Surge of danger for U.S. troops

Jan. 22, 2007 | As 21,500 more young Americans begin deploying to Iraq on President Bush's orders, U.S. troops there are facing an escalating threat from improvised explosive devices. The devices, commonly called IEDs or roadside bombs, continue to plague U.S. military operations in Iraq, despite an ongoing multibillion-dollar effort by the Pentagon to counter the threat. And there is growing pessimism among U.S. soldiers and military analysts that the scourge of IEDs can actually be overcome.

The trend lines of the problem have gone from bad to worse. During the first two years of the war, IEDs accounted for just over 20 percent of all U.S. soldier deaths. Over the past year, that percentage has been about 50 percent, according to data compiled by the Brookings Institution. In addition, half of all U.S. soldier injuries in Iraq are caused by IEDs.

In 2005, as the insurgency in Iraq grew, about 50 percent of all attacks against U.S. and coalition forces were from IEDs. By late 2006, that percentage surged to about 75 percent. In October, there were an average of 82 IED attacks per day against U.S. forces -- a record high for the war. Salon obtained the late-2006 data from a source who works directly on the IED problem for the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), the agency set up by the Pentagon to fight the problem. The source asked not to be identified because he is not authorized to speak to the press.

IEDs are the insurgents' weapon of choice for two reasons: They are effective, and they allow the insurgents to attack U.S. forces with minimal risk to themselves. Although the Pentagon has spent billions on "up-armoring" vehicles and deploying various technologies -- including electronic jammers to prevent detonation of IEDs -- the military's efforts are "having absolutely no effect," the source told Salon. "The trend line hasn't changed one iota," he added, calling the military's track record of protecting U.S. troops from IEDs "criminal."

In an interview, Brig. Gen. Dan Allyn, deputy director of operations for the JIEDDO, defended the Pentagon's efforts to combat the IED threat and asserted that some progress has been made. But several military experts, including officers who have served in Iraq, say that the Pentagon has not been able to effectively counter the deadly devices. Moreover, the IED problem may well continue to grow in magnitude. The potency of the threat continues to force the U.S. military to spend heavily on protective efforts that are often contradictory and cumbersome. Meanwhile, insurgents are using larger numbers of a deadlier type of IED, known as an "explosively formed projectile" (EFP), that can pierce almost any type of armor.

There are many reasons why the United States has met with disaster in Iraq. At the top of the list: terrible postwar planning, lack of knowledge of Iraqi/Arab culture and the failure of America's occupying forces to control Iraq's oil sector. But on the most basic tactical level, America has been drubbed in Iraq because it hasn't been able to counter the IEDs.

They are essentially the same weapon that Lawrence of Arabia used against the Turks during the Arab Revolt of 1916 to 1918. In his memoir, "Seven Pillars of Wisdom," published in 1922, T.E. Lawrence, the British army officer who helped lead the revolt, wrote that his use of roadside bombs made traveling "an uncertain terror for the enemy." Back then, Lawrence and his men targeted trains; today, hidden explosives are being used by insurgents to target the U.S. military's Humvees and other vehicles.

Their deadly effectiveness can be seen on almost any day of the week. Consider Dec. 6, the same day that the Iraq Study Group released its long-awaited report offering suggestions to the Bush administration about what it should do in Iraq. On that day, 11 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq. Seven of them were killed by IEDs.

Perhaps the most obvious example of the military's anti-IED effort is the increased application of armor to its vast fleet of vehicles in Iraq and Kuwait. That armor helps protect soldiers, but it has other, deleterious effects: It makes the vehicles heavier, slower and less stable. It increases the wear and tear on tires and other parts, and increases fuel consumption. That increased fuel load means that the U.S. military must use more trucks to import fuel from Kuwait. In turn, the increased number of fuel trucks provides more targets for insurgents and their IEDs. Furthermore, the added armor has made military vehicles more prone to accidents. As reported by the Dayton Daily News last year, the M1114, the up-armored Humvee used by the military in Iraq, has been involved in dozens of fatal rollover accidents.

Improved explosive devices have also forced the U.S. military to deploy dozens of huge IED-handling trucks, called the Buffalo -- a 32-foot-long, rubber-tired vehicle equipped with a remote-operated steel arm for handling ordnance. The vehicle has proved effective in dealing with IEDs, but it's expensive, weighs more than 14 Toyota Camrys and gets -- at best -- about four miles per gallon.

There is other fallout from the IED problem. The military has found that jammers used to prevent IEDs from being detonated through the use of walkie-talkies, cellphones and other devices are, in some cases, also jamming its own communications. That has forced the military to sink more money into defense contracts for developing software and devices that allow the jammers to function while still allowing soldiers to use their radios and other communications gear. On a personnel level, the IED threat has forced the military to equip individual soldiers with bulkier, heavier body armor.

There is also psychological fallout from IEDs. "They generate fear," says G.I. Wilson, a former Marine Corps colonel who served 28 years on active duty (including 15 months fighting in Iraq in 2004 and 2005) and has written extensively on insurgent warfare. The constant threat of being hit by an IED "creates heightened states of arousal which makes soldiers react in abnormal ways. They can't think clearly because they are all jazzed up," he explains.

Fear and frustration apparently fueled atrocities allegedly committed by U.S. Marines in Iraq. In December 2006, four U.S. Marines were charged with murder after they reportedly went on a rampage in November 2005 in Haditha, leaving two dozen Iraqi civilians dead. A key part of the Haditha story is that just before the Marines from Kilo Company allegedly began shooting the civilians, their four-vehicle convoy was hit by an IED. That attack killed a member of Kilo Company's team, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas. The Marines had been stationed in Haditha for weeks, constantly facing the IED threat. The insurgents were getting ever bolder in planting their bombs -- sometimes planting new IEDs just after the Marines had passed through an area.

The psychological impact of the IED threat in fact played a part in one of the worst atrocities in the history of the U.S. military: the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. In the weeks before Lt. William Calley and the other soldiers killed as many as 500 civilians in the Vietnamese village, their company had been hit several times by mines and booby traps.

IEDs also increase distrust between U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians -- and that decreases the likelihood that the U.S. will be able to mount an effective counterinsurgency effort, which requires effective interaction with and intelligence gathering among the local population.

Next page: Over the past year, attacks with a deadlier type of IED have more than doubled