting international law of which you demonstrate no knowledge.

Unless you have some kind of proof that there has been specific targeting of civilians, you are simply demonstrating more of the pathological compulsion to defame the administration, the campaign, and specifically GEN Odierno and COL Hort. This type of defamation is inappropriate and amounts to little more than a propagandistic outburst.

[jmkyoga]

Washington Post''s Karen DeYoung, part of a dispatch on the Rule of Law in Iraq as it may affect U.S. personnel, apparently Bush, Petraeus and Odierno aren''t getting the message:

Satterfield and McGurk returned to Baghdad two weeks ago with a new formulation of the U.S. demand that any alleged crime by U.S. defense personnel would be judged by U.S. courts and U.S. law. For major offenses committed off-base and outside U.S. military operations, the Iraqi judiciary would have consultative input.

On Saturday, Maliki outlined a somewhat different position. "If Iraqi and American soldiers move in an operation that is pre-agreed by both sides, then they have immunity unless [an American] commits a deliberate crime during the operation."

"The sticking point," he said, "is about if the American soldier was not on a mission and commits a crime that is accountable to the Iraqi judicial system, whether small or big. The Iraqi judicial system should have jurisdiction over the American soldier. This is the point of difference.""

[jmkyoga]

What is "good" on a battlefield for the armed forces members prosecuting it, may not be good for those--how should we phrase it--neighborhod residents, enclave or slum dwellers--who suffer the devasting after affects.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, article III of all four Geneva Convention, and Protocols I and II specifically, offer the protection of a legal system--universal jurisdiction--that sooner or later may track down for trial in a court of law of perpetrators of military violence against those civilian innocents.

Is there any thing General Odierno or Colonel Hort need to be concerned about from the information carefully divulged to Ms. Stahl? Not likley, since they were specifically not asked by Ms. Stahl--or the questions edited out--about civilian casualties. The 60 Minutes viewer is left to infer that non-combatant deaths were either irrelevant in the context of the U.S. military''s Sadr City attacks or, better yet from the U.S. military propaganda view-point, that the gee-whiz high tech targeting produced so few in number that the were not worth mentioning.

The 60 Minutes reporting--or the lack of reporting--about "substantial" civilian casualties produced by U.S. military actions in Sadr City Iraq, April, 2008, serves only provide cover for top U.S. military commanders in Iraq--Odierno and Hort-- and is therefore, immoral and reprehensible.

[afghanvet08]

Now there are a couple of more comments that demonstrate the type of behavior that I pointed out below. Note that I didn''t say that they were stupid, but there is a form of insanity demonstrated by the irrepressible howls of disapproval at the release of any "good" news about the campaign in Iraq. These people are not in the least bit interested in any successes, and when faced with one will resort to pointing out unknown but "substantial" losses in civilian life.

One of the results of using precision weapons is the minimalization of unintended deaths and injuries. Instead of dropping multiple iron bombs or firing salvoes of artillery or mortars, precision weapons enable the discrete targeting of specific combatants.

The sufferers are not interested in this, either. What they are interested in is any discrediting of either President Bush, the Iraqi Campaign, or, failing that, the United States Armed Forces. This pathological need to decry any progress belies their intentions of being some sort of moral compass and demonstrates that their desire has nothing to do with what good an orderly handover of power would accomplish for the Iraqi people. This need to be right will even cause them to refute those who were actually present during the events described; to the point of insulting either their intelligence, perceptions, or education.

A balanced person would relentlessly seek the input of someone like boberry66, because they would be seeking the truth.

[boberry66]

Notfooled: Because I don''t mention everything I know about Iraq, does not mean that I dont know. I have spent two years of my life in Iraq and sat in briefings everyday about what was going on. Plato stated "Only the Dead have seen the end of War." We have to face that facts that war is not going to go away. War is ugly and unfortunately, civilians are caught up in it. It is unfortunate, but these things happen. I wish I could see our world without war.
Do not think that because I am in the military that I am uneducated to the world around me. I don''t go to nice places in the world that u do, I am an engineer, and luckily because of that, I get to build schools and clinics in many 3rd-World countries. I see the things that you don''t want to.
NotFooled, I am sorry that you put people in the military in a category. But when you look at your children, please remember the two friends that I have lost in combat. Remember, all the men and women that have died honorably so you have the right to put us down.

[jmkyoga]

CBS and Leslie Stahl had no time to mention Iraqi civilian casualties inflicted by U.S. soldiers in their April 2008 weeks long "operation" in Sadr City. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians were estimated to have been killed by U.S. forces in the Sadr City and Basra operations earlier this year, according to Iraqbodycount. The Iraqbodycount single source reporting most likely undercounts casualties by about 80 percent, according to Les Roberts, an epidemiologist specializing in counting the dead in war and author of the most authoritative assessment of post-U.S. invasion mortality in Iraq, published in the British Medical Jourrnal the Lancet in 2004 and 2006.

Perhaps CBS or Ms. Stahl could have interviewed Professor Roberts on his perspective of the potential for civilian casulaties from the hundreds of thousands of not millions of rounds fired into Sadr City earlier this year. But balance or objective journalism was not what Ms. Stahl or CBS was after. They were probably getting a cut of the U.S. military''s Psychological Operations budget to produce a propanda piece, or perhaps I''m being a bit harsh.

Odierno did mutter the pharase "collateral damage" during the piece, but only as a minor interruption for Colonel Hort to expand on the wonders of high-tech targeting systems of groups of Iraqi''s to be later killed in one-fell-swoop by U.S. ordenance.

Ms. Stahl has set a new low for CBS reporting of U.S. involvement in imperial wars (sorry, nation-building with a lot of oil around).

[notfoooldbyw]

Boberry66: They were glad that we were there because they were tired of Sadr''''s Cronies causing problems for their neighborhood.

Mr. Berry has demonstrates that a presence in Iraq does not necessarily leave one with an objective view of what is happening there. General Petreaus has always been careful to praise Sadr and his militia for keeping his end of the ceasefire agreements. Petraeus called the ''bad actors'' in Sadr City, criminal elements not true members of Sadr''s Mahdi Army.

Mr. Berry does not emphasize that the Sadrist movement is also part of Iraq''s parliament. He also doesn''t mention that ISCI (Iran backed big time) was in a pitched battle for Southern Iraq vs the Sadrists.

The ''trouble'' in Sadr City is way to complex to round it down to ''helping'' smiling Iraqis find IED''s. Theres not enough space to go into it here.

But the US military explanations are often ''simplistic'' and geared for one purpose...

Justification the occupation of a Muslim Country where the majority of the the people want us to leave. I do not believe the US Govt Under Bush and Cheney truly want to leave. Ever.

[boberry66]

I completely agree with Afganvet. I too am a veteran of two tours in Iraq. I have two points to make.
One, if you dont know what you are talking about, then don''t bring the intellegence level down on ever person who reads your comments. I was in Sadr City conducting route clearance for the wall. Sadr City is a perfect example of many people living out of fear by an oppressing few. The Civilians pointed out IED''s to us most of the time and we were greeted by waves and smiles daily south of the wall.
They were glad that we were there because they were tired of Sadr''s Cronies causing problems for their neighborhood. They only want to raise their families in the best and safest environment they can like everyone else in the world.
Second, I am tired of regular army officers beating their chests and changing the story around. National Guard cleared the route for the wall supported by tanks and special forces and infantry. National Guard soldiers put the wall up as well, not the good Colonel''s Charlie Company. Lastly, if they had video of placement and the locations of the IED''s, I wish they would have let us in on the secret since we had to clear them.