On Point¶
Fontenot, G., Degen, & Tohn, D. (2004). On Point: The United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Combat Studies Institute Press.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Blue-on-Blue Risk
- After the friendly-fire toll of the 1991 Gulf War, the US Army fielded Blue Force Tracking (the FBCB2 system) at scale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq
Supported in partVerified against the source
- After the friendly-fire toll of the 1991 Gulf War, the US Army fielded Blue Force Tracking (the FBCB2 system) at scale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq
- Maneuver Warfare
- Conventional Iraqi resistance disintegrated in roughly three weeks
This sourceThe official Army account reporting that organised conventional Iraqi resistance was crushed as V Corps transitioned to post-hostilities tasks.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“any organized [conventional] [resistance] was smaller than company-size”
- Conventional Iraqi resistance disintegrated in roughly three weeks
- Operational Pause
- During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, V Corps and the 1 Marine Expeditionary Force drove rapidly toward Baghdad, but around 25–28 March a severe shamal sandstorm arrived just as the supply tail stretched several hundred kilometres back toward Kuwait
This sourceOn Point's characterisation of the late-March halt as a deliberate operational pause rather than a cessation of operations. On Point's timeline, the weather clearing on 28 March 2003 and the final fighting in Baghdad running into early April.
Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source
“the sandstonn of 25-{{{28 March}}} had a significant effect on the pace of”
- During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, V Corps and the 1 Marine Expeditionary Force drove rapidly toward Baghdad, but around 25–28 March a severe shamal sandstorm arrived just as the supply tail stretched several hundred kilometres back toward Kuwait
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 3 of 3 citations: 3 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:17f631d6b23b · see in the full table