Editors’ Blog - 2007
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.
02.07.07 | 11:34 pm
The Times has a

The Times has a further update on that rash of downed US military helicopters in Iraq. It turns out that in addition to today’s apparent shoot-down of a CH-46 Sea Knight north of Baghdad, there was another as-yet unreported incident on January 31st in which a private security’s firms helicopter working on behalf of the State Department was shot down on a flight from Hilla to Baghdad. Fortunately, no one flying on that helicopter seems to have been killed. And another helicopter swooped down a short time later and evacuated the survivors of the crash.

That brings to six the number of US military or de facto US military (i.e., private security firm helicopters) shot down in Iraq in little more than two weeks.

There seems little doubt now that this is more than a statistical anomaly. But investigators still don’t seem to have a clear grasp of what’s happening. The one piece of information that appears relative clear is that this is not being caused by new weaponry. It’s been accomplished with high-caliber machine gun fire in most or all cases. The insurgents are just getting better, or more aggressive, or more ominously, they’re getting better at knowing where the helicopters are going to be.

Notes the Times: “Historically, improved tactics in shooting down helicopters have proved to be important factors in conflicts in which guerrillas have achieved victories against major powers, including battles in Somalia, Afghanistan and Vietnam.”

Late Update: On the general topic of helicopters, in this case attack helicopters, see this 2003 article by Fred Kaplan in Slate on the history of the attack helicopter, how well or poorly they work, and how the Army/Air Force rivalry played into the equation.

02.08.07 | 12:14 am
Fourth trys the charm

Fourth try’s the charm? From the WSJ: “U.S. officials are working to spare Saddam Hussein’s former vice president from a rapid trip to the Iraqi gallows, fearful that his execution, following the flawed hangings of Mr. Hussein and a co-defendant, could further damage the credibility of the American-backed government.”

02.08.07 | 8:37 am
Todays Must Read Vanity

Today’s Must Read: Vanity Fair on whether the administration is planning on war with Iran.

02.08.07 | 9:13 am
CNN headline Libby defense

CNN headline: “Libby defense to challenge Russert’s credibility.”

Join the club.

02.08.07 | 9:51 am
Rothenberg Dems likely to

Rothenberg: Dems likely to defy history, hold House majority in ’08.

02.08.07 | 10:01 am
Condi explains what the

Condi explains what the State Department is doing to fix Iraq.

02.08.07 | 10:09 am
Ive given a lot

I’ve given a lot of virtual ink to this Pelosi-jets story. So let me point out this AP story on the issue, which is vastly better than what we’ve seen from all the cable nets and most of the rest of the media. Not perfect but it puts in context the essential issue — that Pelosi wants a jet that can carry enough fuel to reach California.

02.08.07 | 10:55 am
Breaking The Edwards campaign

Breaking: The Edwards campaign has just released statements from him and the two bloggers at the center of the controversy, and it looks like they’re going to survive.

Read the statements here.

02.08.07 | 11:13 am
Condi Rices memory goes

Condi Rice’s memory goes all hazy on Iran’s grand diplomatic overture in 2003.

02.08.07 | 12:33 pm
Pelosi from last night

Pelosi from last night on Fox

They told me the first day that I was supposed to go that I couldn’t make it across the country. And I said well, that’s fine, I’m going commercial. … I’m not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you’re going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I’m going home to my family. … I’m happy to go commercial. But they want me to go on this plane, so the issue was distance, not size. And again, it’s not about having a plane. It’s about having transportation. These planes are used for other purposes in between trips, which are, you know, take place once or twice a week, going or coming. So, it isn’t about that. But there are probably those in the Department of Defense who are not happy with my criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld, the war in Iraq, other waste, fraud and abuse in the Defense Department and I guess this is their way of making their voices heard. But it has nothing to do, as I say, with the president of the United States. He has encouraged my having the security I need.

A decent start. Let’s see what Blitzer, Tapper and the rest do with it.