THE Pentagon is to set up a task force to investigate why a £3bn investment in methods of defeating roadside bombs in Iraq has resulted in higher American casualties.
Deaths inflicted by improvised roadside devices (IEDs) jumped from 60% to 75% of service personnel falling victim to insurgent action between March and mid-April, despite the introduction of electronic countermeasures designed to block triggering signals.
The booby-traps are also responsible for about 60% of all British casualties, including more than 20 soldiers killed in lightly-armoured Snatch Land Rovers in southern Iraq.
The Senate committee responsible for military spending has expressed concern that the mixed military-industrial anti-bomb team has become secretive and unaccountable.
The Joint IED Defeat Organisation was set up three years ago to combat the rise in booby-trap ambushes. Pentagon officials are now questioning whether expensive hi-tech countermeasures can be the answer to an essentially low-tech problem.
The vast majority of IEDs are still made of old explosives salvaged from looted mortar bombs and artillery shells.
These are often planted in "daisy-chains" using half a dozen rounds to increase the destructive blast and set off using makeshift triggering mechanisms such as garage door remote controls and mobile phone signals.
Electronic jammers used by both US and British forces rely on blocking the frequency of the detonation signal. But it has to jam the exact frequency and is far from guaranteed.
Insurgents are also becoming more adept at hiding the bombs in animal carcasses or in painted polystyrene "rocks".
Retired US Army General Montgomery Meigs, head of the Defeat organisation, said: "In the end, the most effective means of preventing IED deaths is by going after the networks that fund, make and plant them."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article