NationStates Jolt Archive

An article from StrategyPage (http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM) gives an interesting picture of the situation. That sounds about right to me...

IRAQ: Doing the Math

January 18, 2005; The death toll from anti-government Sunni Arab violence continues to rise. There are now 100-150 deaths a week. That may sound like a lot, especially the way each incident is breathlessly reported in the media. But for a country of 26 million, that comes to a rate of 14-20 dead per 100,000 population per year. Other countries are more violent, like Columbia and South Africa, but these are not considered news. Iraq’s death rate is about the same as was suffered by Thailand’s rebellious Moslem provinces last year. The Japanese army suicide rate last year was 39 per 100,000.

But for Iraqis, there has been a large increase. While the United States death rate from violence is 5-6 per 100,000, under Saddam, the death rate from crime and government terror was 10-20 dead per 100,000 per year. It was at that rate a year ago, but the death rate from this violence has nearly tripled since then. Moreover, the deaths fall disproportionately in Sunni Arab areas. That means the death rate among Sunni Arab civilians is much higher than it is among Kurds or Shia Arabs. While the anti-government groups try to make attacks in non-Sunni Arab areas, this is much more difficult. The Kurds and Shia Arabs are armed and alert to any strangers in their midst. The police are recruited locally, and Kurdish police in particular are not intimidated by Sunni Arab violence. A disproportionate number of the police on SWAT teams and in riot police units are Kurds. Many Shia Arabs join the police out of a desire to get back at the Sunni Arabs who killed a family member. Shia Arab police are much less likely to flee in the face of massive Sunni Arab violence.

Another strange pattern is that, while 75 percent of the attacks are made on American troops, Iraqis suffer 80 percent of the deaths. This is because the American troops are much better at defending themselves. Most attacks on American troops fail, or result in a deadly counterattack. The anti-government forces know that the attacks on Iraqis are unpopular with Iraqis. And Iraqis don’t like to make attacks on other Iraqis, nor do the foreign volunteers for al Qaeda. However, the damage is already done. The Baath Party was always hated by most Iraqis, including most Sunni Arabs. The violence of the last year has made Baath even more hated. Same with al Qaeda, which is behind most of the car bomb deaths, and some of the most prominent atrocities (like attacks that killed many school children.)

The anti-government forces are using naked terror to try and impose their will. Resisting this effort is indeed a war on terror. Europeans, and some Americans, insist that all this fighting is just training more terrorists, like in Afghanistan. But that is a myth. Very few Arabs saw combat in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Many more went to Afghanistan, hung out in Pakistani refugee camps and absorbed the atmosphere, then came home and have been telling tall tales ever since. The Afghans saw the Arab “volunteers” as a source of money, but totally inept as fighters. It was safer to leave the Arabs in the camps, drinking coffee among the women and children, who could protect these rich guests. Thousands of Arab volunteers returned from Afghanistan with imaginary skills, and fantasies of world conquest. That’s why they’ve been more of a nuisance, than anything else, for the last two decades.

Most of the enemy experts in Iraq are thugs who previously worked for Saddam, and they are being killed off. Same with the foreign volunteers, which their home countries were glad to be rid of. Al Qaeda takes these inexperienced, but excitable young men and gets them killed, either as a suicide bomber, or in a shoot out with American troops. Most Iraqis now understand that getting into a fight with American troops is not a good thing, and is generally fatal for the attacker. Thus most of the attacks are with remote controlled bombs, or hit and run ambushes. The Americans with their UAVs and thermal imagers, and Allah knows what else, will find you quickly if you are shooting at them, and kill you.

American intelligence has identified hundreds of individual gangs or terrorist cells in the Sunni Arab areas. Key individuals, usually those supplying large amounts of cash (most attacks are still “paid for”), are also identified, and constantly being sought. Saddam was not the only Baath Party leader caught, several are nailed each month. Same with the al Qaeda organization in Iraq, which is intertwined with Baath (which supplies technical assistance, money and sanctuaries). Most of these gangs are tied to a specific town or neighborhood. Put the gang out of business, and the neighborhood becomes a much safer place for everyone. But the intelligence does not age well, and if you cannot get Iraqi police into the neighborhood quickly after one gang is smashed, another will form. The gangster psychology is popular in Iraq. During Saddam’s time, the gangsters were seen as a cross between freedom fighters and Robin Hoods. Most were just thieves, but compared to Saddam’s thugs, common criminals looked good. Now the gangs make extra money by planting roadside bombs, kidnapping or attacking American troops. Kill an American soldier and the cash rewards sets you up for life. Saddam always knew how to motivate people, and his legacy continues.

I'm going along with the article until about halfway through paragraph. It all seems agreeable. In the past two days two Shia candiates for the elections have been assasinated, and a leading aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani was also assasinated. These are quite important figures and more of these could easily throw a newly elected government into chaos. The paragraph also states that Kurdish police 'are in paticularly not intimidated by Sunni Arab violence'. It was only in November that most of the Mosul Police force deserted under pressure from attacks by insurgents.

In the third paragraph it states that the Baath party is becoming even more loathed due to all the attacks by Sunni insurgents. Even if it is the Baath party responsible for the attacks I do not think that the people of the Iraq see it that way. 'The Shia Arabs are joining the army to oppress the Sunnis' and 'The Sunnis are bombing out cities to intimidate us from voting'.

The last paragraph seems pretty accurate though.

I really hope that everything improves for Iraq afer the elections, but realistically the only thing I see holding Iraq together are US troops... and when they leave...

You know you neocons will be posting "But it's not as bad" articles about Iraq untill the bitter end.

You know we keep telling you Bush is an idiot and things are only going to get worse and you guys keep telling us we're wrong. I've heard stuff like the Iraqis want to be free, and they love America. Even today Condi Rice said before Congress that Iraq has 125,000 trained Iraqi troops to the amusement of all. How can you people handle Iraq when you can't even handle reality.

Now that the Pentagon is saying things are going to get worse you're saying, "But things aren't as bad as". Well try this on for size, things are as bad as we said they were going to be, Bush is as dumb as we say he is, and you're as wrong as ever.

You know you neocons will be posting "But it's not as bad" articles about Iraq untill the bitter end.

You know we keep telling you Bush is an idiot and things are only going to get worse and you guys keep telling us we're wrong. I've heard stuff like the Iraqis want to be free, and they love America. Even today Condi Rice said before Congress that Iraq has 125,000 trained Iraqi troops to the amusement of all. How can you people handle Iraq when you can't even handle reality.

Now that the Pentagon is saying things are going to get worse you're saying, "But things aren't as bad as". Well try this on for size, things are as bad as we said they were going to be, Bush is as dumb as we say he is, and you're as wrong as ever.[/QUOTE]

Hmm...If everyone who supported war in Iraq was a neocon, your statement may have some bearing. Everything we (conservatives, neo-cons, hell, even a few liberals) say in defense of the war is in response to liberal slander against the troops, or absurd claims against the US government. Look at the statistics in the article. They add up, and paint a picture far less bleak than the Left would have us believe. Perhaps it is you, not us, who has trouble handling reality.

I think the problem with liberals in general over the Iraq war is that you people cannot stand to see American military power used to good effect. You were gung-ho to invade Serbia, which posed less of a threat and had a far less murderous government than Iraq. That invasion was unsanctioned by the UN, but still you supported Clinton. Guess what? Our troops are still there. What has it been? Six, seven years? Where are the protests, the Senators whining?

All of your protests over Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (which Clinton advocated, by the way, during his presidency) are motivated by one cause: making the president look bad. Time and time again, because you cannot beat his ideas, you try to bring him down by making his policies look disastrous.

People don't take liberal BS seriously because it lacks consistency and logic. Now, I'm going to sit back and wait for my intelligence to be insulted. Have fun.

You know we keep telling you Bush is an idiot and things are only going to get worse and you guys keep telling us we're wrong. I've heard stuff like the Iraqis want to be free, and they love America. Even today Condi Rice said before Congress that Iraq has 125,000 trained Iraqi troops to the amusement of all. How can you people handle Iraq when you can't even handle reality.

Now that the Pentagon is saying things are going to get worse you're saying, "But things aren't as bad as". Well try this on for size, things are as bad as we said they were going to be, Bush is as dumb as we say he is, and you're as wrong as ever.

Hmm...If everyone who supported war in Iraq was a neocon, your statement may have some bearing. Everything we (conservatives, neo-cons, hell, even a few liberals) say in defense of the war is in response to liberal slander against the troops, or absurd claims against the US government. Look at the statistics in the article. They add up, and paint a picture far less bleak than the Left would have us believe. Perhaps it is you, not us, who has trouble handling reality.

I think the problem with liberals in general over the Iraq war is that you people cannot stand to see American military power used to good effect. You were gung-ho to invade Serbia, which posed less of a threat and had a far less murderous government than Iraq. That invasion was unsanctioned by the UN, but still you supported Clinton. Guess what? Our troops are still there. What has it been? Six, seven years? Where are the protests, the Senators whining?

All of your protests over Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (which Clinton advocated, by the way, during his presidency) are motivated by one cause: making the president look bad. Time and time again, because you cannot beat his ideas, you try to bring him down by making his policies look disastrous.

People don't take liberal BS seriously because it lacks consistency and logic. Now, I'm going to sit back and wait for my intelligence to be insulted. Have fun.


But will you agree that we should have thought it out more before going into Iraq? I didn't argue going into Afghanistan because I wanted blood for those towers; but Iraq was, if I may say, hasty...

You know you neocons will be posting "But it's not as bad" articles about Iraq untill the bitter end.
You know we keep telling you Bush is an idiot and things are only going to get worse and you guys keep telling us we're wrong. I've heard stuff like the Iraqis want to be free, and they love America. Even today Condi Rice said before Congress that Iraq has 125,000 trained Iraqi troops to the amusement of all. How can you people handle Iraq when you can't even handle reality.
Now that the Pentagon is saying things are going to get worse you're saying, "But things aren't as bad as". Well try this on for size, things are as bad as we said they were going to be, Bush is as dumb as we say he is, and you're as wrong as ever.
While Bush Jr is not as good as his father was or even some other Presidents he is better than the only alternative. Evidence was mounting to show that if "the other guy" got in we would be in the midst of renewed terror attacks of North Americian shores. Bush has shown that he is not about to tollerate any further attacks with out going after the financial source. It is no longer financially viable for the Bin Laden's or Hussein's to sit back and preach dogma to get youngsters to sacrifice themselves while they sit back woth their Millions. The war has been taken to those who truly deserve to have some Terror in their lives. In 3 years when we do this election thing all over again Bush won't be able to run again so we had better hope that there is someone who can make the terrorists think twice.
Actually going into Iraq was well past due! And the multiple examples of Al Qeada operating in Iraq is just one example of the mounting evidence of Hussein's involvment in 9/11. I still find it odd that while there are other terror attacks that have taken more lives the entire world is suddenly enraged by this one attack. Only the rest of the world is not anymore alert than ussual but you Yanks see their inactivity in increasing their response as an unfriendly move, need to look past the end of your noses. I and the rest of the free world agree that 9/11 was a huge injustice and disaster and we also want the culprits caught no matter how they are linked but there are other incidents to deal with as well.

But will you agree that we should have thought it out more before going into Iraq? I didn't argue going into Afghanistan because I wanted blood for those towers; but Iraq was, if I may say, hasty...

I don't think Iraq was "hasty" at all. They should've been taken out in the nineties, at least.

While Bush Jr is not as good as his father was or even some other Presidents he is better than the only alternative. Evidence was mounting to show that if "the other guy" got in we would be in the midst of renewed terror attacks of North Americian shores. Bush has shown that he is not about to tollerate any further attacks with out going after the financial source. It is no longer financially viable for the Bin Laden's or Hussein's to sit back and preach dogma to get youngsters to sacrifice themselves while they sit back woth their Millions. The war has been taken to those who truly deserve to have some Terror in their lives. In 3 years when we do this election thing all over again Bush won't be able to run again so we had better hope that there is someone who can make the terrorists think twice.

Thank you.

You know you neocons will be posting "But it's not as bad" articles about Iraq untill the bitter end.

Right, "bitter end".

You know we keep telling you Bush is an idiot and things are only going to get worse and you guys keep telling us we're wrong. I've heard stuff like the Iraqis want to be free, and they love America.

The want to be free, absolutely true. Love America? Not anymore than most people love cops.

Even today Condi Rice said before Congress that Iraq has 125,000 trained Iraqi troops to the amusement of all. How can you people handle Iraq when you can't even handle reality.

And how many are there, oh omniscient one?

I'm counting roughly 10k who have actually participated side by side with American troops in pitched battles (Samara, Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul). That is about equal or slightly less than the number of US troops who participated. Bear in mind that most troops do not train as commandos. 125,000 is not unreasonable.

Now that the Pentagon is saying things are going to get worse you're saying, "But things aren't as bad as". Well try this on for size, things are as bad as we said they were going to be, Bush is as dumb as we say he is, and you're as wrong as ever.

Hmm, let's see: 48 car bombs in November, 27 in December (post-Fallujah). Yah, "things are going to get worse".

What you said is that (rewind tape) there would be tens of thousands of casualties in the initial drive to Baghdad, whereupon we will face fierce street fighting and get bogged down by die-hard units of the Republican Guard. Yeah, that really happened.

I also seem to recall some recent noise about the elections in Afghanistan being disrupted by Taliban attacks. Uh uh.

You know we keep telling you Bush is an idiot and things are only going to get worse and you guys keep telling us we're wrong. I've heard stuff like the Iraqis want to be free, and they love America. Even today Condi Rice said before Congress that Iraq has 125,000 trained Iraqi troops to the amusement of all. How can you people handle Iraq when you can't even handle reality.

Now that the Pentagon is saying things are going to get worse you're saying, "But things aren't as bad as". Well try this on for size, things are as bad as we said they were going to be, Bush is as dumb as we say he is, and you're as wrong as ever.

Hmm...If everyone who supported war in Iraq was a neocon, your statement may have some bearing. Everything we (conservatives, neo-cons, hell, even a few liberals) say in defense of the war is in response to liberal slander against the troops, or absurd claims against the US government. Look at the statistics in the article. They add up, and paint a picture far less bleak than the Left would have us believe. Perhaps it is you, not us, who has trouble handling reality.

I think the problem with liberals in general over the Iraq war is that you people cannot stand to see American military power used to good effect. You were gung-ho to invade Serbia, which posed less of a threat and had a far less murderous government than Iraq. That invasion was unsanctioned by the UN, but still you supported Clinton. Guess what? Our troops are still there. What has it been? Six, seven years? Where are the protests, the Senators whining?

All of your protests over Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (which Clinton advocated, by the way, during his presidency) are motivated by one cause: making the president look bad. Time and time again, because you cannot beat his ideas, you try to bring him down by making his policies look disastrous.

People don't take liberal BS seriously because it lacks consistency and logic. Now, I'm going to sit back and wait for my intelligence to be insulted. Have fun.


Right, I see all those dire news reports of bombings and killings in Serbia.

Dude it's not a question of Liberal or Conservative, it's a question of disaster management. There is no American solution to Iraq, we are meant to be there to drain us by the same countries that led us in with faulty intelligence. It's a trap. We are in Iraq under the guidance of the EU and Iran, they're the ones who fed us the faulty intelligence.

Now why would the EU, the world's next Super Power and Iran want to tie the US into an endless quagmire. Did it pass your notice that the value of the euro and the dollar have essentially changed places. We are on the way down and they are on the way up.

You neocons have been led by the nose, and you're too thick to realize it.

more from the same source:

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM

January 15, 2005: Much more is known about the anti-government movements than gets reported in the media. Every day, members of these groups are captured and interrogated, or their dead bodies identified. Every day, documents are captured as well. While the Baath Party and Saddam era security officers running the operations know how to keep secrets, many of their subordinates do not. Moreover, many Sunni Arabs who believed that the Baath Party could make a comeback, and are now having second thoughts. The Western media, in their quest for bad news headlines (which sell much better than good news headlines), report only the damage to American and government forces. This gives a very distorted view of the situation. For example, the after-effects of the November battle of Fallujah have generally gone unnoted. Since the anti-government forces in the city were smashed (3,000 fighters killed or captured in a two week campaign, losing over 30 men for each American or Iraqi soldier killed), anti-government activity in the area around Fallujah went down by more than half. The media switched its attention to the next most active area for the anti-government; Mosul. But the government had also moved its police and army units to Mosul, and along with American troops, the anti-government forces are getting hammered again. But you'd never know that by depending on the mass media for information.

With more and more Sunni Arabs deciding that bringing back the old days is not going to work, attention is turning to the movement of money, weapons and fighters across the Syrian and Iranian border. An example of this is a recent public confession by Moayad Yassin Aziz al Nasiri, a commander of anti-government forces who was captured several months ago. Al Nasiri was betrayed by a Syrian intelligence official who defected to Iraq. Al Nasiri himself finally saw the light and agreed to talk openly about the cash and equipment being supplied by Syria and Iran to the anti-government forces. As a result of this confession, and the eveidence seized daily at border crossings, security at the borders has been increased. More troops are at the border crossings, and more thorough checks of trucks and people crossing. The government has warned truckers that these measures will stay in place at least until the January 30 elections are over. But at the moment, hundreds of trucks are backed up at the Syrian border. The Iraqi and American have made strong protests to Syria and Iran about the illegal support crossing the border. But both governments, off the record, plead an inability to stop rogue elements from providing support to the Baath Party violence. Syria has a long history of senior government officials being allowed to have business dealings on the side, in return for loyalty to the Assad family. These days, good business opportunities are to be had from Baath Party big shots. In Iran, Islamic conservative groups are willing to hold their noses and supports Saddams thugs, because they believe America, and sectarian democracy, are a bigger danger than a bunch of Saddam wannabes. While Saddam may be gone, Iraqs long history of bad relations with its neighbors appears to continue.

one more...

January 13, 2005: Understandably, American casualties in Iraq get most of the news coverage in the United States, but Iraqi police and troops have been taking 80 percent of the losses since the interim Iraqi government took over last June 28th. Many of the Iraqi dead have been due to car 183 bombs that have been used in the last six months. Not all those car bombs involved suicide bombers (only 38 percent did). But those bombs caused some 3,000 casualties, over 90 percent of them Iraqis and a third of them fatal. The peak month for car bombs was last November, when there were 48. Because many of the car bomb workshops were overrun in Fallujah that month, the number of car bombs fell to 27 in December, but is slowly increasing this month.

The frequent use of car bombs has done little to thin out the chaotic traffic in Iraqi cities. Considering the way Iraqis drive, and that their accident rate is several times what it is in the United States, that's probably a reasonable decision. American soldiers have noted that driving without your seat belt is more dangerous than the threat of roadside bombs or car bombs. Iraqi gossip still likes to blame all the car bombs on Americans, but the chatter in the coffee shops and blogs tells a different tale. Iraqis know who is doing the bombings, and the debate is over how hard should the government lean on the Sunni community, and how soon. Iraqis feel that soon the Sunnis will no longer be a major threat to the government. Iraqis take pride in the growing number of Iraqi police and army units that can storm into a house or neighborhood and carry out a raids and arrest, with no shooting and no casualties. "Just like the Americans," is the phrase you hear muttered, half in resignation, half in pride. Saddam had soldiers who could do raids like that, although they would often kill a few bystanders just for the terror effect. And the people they took away were usually never seen again. Now those efficient soldiers of Saddam are making car bombs, and slipping threatening notes under the doors of election officials. "Vote and Die" is the phrase the opposition is using. But most Iraqi election officials are standing their ground, and many Iraqis, especially those living near Sunni Arab neighborhoods or towns (nearly half the population), look forward to election day with dread. That's because voting could mean exposure to another car bomb, and not voting means giving Saddam's thugs another victory. It's a no-win situation. But it's also a no-lose situation. Over 14 million Iraqis are registered to vote, at over 3,000 voting locations. Over 100,000 Iraqi police and soldiers will be guarding the voting places, along with thousands of local men armed with the AK-47s each household is allowed to keep (but not take outside, a rule that is often flouted for emergencies like this.) If the anti-government forces make a major effort to attack many polling places, they will spread themselves thin and even up the odds. This will mean more failed attacks, and more dead Baath Party and al Qaeda members. "Vote and Die" has many meanings.

These are quite important figures and more of these could easily throw a newly elected government into chaos.

True, but the direction of that chaos will be a backlash against all Sunnis... and considering how many there are, they will lose.

The paragraph also states that Kurdish police 'are in paticularly not intimidated by Sunni Arab violence'. It was only in November that most of the Mosul Police force deserted under pressure from attacks by insurgents.

That's a very unique spin on what actually happened. They attacked what, 7 police stations plus the PUK office and a food distribution warehous, and managed to overrun a couple of the police stations which were retaken within the hour. Most police stations beat them back quite handily. That little demonstration cost them 50 people.

In the third paragraph it states that the Baath party is becoming even more loathed due to all the attacks by Sunni insurgents. Even if it is the Baath party responsible for the attacks I do not think that the people of the Iraq see it that way. 'The Shia Arabs are joining the army to oppress the Sunnis' and 'The Sunnis are bombing out cities to intimidate us from voting'.

Yes, that is what they will think. I would not particularly hope anyone will distinguish between Baath Sunnis and other Sunnis. Fact is, most Sunnis have been unwilling to side with the government against the insurgents, and everyone sees them as somewhat responsible even if they're not actively working to screw up the country.

I really hope that everything improves for Iraq afer the elections, but realistically the only thing I see holding Iraq together are US troops... and when they leave...

No, we're not the only thing holding it together. We are a) buying them time and b) keeping the lid on. If it came to open war, the Sunnis are dead meat, Iraq will still exist as a viable entity, but many people will die who don't need to.

Right, I see all those dire news reports of bombings and killings in Serbia.

Dude it's not a question of Liberal or Conservative, it's a question of disaster management. There is no American solution to Iraq, we are meant to be there to drain us by the same countries that led us in with faulty intelligence. It's a trap. We are in Iraq under the guidance of the EU and Iran, they're the ones who fed us the faulty intelligence.

Now why would the EU, the world's next Super Power and Iran want to tie the US into an endless quagmire. Did it pass your notice that the value of the euro and the dollar have essentially changed places. We are on the way down and they are on the way up.

You neocons have been led by the nose, and you're too thick to realize it.
:D Not very observant are you? The economy in Germany, France, and Italy has been tanking since the Euro was brought up. That and the arrogance and stupidity of the French govt. has killed their wine exports.

Look at the statistics in the article. They add up, and paint a picture far less bleak than the Left would have us believe. Perhaps it is you, not us, who has trouble handling reality.Another guilible smuck fooled by misleading "statistics".

Look again. That 100-150 deaths a week wouldn't be that bad if in fact it was the total deaths for a nation of 26 million.

It's not, that's the misdirection they pulled on you and you missed it.

That's the deaths from violence just within the Sunni Triangle.

Statistics are great things to mislead people with.

You all have it wrong Iraq doesn't matter, who will be the dominate Super Power this next century does.

If the US withdraws from Iraq it will force the EU nations to deploy there to keep a wider Islamic Fundamentalist war from spreading to Europe. They will be forced into deficit spending and they will have the terrorist attacks. The conflict will keep the EU down for the next decade at least, the very same trap they've laid for us.

Safely in Kuwait we will still hold the dominant strategic position keeping Iran in check. As soon as the Iraqi election is over we should "Invite" the EU Nations to help Iraq, and abandon to them the oil and development concessions. Though their populations will protest; their oil, investment, and industrial interests will push their governments forward. Their Governments may have the mistaken impression that they can get a hold of the insurgency since some of it would have formed through EU "encouragement".

With the EU safely bound in a quagmire for a generation trying to grab the brass ring of Iraqi oil, we will be free to maneuver in the rest of the world.

You all have it wrong Iraq doesn't matter, who will be the dominate Super Power this next century does.

If the US withdraws from Iraq it will force the EU nations to deploy there to keep a wider Islamic Fundamentalist war from spreading to Europe. They will be forced into deficit spending and they will have the terrorist attacks. The conflict will keep the EU down for the next decade at least, the very same trap they've laid for us.

Safely in Kuwait we will still hold the dominant strategic position keeping Iran in check. As soon as the Iraqi election is over we should "Invite" the EU Nations to help Iraq, and abandon to them the oil and development concessions. Though their populations will protest; their oil, investment, and industrial interests will push their governments forward. Their Governments may have the mistaken impression that they can get a hold of the insurgency since some of it would have formed through EU "encouragement".

With the EU safely bound in a quagmire for a generation trying to grab the brass ring of Iraqi oil, we will be free to maneuver in the rest of the world.

If thousands EU troops in area - US will not have dominant position.

If thousands of EU troops in area - likely Iranian & Iraqi crude will be traded in euro, which means US$ falls and EU can more easily engage in deficit spending.

If US leaves then Sunni fundamentalists have a known victory over USA - Kuwait, Saudi & UAE will not be safe for USA allied regimes.

The Iraqi and American have made strong protests to Syria and Iran about the illegal support crossing the border. But both governments, off the record, plead an inability to stop rogue elements from providing support to the Baath Party violence. Syria has a long history of senior government officials being allowed to have business dealings on the side, in return for loyalty to the Assad family. These days, good business opportunities are to be had from Baath Party big shots.

What business opportunity? The opportunity to supply money to support the insurrection? This giving away of money is not really the classical business model.

Or is it the author's contention that Syrian officials are funding the insurrection? If so they must be mistaken. Syria is not a wealthy state. It does not have the resources to provide funding on that scale. To fund the rebellion requires a booming economy or some sort of infinite money source - like a well that never runs dry.

You all have it wrong Iraq doesn't matter, who will be the dominate Super Power this next century does.

If the US withdraws from Iraq it will force the EU nations to deploy there to keep a wider Islamic Fundamentalist war from spreading to Europe. They will be forced into deficit spending and they will have the terrorist attacks. The conflict will keep the EU down for the next decade at least, the very same trap they've laid for us.

Safely in Kuwait we will still hold the dominant strategic position keeping Iran in check. As soon as the Iraqi election is over we should "Invite" the EU Nations to help Iraq, and abandon to them the oil and development concessions. Though their populations will protest; their oil, investment, and industrial interests will push their governments forward. Their Governments may have the mistaken impression that they can get a hold of the insurgency since some of it would have formed through EU "encouragement".

With the EU safely bound in a quagmire for a generation trying to grab the brass ring of Iraqi oil, we will be free to maneuver in the rest of the world.

Wow are you ever in an alternate universe ;)

Let me point just some of the more obvious problems...

EU cannot be forced to deploy anywhere because they are incapable of deploying, period. They do not have the strategic assets required for force projection, especially aircraft carriers.

EU also cannot be forced to deploy because they do not have the political will: even when faced with a war at their doorstep (Bosnia) they did nothing.

Finally, the EU has three fatal flaws which will prevent them from ever acheiving superpower status: their demographics (which will lead to a very high ratio of retirees to workers in coming decades), the large unassimilated immigrant population a lot of which is Muslim, and the screwy EU government scheme (bureaucrat-ocracy).

The prize of Iraq is not the oil (which is only useful in allowing the country to rebuild itself much faster). The real prize is the psychological coup of seizing the capital of the (supposed) Caliphate, Baghdad, which is widely seen as the center of Arabic civilization.
The establishment of a progressive government there will finish off any pan-Arabic and pan-Islamic ambitions of Al-Qaeda or anyone else, along with serving as an inspiration to all of the opressed people in the Middle East. It doesn't matter whether it is a quagmire for us: it is a deathblow to them, similar to what it would be like for us if they captured DC, Virginia and Maryland and we could not dislodge them, however desperately we fought. The fighters in Iraq are suffering a tremendously high rate of attrition, they would not be able to sustain operations at this pace for another year, possibly not even six months. It doesn't matter, if they wait six months they will have lost completely. Therefore they put everything they have in one six-to-eight-month push before the elections, but even that plan was disrupted when we went on the offensive.

What business opportunity? The opportunity to supply money to support the insurrection? This giving away of money is not really the classical business model.

Or is it the author's contention that Syrian officials are funding the insurrection? If so they must be mistaken. Syria is not a wealthy state. It does not have the resources to provide funding on that scale. To fund the rebellion requires a booming economy or some sort of infinite money source - like a well that never runs dry.

"Everybody knows" that a lot of Saddam's money ended up in Syria in the control of Iraqi Baathists who escaped there and are now coordinating and supplying the anti-government forces in Iraq.

"Business opportunity" I would assume refers to arms sales, bribes, and smuggling of people and weapons. Also (possibly) military training. The money comes from what Saddam squirelled away. Everything else comes from the Syrians, in exchange for the money. It may not be official Syrian policy, but it is "overlooked".

Then again it is not our official policy to conduct raids in Syrian territory either ;)

coincidence that the baath party is least favoured by the US?? :headbang:

evidence:
http://www.damascus-online.com/se/hist/baath_party.htm (note loss of Arab territory in Israel)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2886733.stm (note it being Hussein's party)

could trawl the net for hours coming up with points, think I said enough...

[edit]:
"Safely in Kuwait we will still hold the dominant strategic position keeping Iran in check. As soon as the Iraqi election is over we should "Invite" the EU Nations to help Iraq, and abandon to them the oil and development concessions. Though their populations will protest; their oil, investment, and industrial interests will push their governments forward. Their Governments may have the mistaken impression that they can get a hold of the insurgency since some of it would have formed through EU "encouragement".

With the EU safely bound in a quagmire for a generation trying to grab the brass ring of Iraqi oil, we will be free to maneuver in the rest of the world."

huh, seems someone beat me to saying enough about the situation. WTG Team America

You all have it wrong Iraq doesn't matter, who will be the dominate Super Power this next century does.

If the US withdraws from Iraq it will force the EU nations to deploy there to keep a wider Islamic Fundamentalist war from spreading to Europe. They will be forced into deficit spending and they will have the terrorist attacks.

Deficit Spending??? I havent checked up on this but when is the last time a major European country(UK,France,Germany ect) had a budget surplus? Im too lazy to google it, but havent France and Germany continually refused to bring their deficits into the less than 2%(rough number from a battered memory) of GDP that the EU structure demands?

And troops, deploying forces?? what fantasy land are you living in? Do you think trained troops magically appear as soon as you decide to spend the money? What about force deployment? Okay, Iraq isnt too far so Europe could manage something and France does have that spanking new supercarrier to help out. Europe has a military in name only(UK mostly excluded). They have invested neither the money nor the political capitol to either develop or maintain a modern military.

Another guilible smuck fooled by misleading "statistics".

Look again. That 100-150 deaths a week wouldn't be that bad if in fact it was the total deaths for a nation of 26 million.

It's not, that's the misdirection they pulled on you and you missed it.

That's the deaths from violence just within the Sunni Triangle.

Statistics are great things to mislead people with.
The maths in the article is also wrong, which is a something of a failing given its title.

Another guilible smuck fooled by misleading "statistics".

Look again. That 100-150 deaths a week wouldn't be that bad if in fact it was the total deaths for a nation of 26 million.

It's not, that's the misdirection they pulled on you and you missed it.

That's the deaths from violence just within the Sunni Triangle.

Statistics are great things to mislead people with.


You know, I don't remember who said it, but some pretty smart guy once remarked that
There are three types of lies in the world: Lies, damned lies and statistics.

You know, I don't remember who said it, but some pretty smart guy once remarked that
Disraeli about Gladstone: one politician claiming another was being misleading. The pot and kettle saying would have been more appropriate.

Wow are you ever in an alternate universe ;)

Let me point just some of the more obvious problems...

EU cannot be forced to deploy anywhere because they are incapable of deploying, period. They do not have the strategic assets required for force projection, especially aircraft carriers.

EU also cannot be forced to deploy because they do not have the political will: even when faced with a war at their doorstep (Bosnia) they did nothing.

Finally, the EU has three fatal flaws which will prevent them from ever acheiving superpower status: their demographics (which will lead to a very high ratio of retirees to workers in coming decades), the large unassimilated immigrant population a lot of which is Muslim, and the screwy EU government scheme (bureaucrat-ocracy).

The prize of Iraq is not the oil (which is only useful in allowing the country to rebuild itself much faster). The real prize is the psychological coup of seizing the capital of the (supposed) Caliphate, Baghdad, which is widely seen as the center of Arabic civilization.
The establishment of a progressive government there will finish off any pan-Arabic and pan-Islamic ambitions of Al-Qaeda or anyone else, along with serving as an inspiration to all of the opressed people in the Middle East. It doesn't matter whether it is a quagmire for us: it is a deathblow to them, similar to what it would be like for us if they captured DC, Virginia and Maryland and we could not dislodge them, however desperately we fought. The fighters in Iraq are suffering a tremendously high rate of attrition, they would not be able to sustain operations at this pace for another year, possibly not even six months. It doesn't matter, if they wait six months they will have lost completely. Therefore they put everything they have in one six-to-eight-month push before the elections, but even that plan was disrupted when we went on the offensive.



Even though we are in the current Iraqi situation because of faulty intelligence fed to us by Britain and Iran, you want to stay. Even though everything you supposedly think you know about Iraq is based on that faulty intelligence, you want to stay. Sorry dude, but if you were my Lt. in combat I'd frag you for leading your men into a crossfire and being too inexperienced to want to get out of it.

Let me tell you something about the British, they don't love us, they tolerate us. Like you tolerate a violent retarded child. They are not happy with their current situation in the world and many blame the US and its dominate position after WWII for their decline, same with the rest of Europe especially the French and Dutch. These are not happy allies, they are independent Nations plotting for their own self interests who have banded together for their own self interests to plot in unison. They do not have the best interests of the US in mind.

We've been led to this war like a trusting child, the EU even has Rupert Murdock and FOX NEWS blasting us with News propaganda and doing character assassinations of any American who has reservations about the war.

...

We've been led to this war like a trusting child, the EU even has Rupert Murdock and FOX NEWS blasting us with News propaganda and doing character assassinations of any American who has reservations about the war.
This has to be the first time I've seen Murdoch called on the same side as the EU.

Following the murder of van Gogh the war inside the EU has begun. I think it will only escalate from now.

Does anyone have a reliable source on the aprox. figures on the amount of collateral damage victims in Iraq? All I've seen is the horrifying pictures of it. Such as the Iraqi boy whose arm is exposing bone thanks to the US military in it's infinite wisdom.

One interesting thing is that 100-150 death in Iraq per week is almost the same amount killed by terrorist on 9/11 was for the USA per capita, if you do the math. So the Iraqies face the same terror every week, that the American faced on one occasion and that made the Bush administration start two wars, one of them was the Iraq war. See that fun you can have with statistic and intersting that no one has done this reflection before in this post...

An article from StrategyPage (http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM) gives an interesting picture of the situation. That sounds about right to me...
IRAQ: Doing the Math

January 18, 2005; The death toll from anti-government Sunni Arab violence continues to rise. There are now 100-150 deaths a week. That may sound like a lot, especially the way each incident is breathlessly reported in the media. But for a country of 26 million, that comes to a rate of 14-20 dead per 100,000 population per year. Other countries are more violent, like Columbia and South Africa, but these are not considered news. Iraq’s death rate is about the same as was suffered by Thailand’s rebellious Moslem provinces last year. The Japanese army suicide rate last year was 39 per 100,000.

The writer of this article is not doing the maths though.
They are under the impression that all deaths in Iraq are due to Sunni Arab violence, hence the 20 deaths p/100 000.
This is outright balant lie. Violence and death is occuring everywhere in Iraq, just like it occurs everywhere in all society. While 20 ppl are being killed in a roadside bomb or a suicide bomber, there's other murders and killings that aren't making the paper. Mainly because they're either:
1. Only 1 or 2 deaths, so not considered newsworthy;
2. Domestic or crime-related incidents, so aren't added to the War total.
Unless of course there's NO violence happening anywhere else in Iraq. Everyone loves each other and there's no petty or organised crime. They just run around throwing daisys into the air and hugging each other.

To get a clearer picture, these need to be added. Also needing to be added are the deaths from American troops. The writer is only using the deaths the Sunni rebels are causing. Considering the estimated total dead from American forces is at least 20 000 civilians over the last 21 months, that's approx 30 per day, 200 per week. You need to add another 30 deaths p/100 000 from the American troops. And that's only the civilians.
Some estimates put the total Iraqi dead at close to 100 000 (including troops), which means 1000 deaths per week and 150 deaths/100 000.
Then there's the American dead, now close to 1400, or 15 deaths/week - 10/100000.
The article says that the death rate from crime and government under Saddam was 10-20 p/100 000. If we are to assume 1/2 were from Saddam, 1/2 from crime, that's another 5-10 p/100 000.

Grand total of around 65 deaths p/100 000 minimum and 200 p/100 000 maximum.

Doesn't sound so wonderful now, does it?

Yep, let's use Statistics to blind ourselves to reality, shall we? Everything's fine in Iraq - it's safer going there for a holiday than joining the Japanese army!

While Bush Jr is not as good as his father was or even some other Presidents he is better than the only alternative. Evidence was mounting to show that if "the other guy" got in we would be in the midst of renewed terror attacks of North Americian shores. Bush has shown that he is not about to tollerate any further attacks with out going after the financial source. It is no longer financially viable for the Bin Laden's or Hussein's to sit back and preach dogma to get youngsters to sacrifice themselves while they sit back woth their Millions. The war has been taken to those who truly deserve to have some Terror in their lives. In 3 years when we do this election thing all over again Bush won't be able to run again so we had better hope that there is someone who can make the terrorists think twice.
Actually going into Iraq was well past due! And the multiple examples of Al Qeada operating in Iraq is just one example of the mounting evidence of Hussein's involvment in 9/11. I still find it odd that while there are other terror attacks that have taken more lives the entire world is suddenly enraged by this one attack. Only the rest of the world is not anymore alert than ussual but you Yanks see their inactivity in increasing their response as an unfriendly move, need to look past the end of your noses. I and the rest of the free world agree that 9/11 was a huge injustice and disaster and we also want the culprits caught no matter how they are linked but there are other incidents to deal with as well.


The 911 Commission has made it clear, Saddam and Bin Laden are NOT linked. Period.

Al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq because we destroyed the pro-stalinist (Anti-bin laden, who was himself an anti-communist) Saddam regime. Al-Qaeda swarmed into Iraq and setup camp.


I can find a few thousand anti-government militia folks in the USA who might be willing to attack Canada. Does that mean the USA is backing terror just because her citizens are engaged in acts of terror based out of the USA without government approval or perhaps even knowledge?


So if a man from Saudi Arabia blows up a chemical plant in the USA, all of the sudden Saudi Arabia supports terror? Going by your logic, I guess so.


(rolls eyes)

Does anyone have a reliable source on the aprox. figures on the amount of collateral damage victims in Iraq? All I've seen is the horrifying pictures of it. Such as the Iraqi boy whose arm is exposing bone thanks to the US military in it's infinite wisdom.
For the US dead:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/#count
For the Iraqi civilian dead:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
reported deaths from two credible news agents only are reported. Even the authors of the website say it's probably way below the true figure. A lot of deaths go unreported - let's face it, if a whole family is wiped out in a house, who's going to report it? Or if a child is killed from a landmine, would the parents rush to the media to complain? Assuming they even have access to the media in the first place. Who's going to report the Homeless when they're killed?
But it's a start.

Darn Hamster - ya beat me too it on the false restriction of the death counts.

Clearly this source is garbage. If anyone is onder any illusion that this source is presenting facts in an honest manner, I'll simply point to the third article Cassini posted and the sentance that he bolded:

Iraqis feel that soon the Sunnis will no longer be a major threat to the government. Iraqis take pride in the growing number of Iraqi police and army units that can storm into a house or neighborhood and carry out a raids and arrest, with no shooting and no casualties. "Just like the Americans," is the phrase you hear muttered, half in resignation, half in pride.


Exactly when did Sunnis stop being Iraqis? Exactly when did the will of Iraq equate to the will of the Shi'ites?

What a load of garbage......

Darn Hamster - ya beat me too it.

Clearly this source is garbage. If anyone is onder any illusion that this source is presenting facts in an honest manner, I'll simply point to the third article Cassini posted and the sentance that he bolded:




Exactly when did Sunnis stop being Iraqis? Exactly when did the will of Iraq equate to the will of the Shi'ites?

What a load of garbage......


We helped terrorists (Pro-Iranian shiites) steal Iraq from the Sunnis, just as we helped terrorist Kosovars steal Kosovo from Serbia.


Helping ethnic Albanians in Kosovo kick out all the Serbs would be like Mexicans kicking out all the whites in Louisiana.


Basically what happened in Serbia, in Kosovo, which is part of Serbia, an integral part, was that ethnic albanians flooded into Kosovo, via immigration, rapidly bred, eventually came to massively outnumber the Serbs, and then they agitated to be annexed into Albania. The Serbs refused and so the terror group KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) was formed, and they began attacking Serb civilians trying to drive them out of Kosov.

Serbs struck back, things went into a mutually dirty war, and the US Clinton Regime decided to blow up the Serbians, who while, were far from angels, were the ones on the defensive trying to preserve their ancestral lands.

For the US dead:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/#count
For the Iraqi civilian dead:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
reported deaths from two credible news agents only are reported. Even the authors of the website say it's probably way below the true figure. A lot of deaths go unreported - let's face it, if a whole family is wiped out in a house, who's going to report it? Or if a child is killed from a landmine, would the parents rush to the media to complain? Assuming they even have access to the media in the first place. Who's going to report the Homeless when they're killed?
But it's a start.

Thanks for that. It makes me feel incredibly weak in the stomach to see that at least 15365 Iraqi civillians have died from the military intervention.

OK, now looking into the source of this "learned treatise", we go to strategypage.com and look for the author of said gem.

Not attributed that I can find...

OK, let's look at the "about us" page. (http://www.strategypage.com/aboutus/default.asp)

Want To Write for StrategyPage? We are always looking for new contributors. If you think you can do it, contact the editor. We pay $20 per item.

We are only buying rights to include your material in StrategyPage.com for as long as StrategyPage.com exists. You retain all other rights (meaning you can put your StrategyPage.com stuff in a book, magazine article, or even another web site.)



Ooooooooooooooooooohhhhh they give you twenty whole dollars AND let you keep your "stuff" to resell to any other suckers out there!

I mean, look at the sort of people they highlight as their contributers:

Tom Holsinger is a California attorney and wargaming grognard. He started with Avalon Hill's Tactics II in 1961 when he was twelve, and first playtested a game for Jim Dunnigan in 1966. Tom began writing for Strategy Page in April 2002 when Jim Dunnigan asked him to rewrite an email for publication.



Wow - he's been a game-geek since 12?!?! Well then, surely with credentials like that the author MUST be both a learned man in the determination of actual numbers, the application of demographic models, political theory, and surely they MUST keep up to the highest journalistic code of ethics and have properly fact-checked everything...


rotflmfao!

Darn Hamster - ya beat me too it on the false restriction of the death counts.
Sorry! But misusing stats like that always annoy the hell out of me.

Sorry! But misusing stats like that always annoy the hell out of me.

Me too.


But what sort of cogent analysis can you really expect from 56 year old California attorneys who still play the same games that they did when they were 12.....

lol.

Me too.


But what sort of cogent analysis can you really expect from 56 year old California attorneys who still play the same games that they did when they were 12.....

lol.
I think that it's more weird that he thinks this makes him an authority to comment on War policy.

I think that it's more weird that he thinks this makes him an authority to comment on War policy.

Well I can't fault him for expressing his opinion. He's as entitled as the rest of us and we ain't exactly shy about doing so.

It's the fact that Cassini tried to pass him off as being somehow a knowledgeable and credible source worthy of quoting as an authority that I find humerous as hell.

Here, for the record, is the military career of the guy who runs the site: (http://jimdunnigan.com/bio.htm#top)

First, though, I took care of another problem I had heard about military service. Namely, basic training.

Guys in my part of the country went to Fort Dix in New Jersey. Not a very pleasant place (Fort Dix, not New Jersey.) Plus I was planning on joining up right after my birthday in August, when the weather was either too hot or too cold in New Jersey. So I went to the library to check out the weather in the other places where the Army did its basic training. Fort Ord in California seemed to be the most pleasant of the lot. So I got on a bus, went cross country (and saw the country for the first time) to LA. I joined up, was assigned to Fort Ord (in scenic Monterrey) and became a soldier.

Korea:
It was interesting. I had never paid much attention to the military before, but here I was. So I took notes. I also ran across wargames while taking technical training at Redstone Arsenal (Huntsville, Alabama.) They shipped me and my artillery battalion off to Korea, where I spent an interesting year finding out why it was good to be an American.

The Army let me go in July, 1964, about two weeks before the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the official beginning of the Vietnam war. Who knew? What luck, I was home free. No getting shot at.

Actually, I'd already had a brush with combat in Korea. When we got there in June, 1963, the North Koreans had started sending over suicide squads. These guys would get across the DMZ, set up ambushes and try to kill as many U.S. or South Korean troops as they could before getting wiped out.

Since my battalion (the 3/81st artillery) was a high priority combat unit (we had nukes), we spent a lot of time in the field. For a while they sent us out on these field exercises with live ammunition. Just in case. This made for a lot of nervous teenage G.I.'s. Too nervous, it turned out. They took the live ammo away from us when the brass figured out we were more likely to create a friendly fire incident than run into the North Koreans.


Now, I'm not about to denigrate the service of anyone who put on their country's uniform. I'm just saying that a low-grade non-combat role in the early 60s followed by a long career developing games does not neccessarily qualify one for having expertise on Iraq.

I would say that it is not just the Sunni insurgency we have to think about. Although to begrudge them their struggle is misleading.

(Anyone ever see Red Dawn? The communists came to "liberate" america, and a group of high school kids run for the mountains where they start a guerilla war against the "occupation army". Most of them died but there names were scratched into a rock on the mountain, which later became a national monument. Let's face it, all of us would fight for our independence, to be free from external domination. And nobody ever trusts anyone who has a gun pointed at them, especially if the gun is connected to a tank.)

The Shia and the Kurds also each have their own agenda for Iraq. The Shia are greater in numbers so they stand to profit by voting. The Kurds have been funded by the US for years now, so they also stand to gain by cooperation, however we screwed the Kurds in the first Desert Storm by leaving Saddam to punish them for colaborating with us. They remember this and will stay the course as long as it is in their best interest. The Kurds have a reason to despise both the Sunni and the Shia. Bad blood runs high on many sides of this little fence and the tension is renewed since the future of Iraq is now in the air. When the ball finally comes down, there is going to be a scramble for power. These tribes have never cooperated here, only dominated each other.

As well, the rising Kurd power has Turkey spooked, as they also have a large Kurdish population. A population that has been fighting for independence. So an increase in money and regional power for the Kurds is not something that Turkey wishes to allow. They have threatened to send troops already.

Then there is Israel. They always have complete U.S. support, but they too have their own agenda. Dubious of the chances of American success in Iraq, Israel has a back up plan. Reports are coming in that show Israel has Special Forces in Northern Iraq training the Kurds. Even if the Americans fail the Israelis will gain what they hope will be a powerful allie in the potential civil war brewing.

War is not as clean and surgical as Fox or CNN would have us believe. It has a way of slipping across borders and enticing other countries with opportunity of what advantage they might gain by pushing on different sides.

What the U.S. did in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there. Others now do while we are in Iraq. Fund and arm the insurgency. There is a global struggle now in process for the future resources needed to remain powerful countries. The big players have not drawn complete sides yet, but you can already see the posturing. With China's growth and fuel consumption, how long will they stand while America makes a play for the richest oil fields?
**Yes, I said oil. There are many reasons to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, some are good for the press and the heart of the American public, others are good for geopolitical positioning, and others are good for business. Oil is good for 2 out of 3, not bad.**
Even now, Russia is announcing new ICBM designs. Including ones specifically designed to avoid missile defense shields. Russia was caught sending weapons into Iraq before the invasion. China leaked a military strategy paper outlining how it could even the playing field against the U.S.
The strategy was to make us bleed from a thousand cuts. By fanning conflicts that would spread our military thin, that would weaken us. And all this could be done before ever tipping their hand and formally declaring war with their own hands. This is nothing new, the U.S. and the Soviets battled this way in Vietnam, Korea, Central America, etc. Except at the time we weren't selling the Soviets high technology and nuclear secrets. Clinton not only gave the chinese government technology, he allowed a chinese shipping company, known to transport illicit cargo and illegal weapons, to lease a former Marine base off the coast of California. Complete with its own trade zone.

The Sunnis are but a small wound, bleeding slowly, but we must be aware whether we have the blood to spare.

Now, I'm not about to denigrate the service of anyone who put on their country's uniform. I'm just saying that a low-grade non-combat role in the early 60s followed by a long career developing games does not neccessarily qualify one for having expertise on Iraq.

You conveniently missed the part where he developed simulations for the Army War College, where he worked for STRICOM, edited "Strategy & Tactics" magazine, wrote "How To Make War" and "A Quick and Dirty Guide to War", and is a guest lecturer in Georgia Tech.

While you're at it, why don't you look up the other guys at Strategypage? How about Col. Austin Bay, just returned from Iraq? Yah.

You conveniently missed the part where he developed simulations for the Army War College, where he worked for STRICOM, edited "Strategy & Tactics" magazine, wrote "How To Make War" and "A Quick and Dirty Guide to War", and is a guest lecturer in Georgia Tech.

While you're at it, why don't you look up the other guys at Strategypage? How about Col. Austin Bay, just returned from Iraq? Yah.

OK, here is the rest of his bio:


I was not able to get away from wargaming, though, as much as I tried. I had made a bit of an impression while I was at SPI and kept getting requests to do more wargaming type stuff through the 1980s and 90s. I gave in from time to time.

In 1982 I accepted an invitation from Georgia Tech to come down and lecture at the annual course they gave on wargaming. Been doing that ever since.

In 1985, Ray Macedonia (who had called me in during the late 1970s and early 1980s to help re-establish wargaming at the Army War College) asked me to build a tactical combat model to see how robotic mines would work. Ray had since retired and was working as chief scientist at AVCO (now Textron). So I did that one.

Various Department of Defense and State Department agencies called on me to give lectures or just have a chat. In 1998, Ray Macedonia's son Mike, a West Point grad and now chief scientist at STRICOM (the Army's wargame development operation) asked me to join their Technical Advisory Board. In 1989, I got involved editing a military history magazine (Strategy & Tactics)which was the one I ran while at SPI. Did that, remotely from NYC, for 18 months. During the 1980s I got several job offers from these outfits. But moving to Washington DC was not my idea of a good time and the financial modeling business in New York was good.

New York New York:
Being in New York also got me on television and radio a lot. There weren't many retired generals in the New York area that could explain military affairs in plain English. I could, and starting in 1976, I got called on to do a lot of color commentary on military affairs.

In 1989, I got involved in developing online games, and that continues. Pretty interesting stuff. I still do books, one or two a year.

And whatever else I can get away with.

I live in Manhattan, and one of these years, I'm really going to plant a garden in my back yard. Scotch ivy and an evergreen tree just don't cut it. Sundry girlfriends have volunteered to come over and show me how, but I find that just interferes with my writing.

It also dawned on me several years ago that I had never bought a TV set. Gotta do that one of these days. And get a drivers license. I had one in the army and it was pretty neat. But I tended to get lost in thought while driving and almost came to grief because of it several times.

What were you expecting, autobiography?.

To find out more about playing wargames and have some fun, learn more about the Hundred Years War, designed by Albert Nofi and me, plus a list of games I designed and more links.


So, he is a gaming expert who doesn't own a TV. his expertise is also seemingly from a technical side of game design rather than neccessarily an expertise in current affairs.


Besides which, as mentioned at the very beginning, your articles are unatributed and the site will clearly accept submissions from anyone. Now the Hamster has pretty well ripped the statistics apart, so perhaps you might just want to think about how valid this source is for a minute.

Hey, you may LIKE this persons opinion and that is your right, but do not expect anyone to accept the supposed facts given as the article's underpinnings without some real support from a reputable source.


For myself, I'd like some explanation of how "Sunni's" suddenly became something diferent from "Iraqis." in the context in which it was used in that article you quoted.

We helped terrorists (Pro-Iranian shiites) steal Iraq from the Sunnis, just as we helped terrorist Kosovars steal Kosovo from Serbia.


Helping ethnic Albanians in Kosovo kick out all the Serbs would be like Mexicans kicking out all the whites in Louisiana.


Basically what happened in Serbia, in Kosovo, which is part of Serbia, an integral part, was that ethnic albanians flooded into Kosovo, via immigration, rapidly bred, eventually came to massively outnumber the Serbs, and then they agitated to be annexed into Albania. The Serbs refused and so the terror group KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) was formed, and they began attacking Serb civilians trying to drive them out of Kosov.

Serbs struck back, things went into a mutually dirty war, and the US Clinton Regime decided to blow up the Serbians, who while, were far from angels, were the ones on the defensive trying to preserve their ancestral lands.


What about:
53. Following the commencement of the joint criminal enterprise, beginning on or about 1 January 1999 and continuing until 20 June 1999, Slobodan MILOSEVIC, Milan MILUTINOVIC, Nikola SAINOVIC, Dragoljub OJDANIC, Vlajko STOJILJKOVIC and others known and unknown, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in a deliberate and widespread or systematic campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians living in Kosovo in the FRY.

54. The deliberate and widespread or systematic campaign of terror and violence directed at the Kosovo Albanian population was executed by forces of the FRY and Serbia, acting at the direction, with the encouragement, or with the support of Slobodan MILOSEVIC, Milan MILUTINOVIC, Nikola SAINOVIC, Dragoljub OJDANIC, Vlajko STOJILJKOVIC and others known and unknown. Forces of the FRY and Serbia undertook the operations targeting the Kosovo Albanians with the objective of expelling a substantial portion of the Kosovo Albanian population from Kosovo in an effort to ensure continued Serbian control over the province. To achieve this objective, forces of the FRY and Serbia, acting in concert, engaged in well-planned and coordinated operations as described in paragraphs 55 through 61 below.

55. Forces of the FRY and Serbia, in a deliberate and widespread or systematic manner, forcibly expelled and internally displaced hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians from their homes across the entire province of Kosovo. To facilitate these expulsions and displacements, forces of the FRY and Serbia intentionally created an atmosphere of fear and oppression through the use of force, threats of force, and acts of violence.

56. Throughout Kosovo, forces of the FRY and Serbia engaged in a deliberate and widespread or systematic campaign of destruction of property owned by Kosovo Albanian civilians. This was accomplished by the widespread shelling of towns and villages; the burning and destruction of property, including homes, farms, businesses, cultural monuments and religious sites; and the destruction of personal property. As a result of these orchestrated actions, villages, towns, and entire regions were made uninhabitable for Kosovo Albanians.

57. In addition to the deliberate destruction of property owned by Kosovo Albanian civilians, forces of the FRY and Serbia committed widespread or systematic acts of brutality and violence against Kosovo Albanian civilians in order to perpetuate the climate of fear, create chaos and a pervading fear for life. Forces of the FRY and Serbia went from village to village and, in the towns and cities, from area to area, threatening and expelling the Kosovo Albanian population. Kosovo Albanians were frequently intimidated, assaulted or killed in public view to enforce the departure of their families and neighbors. Many Kosovo Albanians who were not directly forcibly expelled from their communities fled as a result of the climate of terror created by the widespread or systematic beatings, harassment, sexual assaults, unlawful arrests, killings, shelling and looting carried out across the province. Forces of the FRY and Serbia persistently subjected Kosovo Albanians to insults, racial slurs, degrading acts and other forms of physical and psychological mistreatment based on their racial, religious, and political identification. All sectors of Kosovo Albanian society were displaced including women, children, the elderly and the infirm.

58. Thousands of Kosovo Albanians who fled their homes as a result of the conduct of the forces of the FRY and Serbia and the deliberate climate of terror that pervaded the territory of Kosovo joined convoys of persons that moved toward Kosovo's borders with the Republic of Albania (hereinafter "Albania") and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (hereinafter "Macedonia"). Along the routes to the border crossings, forces of the FRY and Serbia manned checkpoints where the displaced Kosovo Albanians were subject to further beatings, extortion, robbery, harassment, assaults, illegal arrests and killings. At other times, forces of the FRY and Serbia escorted groups of expelled Kosovo Albanians to the borders. By these methods, the forces of the FRY and Serbia maintained control over the movement of displaced Kosovo Albanians to the borders. Displaced Kosovo Albanians often arrived at the borders of Kosovo on foot in convoys of several thousand persons, or carried by tractors, trailers and trucks, as well as on trains, buses or trucks which were organised and provided by forces of the FRY and Serbia.

59. In addition, thousands of Kosovo Albanians who fled their homes and were thereby forcibly transferred as a result of the conduct of the forces of the FRY and Serbia and the deliberate climate of terror that pervaded the territory of Kosovo, were forced to seek shelter for days, weeks or months in other towns and villages, and/or in forests and mountains throughout the province. Some of these internally displaced persons remained inside the province of Kosovo throughout the time period relevant to this indictment and many persons died as a consequence of the harsh weather conditions, insufficient food, inadequate medical attention and exhaustion. Others eventually crossed over one of the Kosovo borders into Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, or crossed the provincial boundary between Kosovo and Serbia. Forces of the FRY and Serbia controlled and coordinated the movements of many internally displaced Kosovo Albanians until they were finally expelled from Kosovo.

60. Throughout Kosovo, in a deliberate and widespread or systematic effort to deter expelled Kosovo Albanians from returning to their homes, forces of the FRY and Serbia looted and pillaged the personal and commercial property belonging to Kosovo Albanians. Forces of the FRY and Serbia used wholesale searches, threats of force, and acts of violence to rob Kosovo Albanians of money and valuables, and in a widespread or systematic manner, authorities at FRY border posts stole personal vehicles and other property from Kosovo Albanians being deported from the province.

61. In addition, throughout Kosovo, forces of the FRY and Serbia systematically seized and destroyed the personal identity documents and licenses of vehicles belonging to Kosovo Albanian civilians. As Kosovo Albanians were forced from their homes and directed towards Kosovo’s borders, they were subjected to demands to surrender identity documents at selected points en route to border crossings and at border crossings into Albania and Macedonia. These actions were undertaken in order to erase any record of the deported Kosovo Albanians’ presence in Kosovo and to deny them the right to return to their homes.

http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-2ai011029e.htm

What's the excuse for this? KLA?

34. From on or about 1 August 1991 until June 1992, Slobodan MILOSEVIC, acting alone or in concert with other known and unknown members of a joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of the persecutions of the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population in the territories of the SAO SBWS, the SAO Western Slavonia, the SAO Krajina, and the Dubrovnik Republic.


35. Throughout this period, Serb forces, comprised of JNA units, local TO units and TO units from Serbia and Montenegro, local and Serbian MUP police units and paramilitary units, attacked and took control of towns, villages and settlements in these territories listed above. After the take-over, the Serb forces in co-operation with the local Serb authorities established a regime of persecutions designed to drive the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population from these territories.


36. These persecutions were based on political, racial or religious grounds and included the following:


a. The extermination or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians, including women and elderly persons, in Dalj, Erdut, Klisa, Lovas, Vukovar, Vocin, Bacin, Saborsko and neighbouring villages, Skabrnja, Nadin, Bruska, and Dubrovnik and its environs, as described in detail in paragraphs 38 to 59 and 73 to 75.


b. The prolonged and routine imprisonment and confinement of thousands of Croat and other non-Serb civilians in detention facilities within and outside of Croatia, including prison camps located in Montenegro, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as described in detail in paragraph 64.


c. The establishment and perpetuation of inhumane living conditions for Croat and other non-Serb civilian detainees within the mentioned detention facilities.


d. The repeated torture, beatings and killings of Croat and other non-Serb civilian detainees in the mentioned detention facilities.


e. The prolonged and frequent forced labour of Croat and other non-Serb civilians detained in the mentioned detention facilities or under house arrest in their respective homes in Vukovar, Dalj, Lovas, Erdut, Saborsko, Vocin and Tovarnik. The forced labour included digging graves, loading ammunition for the Serb forces, digging trenches and other forms of manual labour at the frontlines.


f. The repeated sexual assaults of Croat and other non-Serb civilians by Serb soldiers during arrest and in the mentioned detention facilities.


g. The unlawful attacks on Dubrovnik and undefended Croat villages throughout the territories specified above.


h. The imposing of restrictive and discriminatory measures against the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population, such as restriction of movement; removal from positions of authority in local government institutions and the police; dismissal from jobs; and arbitrary searches of their homes.


i. The beating and robbing of Croat and other non-Serb civilians.


j. The torture and beatings of Croat and other non-Serb civilians during and after their arrest.


k. The deportation or forcible transfer of at least 170,000 Croat and other non-Serb civilians from the territories specified above, including the deportation to Serbia of at least 5,000 inhabitants from Ilok, 20,000 inhabitants from Vukovar; and the forcible transfer to locations within Croatia of at least 2,500 inhabitants from Erdut, as described in detail in paragraphs 67 to 69.


l. The deliberate destruction of homes, other public and private property, cultural institutions, historic monuments and sacred sites of the Croat and other non-Serb population in Dubrovnik and its environs, Vukovar, Erdut, Lovas, Sarengrad, Bapska, Tovarnik, Vocin, Saborsko, Skabrnja, Nadin, and Bruska, as described in paragraphs 71 and 77 to 82.

What's the excuse for this? KLA?

34. From on or about 1 August 1991 until June 1992, Slobodan MILOSEVIC, acting alone or in concert with other known and unknown members of a joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of the persecutions of the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population in the territories of the SAO SBWS, the SAO Western Slavonia, the SAO Krajina, and the Dubrovnik Republic.


35. Throughout this period, Serb forces, comprised of JNA units, local TO units and TO units from Serbia and Montenegro, local and Serbian MUP police units and paramilitary units, attacked and took control of towns, villages and settlements in these territories listed above. After the take-over, the Serb forces in co-operation with the local Serb authorities established a regime of persecutions designed to drive the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population from these territories.


36. These persecutions were based on political, racial or religious grounds and included the following:


a. The extermination or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians, including women and elderly persons, in Dalj, Erdut, Klisa, Lovas, Vukovar, Vocin, Bacin, Saborsko and neighbouring villages, Skabrnja, Nadin, Bruska, and Dubrovnik and its environs, as described in detail in paragraphs 38 to 59 and 73 to 75.


b. The prolonged and routine imprisonment and confinement of thousands of Croat and other non-Serb civilians in detention facilities within and outside of Croatia, including prison camps located in Montenegro, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as described in detail in paragraph 64.


c. The establishment and perpetuation of inhumane living conditions for Croat and other non-Serb civilian detainees within the mentioned detention facilities.


d. The repeated torture, beatings and killings of Croat and other non-Serb civilian detainees in the mentioned detention facilities.


e. The prolonged and frequent forced labour of Croat and other non-Serb civilians detained in the mentioned detention facilities or under house arrest in their respective homes in Vukovar, Dalj, Lovas, Erdut, Saborsko, Vocin and Tovarnik. The forced labour included digging graves, loading ammunition for the Serb forces, digging trenches and other forms of manual labour at the frontlines.


f. The repeated sexual assaults of Croat and other non-Serb civilians by Serb soldiers during arrest and in the mentioned detention facilities.


g. The unlawful attacks on Dubrovnik and undefended Croat villages throughout the territories specified above.


h. The imposing of restrictive and discriminatory measures against the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population, such as restriction of movement; removal from positions of authority in local government institutions and the police; dismissal from jobs; and arbitrary searches of their homes.


i. The beating and robbing of Croat and other non-Serb civilians.


j. The torture and beatings of Croat and other non-Serb civilians during and after their arrest.


k. The deportation or forcible transfer of at least 170,000 Croat and other non-Serb civilians from the territories specified above, including the deportation to Serbia of at least 5,000 inhabitants from Ilok, 20,000 inhabitants from Vukovar; and the forcible transfer to locations within Croatia of at least 2,500 inhabitants from Erdut, as described in detail in paragraphs 67 to 69.


l. The deliberate destruction of homes, other public and private property, cultural institutions, historic monuments and sacred sites of the Croat and other non-Serb population in Dubrovnik and its environs, Vukovar, Erdut, Lovas, Sarengrad, Bapska, Tovarnik, Vocin, Saborsko, Skabrnja, Nadin, and Bruska, as described in paragraphs 71 and 77 to 82.


Nope, lies, I know people in Serbia, I've spoken with US and NATO soldiers who were in Serbia, the only killings they saw evidence of were by non-Serbs (mostly Albanians in Kosovo) against Serbs. The Bosnian Serbs had it especially awful.


NATO lied, to get a war with Serbia who refused to tow the NWO line. The same as Bush lied to get a war with Iraq.

Exactly when did Sunnis stop being Iraqis? Exactly when did the will of Iraq equate to the will of the Shi'ites?

Well, Shiites are majority (>60%) of the population so I'd say that would happen when Iraq becomes a democracy.

Sunnis did not stop being Iraqis, nor does the quote say so.

We helped terrorists (Pro-Iranian shiites) steal Iraq from the Sunnis, just as we helped terrorist Kosovars steal Kosovo from Serbia.

Meanshile, back on Earth...

You're saying 60% of Iraqis (Shia) stole Iraq from the 15% (Sunni) which used to rule it? Interesting...

And in Kosovo, 88% of Kosovars (Albanians) stole Kosovo from the 7% (Serbs) which used to rule it? Wow...

Meanshile, back on Earth...

You're saying 60% of Iraqis (Shia) stole Iraq from the 15% (Sunni) which used to rule it? Interesting...

And in Kosovo, 88% of Kosovars (Albanians) stole Kosovo from the 7% (Serbs) which used to rule it? Wow...



So one day when America is 60% Mexican, because of immigration policies, does it suddenly mean non-Mexicans have no right to be here?


Kosovo was always part of Serbia, and was very Serbian in population until MASSIVE Albanian immigration and breeding changed that.

People moving into your land, breeding left and right, eventually outnumbering you, does not change the fact that they came into YOUR land to begin with. If the land is not theirs, no amount of their jacking up their population percentage in the land will change it.



Iraq is about 30% Sunni, by the way.

Nope, lies, I know people in Serbia, I've spoken with US and NATO soldiers who were in Serbia, the only killings they saw evidence of were by non-Serbs (mostly Albanians in Kosovo) against Serbs. The Bosnian Serbs had it especially awful.


NATO lied, to get a war with Serbia who refused to tow the NWO line. The same as Bush lied to get a war with Iraq.


So Srebrenica was a lie??

So Milosevic is charged with war crimes due to lies??

Whatever....

So Srebrenica was a lie??

So Milosevic is charged with war crimes due to lies??

Whatever....


The government already admitted the Gulf of Tonkin incident was just a lie (it was a thunder storm, not an NVA artillery attack) that was going on, and they declared it an enemy attack to get the Vietnam war into full-swing.


We know the government is quite capable of lying to get what they want.


Some soldiers even say that NATO carried out some massacres and blamed the Serbs.

So one day when America is 60% Mexican, because of immigration policies, does it suddenly mean non-Mexicans have no right to be here?


Kosovo was always part of Serbia, and was very Serbian in population until MASSIVE Albanian immigration and breeding changed that.

People moving into your land, breeding left and right, eventually outnumbering you, does not change the fact that they came into YOUR land to begin with. If the land is not theirs, no amount of their jacking up their population percentage in the land will change it.

Iraq is about 30% Sunni, by the way.

Probelm with Iraq though, is that its always been a mixed population.

Regarding the supposed number of deaths in Iraq... this is a controversy that just keeps coming up.

I have looked carefully at *all* the primary data, and I would propose the following numbers:

during the month of major combat operations: 9000 military, 3500 civilian deaths caused by direct action of the US military.

after that, during the past 20 months: 5000 insurgent, 2000 civilian deaths caused by direct action of the US military; also 2000 military, 12000 civilian deaths caused by direct action of the insurgents.

All of these numbers are +/- 30%. I can cite lots of references analysis etc etc but frankly I'm tired of reposting that. If you really care, ask, or look for my earlier posts, it's all in there.

The reason why everyone comes up with completely different numbers is because they are counting different things. Some count all violent deaths, regardless of who caused them and regardless of whether they are related to the insurgency (iraqbodycount). Some do not distinguish between civilians and military/insurgents as targets. Some count all "excess" deaths whatever the cause, violent or not (the Lancet study). Methodology tends to be really bad, with double-counting and no correction for over- and under-estimates.

Anyway, if you take my numbers, that works out to a violent civilian death rate due to the insurgency and counter-insurgency of around 33 per 100,000 per year (most of which is directly attributable to attacks by the insurgents). You will note that this is pretty close to the numbers in the article I cited (slightly higher, actually). This rate is lower than the murder rate in Washington DC. From the point of view of most of the population, what is going on in Iraq is a lot like a pretty bad gang turf war.

To get a clearer picture, these need to be added. Also needing to be added are the deaths from American troops. The writer is only using the deaths the Sunni rebels are causing. Considering the estimated total dead from American forces is at least 20 000 civilians over the last 21 months, that's approx 30 per day, 200 per week. You need to add another 30 deaths p/100 000 from the American troops. And that's only the civilians.
Some estimates put the total Iraqi dead at close to 100 000 (including troops), which means 1000 deaths per week and 150 deaths/100 000.
Then there's the American dead, now close to 1400, or 15 deaths/week - 10/100000.
The article says that the death rate from crime and government under Saddam was 10-20 p/100 000. If we are to assume 1/2 were from Saddam, 1/2 from crime, that's another 5-10 p/100 000.

Grand total of around 65 deaths p/100 000 minimum and 200 p/100 000 maximum.

Doesn't sound so wonderful now, does it?

Mr Demented Hamsters, I think you're confusing deaths per week and per year. Usually people use "per 100,000 per year" or "total per week". There is no "per 100,000 per week" which is what you're calculating. Check yout math.

"Some estimates put the total Iraqi dead at close to 100 000" - bullshit. You're talking about the Lancet study. That looked at all causes of death, not just violent death... and there are huge problems about how the data was analyzed. If you take the same raw data and analyze it yourself you will find it consistent with my numbers for *violent* deaths above.

"total dead from American forces is at least 20 000 civilians over the last 21 months" - bullshit. I assume this one is from iraqbodycount.net and rounded up? Guess what, they count everyone killed by the insurgents in that total, as well as insurgents that we killed, as well as a lot of military personnel killed during the war, and they often count incidents twice. If you add up my numbers for insurgents killed by US, civilians killed by US, and civilians killed by insurgents, you get 22500... but that total consists mostly of civilians killed by insurgents. That's not remotely a number for "civilians ... dead from American forces". Oh, read their website carefully by the way, they say "killed ... in the war and subsequent occupation" not "*by American forces*". Not that anyone ever cites them correctly. Those guys exist pretty much for the sole reason of providing a convenient large round number that people can throw around without having a clue.

This has to be the first time I've seen Murdoch called on the same side as the EU.

Murdock's on the side that pays him.

Hmm, nobody really wants to argue numbers, eh? Demented Hamsters? Zeppistan? Anyone?