this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
685 points (99.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
4908 readers
291 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, I think IEDs were the big issue that was scaring the American soldiers. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that the US planners were caught off guard. It might just mean that they thought that an occasional light vehicle taken out by an IED was an acceptable loss.
The number of acceptable losses according to military planners is always going to be much higher than the number of acceptable losses according to the people getting killed. Often the power rests with the planners and the soldiers just have to grumble and accept it. It's interesting that in this case the soldiers were able to make their case so effectively that the military started putting armour on light vehicles, something that's very rarely done.
Lots of people driving "behind the lines" supply routes with vehicles that were never meant to operate under fire or be nimble also got hit.
The US went in thinking that it would be like the Normandy campaign with overall friendly locals.