Recently, the enemy struck with 50 and 200 (tip to Weekly Standard).
The 50-man strike:
About 50 suspected insurgents attacked a U.S. base in the center of a city north of the capital Friday, sparking a battle with U.S. soldiers and helicopters that killed at least six militants, the Iraqi army said.
I will say that I briefly heard a report that denied this attack took place, so I'll watch for anthing on this.
The other was in Mosul:
Around 200 gunmen attacked a police station triggering clashes with police forces killing 15 militants.
These still seem to be rare. And neither succeeded in hurting American troops or Iraqi troops or police. Everyone stood their ground and the enemy lost the battles handily. Indeed, in the first noted fight, the enemy stupidly hung around long enough for us to bring aircraft into the fight.
While it would certainly help the enemy to pick off our (Iraqi and Coalition) outposts, it is foolish for the enemy to linger and fight if the initial attack fails to overrun the outpost. That just gives us the chance to bring in reinforcements and fight back.
Also, the low body count for the enemy in the attacks indicates a certain lack of commitment to winning. It sounds like the enemy got within rifle range of the outposts and just started taking shots at the friendlies with no real intention to overrun the bases. While I would certainly celebrate high casualties for the enemy, an assault that failed yet pressed home at the cost of high casualties would indicate a level of morale that would be more worrisome than the simple fact that the enemy massed to attack.
After over four years of war, the fact that the enemy hasn't been able to really hurt us in our bases or outposts remains surprising to me. I've been braced for actual battlefield defeats on occasion, but this has not happened to us and hasn't happened to the Iraqis since about December 2004 when a number of police posts in Mosul just collapsed under enemy attack.
These guys are losing. And we are winning. Try not to lose sight of this basic trend.
UPDATE: More on the Mosul attacks. The Iraqis did a good job.
UPDATE: Strategypage writes about our ability to build defensive outposts as a reason for the enemy's inability to hit our bases hard enough to really hurt us. We've gotten good at building them:
The development of all these security technologies, while expensive, has brought
the casualties, from successful attacks on bases, including FOBs, down to the lowest levels in history.
I'll add that this is like the Roman system of digging in every day when they stopped marching for the day. Our troop quality is the main reason for our ability to defend these bases, however. The technology and designs are just bonuses that enhance the effect of our training and experience.
