Terrorists Tie Bomb Belt to Dog in Iraq

Iraqi terrorists used a booby-trapped dog in an unsuccessful atempt to blow up a military convoy near Kirkuk.

Terrorists tie bomb belt to dog in Iraq (London Daily Telegraph)

Insurgents in Iraq attached explosives to a dog and tried to blow up a military convoy near the northern oil centre of Kirkuk. The canine bomb went off but the only casualty was the unfortunate animal, said police. The militants wrapped an explosive belt around the dog and detonated it as the convoy passed through Dakuk, 25 miles south of Kirkuk, said the town’s police chief, Col Mohammed Barzaji. “The dog was torn apart by the explosion which caused neither injury among the soldiers nor any damage.” Col Barzaji said the bomb had been detonated outside a Shia mosque. “Eight suspects have been detained.”

This was not the first time that animals have been used in insurgent attacks. In 2003, donkey carts were used to conceal makeshift multiple rocket launchers in a flurry of attacks in Baghdad. Animal carcasses and human corpses have been used to conceal explosives.

Ironically, this type of thing might actually generate some outrage from some quarters in the West that seem unwilling to categorize those who strap bombs to people as “terrorists.”

FILED UNDER: Terrorism, Uncategorized, , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Jim Henley says:

    What abot when American intelligence agencies tried to use dolphins to blow up the President, huh? Huh??

  2. Just Me says:

    Naw, PETA et al might be outraged, but they will say it was actually Rove’s idea.

    Although, seems to me making suicide dogs speaks to how poorly the insurgent/terrorist movement is doing on recruitment in Iraq.

  3. ICallMasICM says:

    What a thing for a man to do to man’s best friend.

  4. LJD says:

    At least he will get his 69 bitches….

  5. DC Loser says:

    I think dogs carrying explosives have been used since WWI.

  6. McGehee says:

    What abot when American intelligence agencies tried to use dolphins to blow up the President, huh? Huh??


  7. Lurking Observer says:

    DC Loser:

    The Soviets used “mine dogs” against German tanks in several documented instances. They were marginal successes, but were primarily desperation weapons.

    Which suggests that the terrorists/insurgents may well be having problems of their own in Iraq.

    The decision to use such weapons (little emotional impact, since dogs are viewed as unclean) is driven by one of several possible factors:

    1. Our forces have become very good at detecting suicide bombers, marginalizing their effectiveness.

    2. The jihadis are running out of people to volunteer.

    3. The jihadis have concluded that use of alternative delivery methods is good for reasons apart from “2” and “3” (frex, inspires outrage by American viewers, complicates US targeting).

    If either “1” or “2” are primary considerations, then this provides additional evidence that the war is being won in Iraq, and is being won by our side.

  8. DC Loser says:

    Don’t try to read too much into this. I see this as part of the constant cat and mouse adjustment of tactics, techniques, and procedures to adapt to changing circumstances. Notice the higher U.S. casualty rates these past few weeks, and they’re still not running out of people willing to set off suicide car bombs. We already know the insurgents are quite adapt at adjusting their tactics and weaponry to adjust to our forces, so this type of “innovation” shouldn’t be read as pure desperation.

  9. Jim Henley says:

    this type of “innovation” shouldn’t be read as pure desperation.

    Wrong! If attacks go up, they’re desperate. If attacks go down, they’re beaten. It attacks stay the same, they’re stagnating. If attacks flutter randomly up and down, they’ve lost direction.

  10. Lurking Observer says:

    Jim Henley:

    I take it you subscribe to the opposite view: If the attacks go up, they’re winning. If they’re going down, they’re conserving their forces. If attacks stay the same, we’re stagnating. If attacks flutter randomly up and down, then Rummy has no idea what to do?

    DC Loser:

    Yes, that’s why I suggested that there are several possible reasons for this (and notice they are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Both sides are adapting and evolving. Nor did I mean to suggest that it necessarily is desperation, just that if the reasons for the change (as opposed to the change itself) are due to certain factors, then it is desperation.

    So far, though, no one has seen fit to inform me, at least, as to why they might be changing tactics, hence the menu of possible rationales.

  11. Jim Henley says:

    Lurk: Not necessarily. I think a combination of military and political moves may well have “beaten” Sadrism, in the sense that we (and Sistani et al) may have convinced Muqtada more or less permanently to pursue politics rather than war. On the question of the lack of an al Qaeda attack within the territorial US in the last four years I’m agnostic: the general pattern has always been that it takes many years for AQ to pull off a US operation. I’ve come around to Gene Healy’s theory that AQ got lucky in 2001 and was never that formidable an organization to begin with, AND they’ve been hammered pretty well in Afghanistan and Pakistan to boot. With the Sunni-inflected Iraqi insurgency, however, the record seems to show that, indeed, quiet periods represent mere rest and tuning up, while active periods are each more sophisticated and wider-scaled than in the past. Given that an irregular war force wins by not losing, my conclusion is indeed as you say.

    I believe I come in at 1.5 out of 3 test cases on your accusation, then.