Losing by the Numbers

[RickSp]

The issue is not whether or not we pull out of Iraq, the issue is how we do it before we are thrown out. We are losing the war.

The United States is steadily losing ground to the Iraqi insurgency, according to every key military yardstick. A Knight Ridder analysis of U.S. government statistics shows that through all the major turning points that raised hopes of peace in Iraq, including the arrest of Saddam Hussein and the handover of sovereignty at the end of June, the insurgency, led mainly by Sunni Muslims, has become deadlier and more effective. The analysis suggests that unless something dramatic changes - such as a newfound will by Iraqis to reject the insurgency or a large escalation of U.S. troop strength - the United States won't win the war. It's axiomatic among military thinkers that insurgencies are especially hard to defeat because the insurgents' goal isn't to win in a conventional sense but merely to survive until the will of the occupying power is sapped. Recent polls already suggest an erosion of support among Americans for the war.

Analysis: Iraqi insurgency growing larger, more effective

Here are the base data, if anyone is interested.
IRAQ INDEX - Tracking Reconstruction and Security in Post-Saddam Iraq

[bishop]

thanks for that second link.. i like numbers, tells more than what any reporter can conjure up.

there's definitely a clear trend in the insurrectionists' strengths. if you compare both the trends seen in soldiers killed and wounded, it's clear that we're increasingly under attack. or just go to page 14 and it's crystal clear. plus, our target goal of trained iraqi troops is only 1/3 complete.. amazing. and even if you include all the military forces, we aren't even close to 50% yet. then you got the socio-economic numbers. the current availability of electricity is about 50% of pre-war levels. same holds for oil - ironic how a country awash in oil would have oil shortages. their dinar has been pummelled (since we allowed it to be traded on the FX market), being devalued by some 40% - imagine what that must be doing to inflation! and 30-40% unemployment = LOTS of people available to join the insurgency. and those polls... especially the sunni areas..

when you have a 20% approval rating, no jobs, no electricity and inflation up the ass - it's clear that no amount of wishful thinking will cause improvement in the sunni regions. nor will continued aggression on our part.

It's axiomatic among military thinkers that insurgencies are especially hard to defeat because the insurgents' goal isn't to win in a conventional sense but merely to survive until the will of the occupying power is sapped. Recent polls already suggest an erosion of support among Americans for the war.

no doubt about that. these sunnis loathe us, and the reality is that they will continue to fight until we leave. one thing that troubles me is that bush has no regard for public support, and now he doesn't even need it. not to mention that the party faithful give him kudos when he does, what he proclaims as "doing what's right", against voices of criticism or reason. he's looking to win his legacy in these four years, and for that we should be very afraid.

i'm stuck on the notion that he will use iraq and afghanistan as staging grounds for invading iran..

[RickSp]

i'm stuck on the notion that he will use iraq and afghanistan as staging grounds for invading iran..

My doomsday scenario is that Israel will attack first with planes and sub launched cruise missles "in self defense" in which case the US will "have no choice" but to come to Israel's aid. How the US will come up with the necessary troops is beyond me. The Iranians have an army of 350,000 or so, if I am not mistaken, and they are less likely to fold like Saddam's rag tag force. It also seems likely that the Iraqi Shi'ite will come to the support of their Shi'ite Persian brethern. Short of trying to create some sort of end-time Armegedon, none of this makes any sense. The end-timer scenario is merely madness.

John Adams said that all democracies commit suicide. George Bush seems determined to help us along.

[Comrade]

Numbers in non-Western armies have little to do with their effectiveness when fighting Western armies, even with Western equipment. Just so long as the Western army fighting them has any comparable strength at all (even lower than a 1/3), we always win in a pitched battle.
You should read Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson. He does a good job with that.

You also might want to update your doomsday scenario, it looks like it was written by a 16 year old or Tom Clancy.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Comrade Numbers in non-Western armies have little to do with their effectiveness when fighting Western armies, even with Western equipment. Just so long as the Western army fighting them has any comparable strength at all (even lower than a 1/3), we always win in a pitched battle. You should read Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson. He does a good job with that. You also might want to update your doomsday scenario, it looks like it was written by a 16 year old or Tom Clancy.

Sure, that's why the 170,000 US and coalition troops fighting against an estimated 20,000 or so insurgents have managed to make Iraq such an island of tranquilty. Your arrogance is far more impressive than your math skills.

[Comrade]

Thanks for reading my post and the whole "pitched battle" thing, genius.

We defeated the Iraqi army in open battle in how many days, in BOTH wars?

[bishop]

there are only two things that would worry me when it comes to the iranians.. one, that they have nukes. and two, the notion that we would go to war there and have to act as occupiers.

i agree with comrade... numbers aren't all that significant to me either. a couple daisy cutter carpet bombings and that 350,000 number will be wittled down very fast. i'll doubt a lot of things, but not the capability of our military to kill the enemy. that's as certain as it gets imo.

but, should israel launch a pre-emptive attack of their own (which i doubt they'd do), then we're definitely in some deeeep shit. should that happen, we'd most likely fight iran and toss the iraqis the keys to their security and say "good luck, we're out of here".

[Comrade]

Quote by: RickSp Sure, that's why the 170,000 US and coalition troops fighting against an estimated 20,000 or so insurgents have managed to make Iraq such an island of tranquilty. Your arrogance is far more impressive than your math skills.

And by the way, how many of the Iraqi provinces are "go zones" ? You might want to look that up.

But, Comrade, you mean nearly all of the fighting is confined to three or four provinces in the Sunni Triangle?

[bishop]

rick.. i think you need to separate the guerilla war from traditional modern warfare.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop rick.. i think you need to separate the guerilla war from traditional modern warfare.

Why? " Traditional modern warfare" means something only if both sides agree to play. The war was hardly over when the mad King declared "mission accomplished." Perhaps Comrade believes that we are not still fighting the soldiers of the Iraqi army but I doubt that a bunch of wholly untrained insurgents could mount coordinated attacks across the breadth of Iraq as is happening daily.

Comrade's so called "go-zones" are largely desert. The four provinces where the war is raging, constitute over 50% of the population.

How many days did it take to defeat the Iraqi army, Comrade? 137 American soldiers died in the early battles. 1234 have died since. Your "pitched battle" nonsense means almost nothing. Taking territory that you can't hold also means very little. The British won virtually every battle in their North American colonies but lost the war. We won every battle in Vietnam. We are losing the Iraq war that Comrade now claims we won.

[Comrade]

Quote by: RickSp Why? " Traditional modern warfare" means something only if both sides agree to play. The war was hardly over when the mad King declared "mission accomplished." Perhaps Comrade believes that we are not still fighting the soldiers of the Iraqi army but I doubt that a bunch of wholly untrained insurgents could mount coordinated attacks across the breadth of Iraq as is happening daily. Comrade's so called "go-zones" are largely desert. The four provinces where the war is raging, constitute over 50% of the population. How many days did it take to defeat the Iraqi army, Comrade? 137 American soldiers died in the early battles. 1234 have died since. Your "pitched battle" nonsense means almost nothing. Taking territory that you can't hold also means very little. The British won virtually every battle in their North American colonies but lost the war. We won every battle in Vietnam. We are losing the Iraq war that Comrade now claims we won.

My pitched battle nonsense means nothing?
Weren't you the one saying that we couldn't take Iran because it had a big army and we wouldn't be able to bring up enough soldiers to defeat it?

And yes, I do not believe that it is only or mostly or even 1/2 Iraqi soldiers that are fighting us. Unless they all just happened to live in the Sunni Triangle.
You don't think that civilians can "coordinate"? Zarqawi and Sadr did a pretty good job organizing their own militias. I really can't help you with yourself there.

Secondly, your American Revolution example.
Thanks for again reading my post and the part where I said, "Where Westerners fight non-Westerners."
What is with you?

[bishop]

your argument isn't convincing at all. before bush's famous speech on the aircraft carrier, we warred with tens of thousands (maybe hundreds?) of iraqis. we killed them in very short order. the difference then, compared to now, is that we weren't fighting a guerilla war. the only reason why we're fighting this guerilla war, i should add, is because we had to stay around to pick up the pieces. should we go to war with iran, we would defeat their military quite easily - but conquering/occupying the country/nation is a completely different story.

if we were in full-blown war with iran, we wouldn't consider civilian casualties, especially with such a large army poised against us. not that we'd target them, but we sure as hell won't go through the effort to protect them from our fire. now, if we were to occupy iran, again, that's a totally different story.

the size of iran's army is largely meaningless. if numbers mattered, then 350,000 people throwing stones would constitute a major threat.

[Comrade]

I wasn't arguing for an invasion of Iran. I am not convinced that there needs to be in an invasion of Iran.

I was contending his idea that we couldn't defeat the Iranian army because of its size.

[bishop]

i was replying to rick's post.. sorry for the confusion.

[Comrade]

my bad :)

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop your argument isn't convincing at all. before bush's famous speech on the aircraft carrier, we warred with tens of thousands (maybe hundreds?) of iraqis. we killed them in very short order. the difference then, compared to now, is that we weren't fighting a guerilla war. the only reason why we're fighting this guerilla war, i should add, is because we had to stay around to pick up the pieces. should we go to war with iran, we would defeat their military quite easily - but conquering/occupying the country/nation is a completely different story. if we were in full-blown war with iran, we wouldn't consider civilian casualties, especially with such a large army poised against us. not that we'd target them, but we sure as hell won't go through the effort to protect them from our fire. now, if we were to occupy iran, again, that's a totally different story. the size of iran's army is largely meaningless. if numbers mattered, then 350,000 people throwing stones would constitute a major threat.

Bishop,

Does it really make any difference to whom or how we lose a war? If the Iranians folded like Saddam's armies are you suggesting that we would have any less trouble securing a country with three times the population of Iraq? (Some neo-cons are predicting a popular revolution against the mullahs, as if being invaded by a foreign aggressor isn't an effective unifying force. I'm sure they are the same folks who predicted our cakewalk in Iraq or being greated with flowers and not IEDs.) Even if we defeated the Iranian Army, it is highly unlikely that we could win the war.

Of course there is no suggestion that the Iranian army would collapse. They did reasonably well against Saddam when he was much stronger and they were far weaker. The size of Iran's army is meaningless only if you don't have to fight it.

[Comrade]

There isn't going to be an invasion of Iran, and nobody here was saying that we need one. If the evil neocons think theres going to be a popular uprising against the mullahs, why would they invade?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Comrade There isn't going to be an invasion of Iran, and nobody here was saying that we need one. If the evil neocons think theres going to be a popular uprising against the mullahs, why would they invade?

So now you speak for George Bush. Good to know.

[bishop]

Does it really make any difference to whom or how we lose a war? If the Iranians folded like Saddam's armies are you suggesting that we would have any less trouble securing a country with three times the population of Iraq? (Some neo-cons are predicting a popular revolution against the mullahs, as if being invaded by a foreign aggressor isn't an effective unifying force. I'm sure they are the same folks who predicted our cakewalk in Iraq or being greated with flowers and not IEDs.) Even if we defeated the Iranian Army, it is highly unlikely that we could win the war. Of course there is no suggestion that the Iranian army would collapse. They did reasonably well against Saddam when he was much stronger and they were far weaker. The size of Iran's army is meaningless only if you don't have to fight it.

heh.. i think you need to chill a little man.

all i'm saying is that we could beat the iranian army as we did the iraqi army. i didn't suggest that we could successfully occupy iran. we're getting our butts kicked in iraq, so why would i think that iran would be doable?


comrade... the neocons are thinking about invading iran.. check their think tanks and you'll see them openly debating it - under the guise of defending ourselves (read: israel) from iranian nukes.

[Comrade]

Of course they are debating it.
We had nuclear first strike plans against the Soviet Union, as well.
I meant nobody in this thread.