iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Pentagon Expects More IED Attacks As U.S. Casualties Rise

Pentagonieds

First Posted: 05/10/11 06:50 PM ET Updated: 07/10/11 06:12 AM ET

Despite nearly a decade of costly and sometimes frantic struggle, the United States military has been unable to control the Afghan insurgents' most deadly weapon, the improvised explosive device, or IED. As the war's 10th fighting season opens, casualties are again on the rise, and senior U.S. officials expect the war's grim toll will claim even more dead and wounded.

In his first interview since taking over the Pentagon's counter-IED campaign in March, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Barbero told The Huffington Post he expects increased U.S., allied and Afghan casualties in the coming months as the fighting picks up and dismounted American troops push into areas in southern and eastern Afghanistan against fierce Taliban resistance.

"We're going to have good days and we're going to have bad days,'' said Barbero, a soft-spoken West Point officer with vast combat experience, agreeing that the casualty statistics are "horrifying.'' While Barbero acknowledged the skill needed to assemble and place IEDs, he insisted the growing casualties were not a sign that the insurgents are winning.

"As you put more cops in a bad neighborhood, your crime stats go up,'' he said. "Is the neighborhood safer? Yeah! We're putting in more troops and they are more active, so your contacts [with the enemy] go up. We expect that.''

So far this year, 80 American troops have been killed by IEDs. Since the war began in October, 2001, 980 U.S. troops have been killed by roadside bombs. Thousands more have been severely wounded.

The United States has spent more than $20 billion trying to prevent the damage of these primitive but deadly homemade bombs in Afghanistan. Most of these explosives are made with ammonium nitrate, a common ingredient in fertilizer, that is made in "a couple of factories in Pakistan,'' Barbero said. The compound is packed in bags and carried by donkey cart or truck into Afghanistan. "It's everywhere,'' he said.

Much of the money the United States has spent to protect soldiers from IEDs in Afghanistan has gone to a dizzying array of high-tech devices, ranging from miniature robots to sensors mounted on balloons and unmanned drones, to handheld detectors, ground-penetrating radar and explosive-sniffing dogs.

The key stumbling block, Barbero said, is that soldiers and Marines are not well trained in using these technologies. "We have focused on pushing these equipments and enablers and detectors out to the theater -- and that's the right answer,'' he said. "But that creates a challenge of training.'' In some cases, he said, the first time soldiers and Marines see the new equipment is when they show up for duty in Afghanistan.

Increasingly, American commanders are leaving behind their heavy armored vehicles and instead sending their fighters out on dismounted patrols. This tactic, expanded under the direction of Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, puts the troops at greater risk as they plod across sandy stretches of desert and along narrow dirt paths inside walled villages. But being dismounted also puts soldiers closer to the population and, the theory goes, makes it easier to make friends and pick up intelligence.

"This enemy is savvy and smart,'' he said, and has reacted quickly to a key shift in U.S. tactics: In some cases, troops have had to fight their way through belts of IEDs in order to reach a village. But once they reach key terrain and stay there, local Afghans increasingly tip them off to caches where Taliban fighters have stored explosives, detonators and other weapons. The increased communcation is already paying off, Barbero said, as growing number of IEDs are being discovered before they explode.

Fifty-nine percent of all known IEDs last month were found, either as the result of tips or good detection by U.S. troops, according to Pentagon data. Some IEDs exploded without causing casualties.

But an increasing proportion of the bombs that did detonate killed U.S. and allied troops. Deadly attacks increased from 16 percent of all IED attacks in March to 19 percent in April.

To lessen the risk on these dismounted patrols, the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), the Pentagon agency lead by Barbero, is training soldiers and Marines to know which gear best detects the kinds of IEDs used in different parts of the country, and which detectors work best when mounted on armored vehicles. They are teaching battalion command staffs how to integrate the information from cameras mounted on balloons and UAVs with local tips to identify and track insurgent IED networks: the couriers who bring in the explosive, the bomb-makers who mix and dry the explosive, the financiers and the locals paid to dig in the bombs.

JIEDDO has deployed an IED intelligence analyst with each U.S. combat battalion in Afghanistan, enabling the battle staff to get technical questions answered quickly. The analysts have access to an enormous JIEDDO database of intelligence, gathered from the CIA, the eavesdropping National Security Agency and other spy agencies, to piece together the connections between local IED cells and the insurgent groups that acquire and move large amounts of explosives and blasting caps.

The U.S. counter-IED effort may be increasingly sophisticated, but the bombs themselves remain relatively primitive. They often consist of a buried bucket of explosive, a small battery and a simple trigger fashioned from two sticks and some wire packed in a plastic bottle. The device is detonated when someone steps on the shallow-buried bottle, crushing it and competing the electric circuit. Unlike most of the IEDs in Iraq, which were detonated by an insurgent, the IEDs in Afghanistan are almost always "victim-operated,'' with the insurgents far away.

"It's a tough, dismounted fight,'' said Barbero, who spent 46 months in Iraq and was director of operations there during the 2007 surge ordered by President Bush and carried out by Gen. Petraeus, who was then the top commander in Iraq. Even more than in Iraq, Barbero added, "this is not about IEDs on the battlefield; the IED is the battlefield.''

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

Despite nearly a decade of costly and sometimes frantic struggle, the United States military has been unable to control the Afghan insurgents' most deadly weapon, the improvised explosive device, or I...
Despite nearly a decade of costly and sometimes frantic struggle, the United States military has been unable to control the Afghan insurgents' most deadly weapon, the improvised explosive device, or I...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 560
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (14 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sherrill
05:10 PM on 05/30/2011
When will this STOP How many more of our children need to loss parts of their body before the Government say"Enough is Enough". I just read a article that told of those that have given their lives, along with parts of their body and what did it give them? NOTHING. Bring them home and let the country fight for themselves.
11:03 AM on 05/16/2011
So far this year, 80 American troops have been killed by IEDs. Since the war began in 2001, 980 have been killed by roadside bombs, and thousands more have been critically wounded. While much of the money the U.S. has spent to protect soldiers from IEDs has gone to high-tech devices and explosive-sniffing dogs, DoD and JIEDDO have also invested millions in the commercialization of an engineered skin substitute. This product is saving lives and improving conditions for soldiers returning from theater – a great example how innovation can support humanitarian goals.
06:37 AM on 05/13/2011
IED's don't kill - people kill.
12:46 PM on 05/11/2011
Take teh majority of our troopers out. If requested by teh Afagn Gov, leave a QRF and support for it in tact in country. We have built the facilities already so certianly we canman them. However, the focus of th efight n terror needs to be aimed at the head of the dragon, the terrorist leadership and those who fund them. We do not need 100K troops deployed to take out the leadership. In fact, of all the AQ leaders, very very few have been found in the hills of Afgan/Pakistan. They have been found and killed/caught in large URBAN centers mostly within Pakistan. I say bring the troops home, support AFgan with air, intel, traineing, equipment, and a decent QRF and then turn the special forces loose on whomever our intel locates. Worked really well on OBL and it will work again.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Henssis1
12:37 PM on 05/11/2011
Our soldiers need to come home...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:30 AM on 05/11/2011
The pentagon has the LARGEST YEARLY MILITARY BUDGET ON THE PLANET !!!!.
This cancer - it's what president IKE called them in his farewell speech to the nation in 1960 - eats up more than 46 cents of every dollar collected in tax revenue. One would think, with all of that money, they would be able to hire the very best minds in the country so they could learn to deal with them HOME MADE NICKLE AND DIME IED'S that are taking the lives of our troops.
To the Pentagon I say, it aint good enough to tell the nation, " more of our troops will die " !!!; the time is now to get off your arses and get a Manhattan style project going and render IED'S ABSOLETE .
11:00 AM on 05/11/2011
The Pentagon is larger than the largest corporation in the world.

We ought to split our taxes into tow broad sections: U.S. Domestic and Armed Forces.

This would make people sit up and ask questions that Prez Eisenhower had hoped we would ask.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cherokee1934
11:47 AM on 05/11/2011
I have worked all my life in research in electronics and there is no way in todays world to do what you say. If there was some kind of active electronics buried with the bomb then it could be found. Other wise no.
We may be spending to much on the Military but then that is the reason that we have been as safe, here at home, as we have for the last 70 years.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
missy123
03:25 PM on 05/15/2011
You would think that people would WANT our country to be secure but alas, there are many who could care less!
How and why would anyone want to reduce the defense budget? We need our armed forces now more than anything!
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:20 AM on 05/11/2011
Now this is really sad !, in fact not only sad, but it's also "sorry".
THE PENTAGON : Here we have a spokes-man to the cancer president Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech to the nation back in 1960.
No one was able to cut off their oxygen supply line, and today they eat up more than 46 cents of every tax dollar collected in revenue.
With a yearly budget that are in the Trillions of dollars, one would think they could acquired the best brain money can buy - to deal with and defeat them NICKLE AND DIME HOME MADE IED's that are killing our troops, but instead all we're being told is, more of our troops will die !!!.
This isn't only pathetic but it's sorry !!!!.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jtabs
That one man ...
10:15 AM on 05/11/2011
Here's a novel idea on how to reduce IED attacks, casualties and deaths - GET OUT NOW!.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cherokee1934
11:50 AM on 05/11/2011
AMEN...
photo
prestonsturges
Lights! Camera! Action!
06:03 PM on 05/11/2011
Indeed!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
myrtle1909
I am an artist and a free lance writer
10:14 AM on 05/11/2011
Why are we sending soldiers into a country with IED's who have not been trained about them???
We need to bring our soldiers home. These wars should end there is no money to continue them if as Boehner says the government is broke.
11:54 AM on 05/11/2011
In your vast military experience as an artist/free lance writer, were you ever in the training programs for IEDs? We are trained to deal with them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:12 AM on 05/11/2011
A retired Marine General ( sorry, I don't recall his name ) once said, there are only 2 wars worth fighting for : " an invasion to the nation and defendingthe constitution. Everything else is just a racket !!! ".
I have grown old watching our nation fight what has now become " the Other Forgotten War" - the war on drugs; this is a war that's been going on in excess of 30 years. Millions of brown people stay on earth was cut short because of this war, the Military Industrial Complex has made tons of OUR tax dollars ( more than a Trillion spent ) in the process, but...; ARE WE WINNING YET ????.
Now added to the mix are the war on terror; this one is certainly eating up our tax dollars at a rapid pace - already 1 Trillion spent in as little as 10 years.
It's important to know history cuz, by knowing history, one never makes the SAME mistakes of the past. Any history book will tell you, fighting so-called-wars of Ideas, in Afghanistan, broke the former Soviet Union and one needs NOT have an IQ of 160 to see, it's not only wasting the lives of our youth, but it is also rendering our nation broke.
Afghanistan may be important to our oil Industry - they expect oil lines to eventually pass through there , and THAT is what our government conceals when they say, our national interests in the region.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mobilemed2000
Gitterdun Now
10:11 AM on 05/11/2011
A lot of these waterheads still blame Bush for Afghanistan. Why does Obama keep us there?
It not just a simple matter of pulling out and letting Al Quida and Taliban take over. If that happens, they would have an untethered training ground for terrorists that would scatter throughout the world. Secondly, Afghanistan was one of the world's larges supplier of opium. It was a chief component of their economy. We have curtailed its production. Thirdly, although Pakistan is corrupt, virtually anti-American in spite of our economic aid, and guilty of hosting terrorist activity, we maintain diplomatic relations with them because they're a nuclear power. If we cut off Pakistan, China steps in. Our bases in Afganistan allow us quick access to Pakistan if they decide to go to war with India...another nuclear power and our ally. In the long run, we ARE there to make the world a safer place. Bottom line is...there isn't anyone else willing to do it. China is the only other country with the capability...but they haven't been attacked YET. So they have no motivation. Terrorists are smart enough not to antagonize two superpowers. As a former combat vet...Viet Nam....I was in a war that was useless and only benefited business entities catering to war support. Yet we did our jobs. Afghanistan has a purpose. Sadly, freedom still rests on our shoulders. But...then again....we ARE the best.
10:46 AM on 05/11/2011
Well said sir. Being that we're in the Huffington Post site, there are too many soft skinned Libs to understand the necessary sacrifices we make. Half of them are born from fear of a war they are not fighting.
Frankling
Fruit don't talk. Fruit just listens...and waits.
09:59 AM on 05/11/2011
Fertilizer based bombs? If they really want a solution to that, they would go after Monsanto, but with the monopoly that Monsanto has on global agriculture, our military industrial sector probably doesn't have enough juice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blkbrdsr71
Proud American Citizen
09:58 AM on 05/11/2011
The U.S. will not be leaving afganistan anytime soon. Reports have estimated 1 trillion dollars worth of rare and heavy metals including lithium, copper and iron beneath the feet of our soliders. China is already attempting to gain majority rights to mine these minerals as they have already done in Canada and the U.S.. This would allow them to prohibit or restrict quantities for export of said minerals, which are used in every aspect of industry including military weapons. What makes matters even worse is the fact that China is not an enemy of the taliban allowing them a better negotiating position than we would have. Last but not least is oil. Sad but true is the fact that what comes out of the ground, is more important to past and present administrations than the blood of young Americans being soaked up like a sponge into that ground. Just a thought.
10:04 AM on 05/11/2011
A trillion? We have spent that already and more...I would rather let China mine the stuff and put the money spent in Afgan, 2 billion a week, on killing dirt bag leadship personal and tracking where their funding comes from, and killing those people as well. Kill the leaders and soon or later they will run out of people with talent willing to lead. Kill those who provide funding and soon no one will provide funding...that is when we win
10:07 AM on 05/11/2011
blkbrd good points. I want to add a minor point that should not detract from yours but there is no "war on terror." When my wife drives our car, I feel terror but that does not make my wife a terrorist.
Bush could no say the word terrorism. There is a "war on terrorism." But not on my wife.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:57 AM on 05/11/2011
I believe that there is a common misconception when people talk about this war. I am a current soldier in the Army, so allow me to shed some light for some of you who do not understand why the U.S. military is still in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe most people are getting confused by term "War", the problem being we are not actually at war with another country's military but rather an idea. The War on Terror is exactly like the War on Drugs. The Two are ongoing operations that will never end so long as there are drugs and terrorism. The misconception is that the U.S. is fighting a country which is not true. The truth is that in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. military is combating terrorism which probably makes up for less then 1% of the population. It is unfortunate that news never shows how much good that we have done and still do for them. These people now have schools, eletricity, roads, and more that they have never had before. Some people would argue that we should be putting that money into the U.S. (and I would probably agree with you) but thats a different topic on it's own. I just hope that people understand that we are fighting a idea more than anything and it is always going to be a ongoing effort so long as there is terrorism. Well thats all I have, Army Strong!!!
10:28 AM on 05/11/2011
As noble as those thoughts are there are critical problems here in our own country inasmuch we are surrendering a great deal of our liberties, economy, and national treasure not to mention the loss of life in the militiary. In a few short years we will be so indebted to foreign powers that we will in fact be a conquered nation. Afghanistan has extensive natural resources which they themselves could develope if they wished. America's future seems to be one of slowly mortgaging ouselves to the Chinese.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
blkbrdsr71
Proud American Citizen
10:48 AM on 05/11/2011
You state we are not actually at war, I state to you that the bullets are actually real and americans are actually being killed. By definition war is any act of hostility between or among nations or states or parties carried on by force and with arms. Fighting terror and drugs is like trying to fight casper the ghost it vanishes and reappears whenever and wherever. This is a no win situation. Just like when the government finds a new way to tax americans and then state it will only last for a little while. Can you say forever!