NationStates Jolt Archive

I admit that I myself am not very knowlegable on the subject of Iraq, but it seems to me that America is suffering huge numbers of casualties while other nations in the coalition are not. At first I thought it was just a question of numbers but after a year in Iraq, American casualties are nearing 1000 while the other nations put together dont even reach 100. Has this got something to do with the way the American military is operating itslef in Iraq?

There are a number of potential answers. One is that American troops are targetted more than those of other nations. Another is that American troops are less well trained and therefor more likely to get themselves killed in combat than those of other nations. And another is that American troops go into the more dangerous parts of Iraq than troops from other nations, and are therefor more likely to see combat.

I agree though, that the numbers are different enough that it can't be just coincidence.

Because most other nations have less troops, they only have their really crack troops there.

There are over 130,000 Americans in Iraq, and not much more than 20,000 of everyone else. And half of them aren't combat troops, so they never go into the danger zones. It's not surprising then that the ratios are so skewed.

TG has a point: most of non-U.S. troops in Iraq are there in non-combat roles. The two exeptions to this generalisation are the Brits and the Polacks. How do they keep their casualties low? -- Presumably by largely refraining from house-to-house searches, from sticking toilet plungers up ar$es, and from invading holy sites. Oh, I reckon not announcing any plans for British or Polish military bases to be located in Iraq for years to come -- or for 8,000-strong "embassies" to "assist with reconstruction" -- has helped, too.

Plus British troops have experience of policing hostile territory after being posted in Northern Ireland.

And the Poles know about warzones. They remember WW2.