NationStates Jolt Archive

For the benefit of those here who may have tuned out the daily horror in Iraq. Never forget what's going on there.

At least 34,452 Iraqis died a violent death last year.


"The situation is particularly grave in Baghdad, where most casualties and unidentified bodies that are daily recorded also bear signs of torture," the report said.

The UN report said that between November 1 and December 31 alone, at least 6,376 civilians were killed and another 6,875 wounded.


Short article here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070116-Iraq-toll.html).

Some NS'ers will care. Some won't. And others won't simply because it's not American's dying.

How many left to go?
...
>.>
<.<

I would be interested to contrast this with; annual figures since 2003, and annual figures prior to the fall of Saddam.

The suggestion that Iraq could be "democratized" without bloodshed is entirely false, however, I should imagine that coalition intervention aggravted what coup would have done for Saddam eventually.

Some NS'ers will care. Some won't. And others won't simply because it's not American's dying.Some will find it hard to care because it's such high number. As Stalin (not our Forum's Stalin) said - You kill one it's a tradegy. You a kill million and it's a statistic.

I can't even begin to imagine 34,000 people.

Grim.

I just can't even begin to fathom the idea that people from the same religion want to kill eachother simply over what sect they belong to, and yet we see similar ideas even here in America.

How many left to go?
...
>.>
<.<
About 22 million, I think. At 34,000 a year, that means...

They'll all be dead in 647 years.

34,000 civilian deaths is 34,000 too many - and yet, it is always inevitable. War is always a sordid affair.

For the benefit of those here who may have tuned out the daily horror in Iraq. Never forget what's going on there.

At least 34,452 Iraqis died a violent death last year.



Short article here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070116-Iraq-toll.html).

Does this figure include insurgents as civilians (they technically are)?

Some will find it hard to care because it's such high number. As Stalin (not our Forum's Stalin) said - You kill one it's a tradegy. You a kill million and it's a statistic.

I can't even begin to imagine 34,000 people.

Yes, that's the problem. It takes an effort to imagine the human scale of this horror, and some people may simply not want to.

Does this figure include insurgents as civilians (they technically are)?

Presumably not, if they're armed.

Presumably not, if they're armed.

When fighting a war of attrition it's not easy to distinguish the enemy from civilians.

Some will find it hard to care because it's such high number. As Stalin (not our Forum's Stalin) said - You kill one it's a tradegy. You a kill million and it's a statistic.

I can't even begin to imagine 34,000 people.
I can say it if you want.

If you particularly do want to imagine 34000 dead people (though why you would...), just imagine 100 dead people. Then imagine that every day for a year.

If you particularly do want to imagine 34000 dead people (though why you would...)

To understand the reality of the situation.

So as not to dehumanise or trivialise the dead.

For the benefit of those here who may have tuned out the daily horror in Iraq. Never forget what's going on there.

At least 34,452 Iraqis died a violent death last year.

Short article here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070116-Iraq-toll.html).

In the US, roughly 16,000 Americans died a violent death by firearm (and you can add about 1/3 of that number to account for violent death not by firearm (this is only for murders, thank you - not for legal shooting of people by police, etc).

Tell me, how many of the 34,452 Iraqis that died were killed by American soldiers, and how many were killed by other Iraqis?

I don't think that's the point. I think the thing to remember is that civilians are dying, they have always died in war, and people tend to forget that.

I don't think that's the point. I think the thing to remember is that civilians are dying, they have always died in war, and people tend to forget that.

Exactly. Thank you.

As Stalin (not our Forum's Stalin) said - You kill one it's a tradegy. You a kill million and it's a statistic.

Actually there is no evidence that he ever said such a thing.

To understand the reality of the situation.

So as not to dehumanise or trivialise the dead.
The number is not important. 1000 would be enough to make the point. 3500 died in the World Trade Center attacks, 34000 died in a year in Iraq, about 250000 died following the tsunami in 2004, and twelve million died in the Holocaust.

I feel roughly the same about all of these - they are all a pointless waste of life that achieved nothing. The numbers are insignificant.

Actually there is no evidence that he ever said such a thing.

I thought Mao said that actually.

The number is not important. 1000 would be enough to make the point. 3500 died in the World Trade Center attacks, 34000 died in a year in Iraq, about 250000 died following the tsunami in 2004, and twelve million died in the Holocaust.

I feel roughly the same about all of these - they are all a pointless waste of life that achieved nothing. The numbers are insignificant.

True. Any death is a tragedy.

But I think a lot of people aren't really following what's going on in Iraq, and it's easier to shrug it off when even the numbers are a haze.

I don't think that's the point. I think the thing to remember is that civilians are dying, they have always died in war, and people tend to forget that.

I haven't forgotten. It's just that right now, the war is mostly between the Sunnis and Shias, and the occasional American is getting in the way.

If you haven't noticed, they've been exacting a lot of payback for the years of oppression. I would bet that if the Americans left right now, inside of six months, there wouldn't be a single Sunni left alive in Iraq - the Shias will kill them all.

If that's what you are comfortable with, as a price for Iraq becoming a quiet place, then by all means, have the US forces leave.

In the US, roughly 16,000 Americans died a violent death by firearm (and you can add about 1/3 of that number to account for violent death not by firearm (this is only for murders, thank you - not for legal shooting of people by police, etc).

Tell me, how many of the 34,452 Iraqis that died were killed by American soldiers, and how many were killed by other Iraqis?

No idea, but out of the 600,000 (low 452,000 - high 900,000)total overall of dead Iraqis, about half.
Would their be such civil conflict were it not for the American intervention? Almost certainly not.

If there had been any sort of plan for post-invasion Iraq in place? Probably not on the same scale.

As it is, we have a country thats on the way to dissolving, a society in tatters, and an infrastructure destroyed, due to American arrogance and ignorance.

No idea, but out of the 600,000 (low 452,000 - high 900,000)total overall of dead Iraqis, about half.
Would their be such civil conflict were it not for the American intervention? Almost certainly not.

Saddam didn't have any problem killing 180,000 people because he was pissed off, so I disagree. He even used nerve gas for fun.


If there had been any sort of plan for post-invasion Iraq in place? Probably not on the same scale.
Considering that the US military is solely designed to confront and destroy a massive conventional force in a few weeks, and destroy a country's infratructure to engender political collapse in that same time frame, and is not designed to handle counterinsurgency at all, I'm not sure what kind of a plan you could have come up with, other than leaving as soon as we overthrew Saddam.

As it is, we have a country thats on the way to dissolving, a society in tatters, and an infrastructure destroyed, due to American arrogance and ignorance.

The infrastructure was destroyed long before we invaded. Apparently, even in these violent times, it's much better than it's been in 30 years.

As for society in tatters, well, the Sunnis have to expect a little payback for their merciless treatment of Kurds and Shias. Once the payback is over (i.e., once all the Sunnis are ethnically cleansed), things will get quiet. It would happen faster if the US left immediately.

In the US, roughly 16,000 Americans died a violent death by firearm (and you can add about 1/3 of that number to account for violent death not by firearm (this is only for murders, thank you - not for legal shooting of people by police, etc).
Why are you telling us this?

If you're trying to compare America with Iraq, may I point out that the population of America is 300 million, whereas the population of Iraq is about 25 million.

For violent death rates to be the same, there'd have to be 200,000 violent deaths in America. Per year. 200,000 people. A year. Think about that.

Yeah. That's what people in Iraq are thinking.

Why are you telling us this?

If you're trying to compare America with Iraq, may I point out that the population of America is 300 million, whereas the population of Iraq is about 25 million.

For violent death rates to be the same, there'd have to be 200,000 violent deaths in America. Per year. 200,000 people. A year. Think about that.

Yeah. That's what people in Iraq are thinking.

Oh, I guess 16,000 people isn't a big deal to you. Sorry to bother you with that then.

There were times prior to the invasion where Saddam was killing 180,000 Shias in three months - I guess you would like to go back to those rates, eh?

Saddam didn't have any problem killing 180,000 people because he was pissed off, so I disagree. He even used nerve gas for fun..

That refers to the campaign against the Kurds which occurred in the 80's. Due to sanctions and the no fly zone he would be unable to mount such an operation again. Nor did he.


Considering that the US military is solely designed to confront and destroy a massive conventional force in a few weeks, and destroy a country's infratructure to engender political collapse in that same time frame, and is not designed to handle counterinsurgency at all, I'm not sure what kind of a plan you could have come up with, other than leaving as soon as we overthrew Saddam...

The "Not Fucking Invade" plan. That doesnt involve "leaving" because it avoids the "going".


The infrastructure was destroyed long before we invaded. Apparently, even in these violent times, it's much better than it's been in 30 years....

Source? (Other than some chain e-mail)


As for society in tatters, well, the Sunnis have to expect a little payback for their merciless treatment of Kurds and Shias. Once the payback is over (i.e., once all the Sunnis are ethnically cleansed), things will get quiet. It would happen faster if the US left immediately.

Fairly typical, from the one who wanted to keep a scoreboard of Palestinian dead.......

Oh, I guess 16,000 people isn't a big deal to you. Sorry to bother you with that then.

There were times prior to the invasion where Saddam was killing 180,000 Shias in three months - I guess you would like to go back to those rates, eh?
:eek: <---That's what you must think I look like to put words in my mouth like that. :rolleyes:

16,000 people is a considerable number, but even absolutely it's still less than half the number of people who died in Iraq. Relatively, it's about 2.5% of the number being killed in Iraq.

Yep, Saddam was killing vast numbers of people. Does that mean it's right to invade? Maybe. The Sudanese government has been supporting attacks on people living in the Darfur region for over three years now, and 400,000 people are estimated to have died. Why hasn't America invaded Sudan?

In 1994, more than half a million Rwandan people were massacred in little over three months. Despite probably knowing this was going to happen before it did, America did nothing.

But this isn't about statistics. If it were, I'd tell you that smoking kills over 400,000 people per year in the US. Why doesn't America ban smoking? Makes as much sense as invading Iraq.

You want to justify America's invasion of Iraq? First, justify America's inactivity when it suited them.

The "Not Fucking Invade" plan. That doesnt involve "leaving" because it avoids the "going".
Kind of late for that - maybe you should become a doctor, and tell people with AIDS that maybe they shouldn't have been fucking people without a condom. I'm sure that bit of advice would go over really well with your patients.

Source? (Other than some chain e-mail)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060410_4779.html

Fairly typical, from the one who wanted to keep a scoreboard of Palestinian dead.......

It's the Democrats who want us to "redeploy" our troops out of Iraq posthaste.

Imagine the bloodbath that will ensue... not my fault, because it's not my idea of a plan.

Considering that the US military is solely designed to confront and destroy a massive conventional force in a few weeks, and destroy a country's infratructure to engender political collapse in that same time frame, and is not designed to handle counterinsurgency at all, I'm not sure what kind of a plan you could have come up with, other than leaving as soon as we overthrew Saddam.

More soft touch, less artillery. Embed troops into the communities rather than patrols from fortified bases (you can have your bases, but it would be more police work than war footing). Also, a lot of decapitating in the upper echelons of the pentagon. It's obvious far too many of them can't understand anything beyond heavy firepower.


As for society in tatters, well, the Sunnis have to expect a little payback for their merciless treatment of Kurds and Shias. Once the payback is over (i.e., once all the Sunnis are ethnically cleansed), things will get quiet. It would happen faster if the US left immediately.

You're Deep "let's kill all Muslims" Kimchi aren't you?

If so, one extra addition. Screen out people of your ilk from ever being recruited. Fire discipline is important, and it's more than just making sure each bullet kills someone.

And 60 more dead today (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070116-IRak-bombe-universite.html).

Willie know. Willie don't care.

You're Deep "let's kill all Muslims" Kimchi aren't you?

Nope. For the umpteenth time, nope.

If so, one extra addition. Screen out people of your ilk from ever being recruited. Fire discipline is important, and it's more than just making sure each bullet kills someone.

You'll note that the majority of people being killed nowadays in Iraq are being killed by Iraqis. That looks like fire discipline to me.

We're evidently not there to prevent them from killing each other.

More soft touch, less artillery. Embed troops into the communities rather than patrols from fortified bases (you can have your bases, but it would be more police work than war footing). Also, a lot of decapitating in the upper echelons of the pentagon. It's obvious far too many of them can't understand anything beyond heavy firepower.


The mission of conduction counterinsurgency was an impossibility from the start.

Consider that there are only 60,000 infantry TOTAL in US Armed Forces.

Everyone else is useless for foot patrols, etc.

Our military is designed for overwhelming and destroying a large, conventional, armored force, and destroying a country's command and control centers - not designed for counterinsurgency.

The mission of conduction counterinsurgency was an impossibility from the start.

Consider that there are only 60,000 infantry TOTAL in US Armed Forces.

Everyone else is useless for foot patrols, etc.

Our military is designed for overwhelming and destroying a large, conventional, armored force, and destroying a country's command and control centers - not designed for counterinsurgency.

As you've parroted many times. So what's the real solution? Keeping pouring in more of the oh-so effective US military?

The mission of conduction counterinsurgency was an impossibility from the start.

Consider that there are only 60,000 infantry TOTAL in US Armed Forces.

Everyone else is useless for foot patrols, etc.

Our military is designed for overwhelming and destroying a large, conventional, armored force, and destroying a country's command and control centers - not designed for counterinsurgency.
If the US military isn't designed for counterinsurgency, why did they invade? Surely they'd know at least to some extent what they'd face after they'd "won"? Or did they just go in with inadequate intelligence?

Kind of late for that - maybe you should become a doctor, and tell people with AIDS that maybe they shouldn't have been fucking people without a condom. I'm sure that bit of advice would go over really well with your patients..

You asked for a plan, and "Not Fucking Invading" is precisely the plan that should have been followed. Others include not Disbanding the Iraqi army as requested by the Brits, but no, Don Rumseld and "Governor" Bremner werent having any of that......



http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060410_4779.html.

A US Defence department press release? I would have preferred the chain letter. "Air War Strategy Preserved Iraqi Infrastructure, Lives" - bollocks.

The mission of conduction counterinsurgency was an impossibility from the start..

So it was even more incompetent for going ahead with the invasion.

Consider that there are only 60,000 infantry TOTAL in US Armed Forces...

See above. Also the NFI plan.

Everyone else is useless for foot patrols, etc...

Yep, big men from 10,000 feet.....

Our military is designed for overwhelming and destroying a large, conventional, armored force, and destroying a country's command and control centers - not designed for counterinsurgency.

Incompetent etc pt 3?

Incompetent etc pt 3?

It's not the military that is incompetent.

They are extremely competent at what they are designed and trained and funded to do - none of which is counterinsurgency on a grand scale.

You may recall that civilians in the US order the military around. It isn't the generals who get up one morning and say, "hey, let's invade Iraq".

It's the civilians who are incomptent. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last time.

War is too important to be left to the civilians.

Nope. For the umpteenth time, nope.

Huh, for a person who claims he isn't him, you sure espouse a lot of views strikingly similar to him.


You'll note that the majority of people being killed nowadays in Iraq are being killed by Iraqis. That looks like fire discipline to me.

Events at Fallujah, not to mention various other instances of summary executions (without justification) by US troops says otherwise.


We're evidently not there to prevent them from killing each other.

Of course not. The welfare of the average Iraqi was quite distant from the minds of the administration. Otherwise, they'd have done important things like getting the local infrastructure working properly.

The reason why they're there is form a regional base from which to threaten the local surroundings (like Iran), and secure strategic reserves of oil for their benefit.

Huh, for a person who claims he isn't him, you sure espouse a lot of views strikingly similar to him.

Evidently, you haven't been reading my posts.

It's not the military that is incompetent.

They are extremely competent at what they are designed and trained and funded to do - none of which is counterinsurgency on a grand scale.

You may recall that civilians in the US order the military around. It isn't the generals who get up one morning and say, "hey, let's invade Iraq".

It's the civilians who are incomptent. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last time.

War is too important to be left to the civilians.

O its the GOP thats incompetent allright....and its not the idiots who voted for them that are paying the price.

It's the civilians who are incomptent. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last time.


So how do you explain the fact that those who had ideas regarding soft touch counter insurgency modeled after British Imperial era strategies were scorned at by their peers hmm? Peers that were of the military persuasion I might add.

So how do you explain the fact that those who had ideas regarding soft touch counter insurgency modeled after British Imperial era strategies were scorned at by their peers hmm? Peers that were of the military persuasion I might add.

Because our military wasn't designed from the ground up to do that sort of thing.

For starters, it takes an order of magnitude more foot soldiers (infantrymen) than we have.

Evidently, you haven't been reading my posts.


Or maybe he has.

Evidently, you haven't been reading my posts.

Let's see:

Pre-empts general reactions to weapons advances with "the protesters will protests because it's too effective"

Considers matters of war to be outside civilian control. (I disagree. The army is a sword. It should not be able to strike by itself.)

Callous regards to matters regarding non-American life.

Considerably pro-gun ownership.

And a few other things. Not enough to conclude with 100% certainty, but enough to strongly suspect.

Does this figure include insurgents as civilians (they technically are)?

Of course it does. The better to inflate the numbers of "civilian" deaths. Doesn't matter to the whiners if it was a civilian with a gun or with explosives strapped to his body. Think of the "civilians"! :rolleyes:

Because our military wasn't designed from the ground up to do that sort of thing.

For starters, it takes an order of magnitude more foot soldiers (infantrymen) than we have.

So basically, because the military is not suited for a situation they will be going into, and a person comes up with an idea of what works, he should be rejected out of hand?

That's more than enough to make a few heads high up roll. It's obvious they are incapable of learning then.

Of course it does.

Proof?


Doesn't matter to the whiners

Because caring about murdered civilians is "whining"? Funny; I call it being human.

You just keep on denying reality, if reality bothers you.

Of course it does. The better to inflate the numbers of "civilian" deaths. Doesn't matter to the whiners if it was a civilian with a gun or with explosives strapped to his body. Think of the civilians! :rolleyes:

According to you. However the majority of "death by American" was via bombing and large munitions - "Force protection" etc.

According to you. However the majority of "death by American" was via bombing and large munitions - "Force protection" etc.

Majority? Okay, that's questionable, at best. And to my friend Ariddia, I wasn't the one who threw out the claim of 34,000. The burden of proof for that figure doesn't lie with me. It lies with the one claiming it.

So basically, because the military is not suited for a situation they will be going into, and a person comes up with an idea of what works, he should be rejected out of hand?

That's more than enough to make a few heads high up roll. It's obvious they are incapable of learning then.

It takes years, and billions of dollars to change a military. You're the one incapable of learning.

The US military was designed and trained and equipped over decades to do ONE thing:

Defeat a large conventional force such as the former USSR.

Nothing else, on a large scale.

That made it easy to roll into Iraq - twice in history.

Unfortunately, anyone with half a brain would know you can't occupy a country that might have an insurgency with such a force - it's just not good at it, and you can't retrain it to do the soft touch counterinsurgency, because that requires TEN TIMES as many infantrymen.

Where are you going to get the extra infantrymen, right then, on demand?

Out of your ass?

Unfortunately, anyone with half a brain would know you can't occupy a country that might have an insurgency with such a force -

Thats the current US Government out then......

Thats the current US Government out then......

And did I argue that with you, or did I point that out for you?

And to my friend Ariddia, I wasn't the one who threw out the claim of 34,000. The burden of proof for that figure doesn't lie with me. It lies with the one claiming it.

Here's a direct link to the original UN press release (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21241&Cr=iraq&Cr1=). I see no reason whatsoever to assume that insurgents were counted as "civilians". Someone who's firing at soldiers isn't an innocent unarmed civilian victim.

I'm curious as to why you want to play down the extent of the death and destruction in Iraq.

By the way, the report also notes that "471,000 people have been forcibly displaced" in Iraq since last February.

Proof?

I could ask you the same question. In an earlier post I said that in a war such as this it is not easy to tell the difference between civilians and the enemy. And both overlap I might add. Any war of occupation cannot be won when you are dealing with a fanatical insurgency as is the case for Algeria, Vietnam, and most recently Iraq.

Here's a direct link to the original UN press release (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21241&Cr=iraq&Cr1=). I see no reason whatsoever to assume that insurgents were counted as "civilians". Someone who's firing at soldiers isn't an innocent unarmed civilian victim.

I'm curious as to why you want to play down the extent of the death and destruction in Iraq.

By the way, the report also notes that "471,000 people have been forcibly displaced" in Iraq since last February.


A UN press release? Could that get anymore anti-US? Really, I expect better of you, mon ami.

I'm not playing down anything. But if you're going to throw out numbers from a clearly biased source, try looking at how they're coming to those numbers -- including the displaced bit. You don't think the UN Refugee Agency doesn't have any interest in inflating that number? Come now...

And did I argue that with you, or did I point that out for you?

Suddenly, Nodinia is quiet...:rolleyes:

Actually there is no evidence that he ever said such a thing.Miss the point much? I don't care who said it. What I'm putting forward is the idea that people find it hard to sympathise with large groups of people. With just one person it's very very easy, but with larger numbers this gets increasingly hard to do. I would go as far to say that most people are incapable of imagining the representation of a number larger 100 or so.

It takes years, and billions of dollars to change a military. You're the one incapable of learning.

The US had 30 years. About 10 if we're generous and counting only post Cold War era. It didn't learn a thing.

And if people who keep proposing ideas that work but needs changes keep getting laughed at, it will never learn a thing. The pinnacle of US military thinking. Glorifying ignorance.

Don't get me wrong. It's a wee bit late to change things on such a magnitude, but change must come from the top. And that means moss covered heads rolling.


That made it easy to roll into Iraq - twice in history.


The first time round, maybe. The second time round, Iran could have done the job, with about as much difficulty.


Unfortunately, anyone with half a brain would know you can't occupy a country that might have an insurgency with such a force - it's just not good at it, and you can't retrain it to do the soft touch counterinsurgency, because that requires TEN TIMES as many infantrymen.


Too bad nobody with half a brain ever got into either the military or administration then isn't it?


Out of your ass?

I was thinking yours really. It does seem fairly cavernous after all.

But let's be realistic. A lot of these projections for massive troop requirements deal with what, offensively taking down an insurgency? Room by room clearing? If the requirements and methods do not match, they both don't work.

Soft touch counter insurgency was practiced in Iraq before, with no more troops than there were on hand. Although on a small scale since nobody higher up seemed to like the idea.

Because our military wasn't designed from the ground up to do that sort of thing.

One could be mistaken and believe the US military was designed to defend the country. Ahahahaha, what an absolutely ridiculous notion. Haaaa...

Seriously though, isn't it simply grand to see yet another instance of the military being trained to fight the last war all over again? I think it's sweet. Especially how the military could have instituted better counterinsurgency training and chose not to - even after the insurgency had begun and was growing stronger. Too slow, always too slow.

Thing is, the mistakes and HUGE blunders are on the military side as well. Their choice of tactics and strategy was lacking, their failure to train troops properly, and their failure not to speak up when the civilian leadership comes up with such "plans" that must have gotten some of the generals to wake up screaming in the night. But hey, when that promotion is so close you can smell it you'd better not rock the boat, seeing as how those who did got replaced eh?

May some of the generals that went along with this disaster never sleep again for the rest of their lives; and if they do sleep, may they wake screaming seeing the faces of the fallen American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. The blood is on their hands too.

A UN press release? Could that get anymore anti-US?

I've never quite understood this American obsession with the UN.

Anyway... Although I see no reason why the figures would have been deliberately inflated by the UN (you don't invent dead people), what are you suggesting? That they're somehow significantly lower? That everything is rosy in Iraq, and that a few hundred innocent civilian deaths over 2006 would be an exaggeration?

Or are you attacking the source so as to deflect the point away from the unquestionable fact that thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians died last year?

The 34,000 was presented as a conservative estimate, by the way. That was the number of dead they were absolutely certain of. They estimate the number was actually much higher.

The US had 30 years. About 10 if we're generous and counting only post Cold War era. It didn't learn a thing.


The military does what it's told to do - fight the last war, which was the Cold War, and then the First Gulf War.

Large conventional fighting force...

And if people who keep proposing ideas that work but needs changes keep getting laughed at, it will never learn a thing. The pinnacle of US military thinking. Glorifying ignorance.
You may recall that the US intentionally avoided staying in Iraq the first time - precisely because they knew they couldn't handle an insurgency because the military can't do it.

Don't get me wrong. It's a wee bit late to change things on such a magnitude, but change must come from the top. And that means moss covered heads rolling.
If you want to fund a military that can handle that, be prepared to substantially increase the defense budget - something that really isn't palatable to individual senators, since paying troops isn't as full of pork as huge defense contracts for weapon systems made for fighting huge conventional wars. Oh, and every Senator and Congressman is guilty of that one...

Too bad nobody with half a brain ever got into either the military or administration then isn't it?
I'm sure that the military people who pointed out during the First Gulf War that we need to leave immediately after inflicting defeat were pretty smart. And you insist that some people have raised the idea of soft touch, but I'm sure that by the time war actually broke out, the military was far too small to do that sort of thing.

But let's be realistic. A lot of these projections for massive troop requirements deal with what, offensively taking down an insurgency? Room by room clearing? If the requirements and methods do not match, they both don't work.

I don't believe that Rumsfeld actually believed there would be an insurgency. Fool, yes. But I think he was thinking that the Iraqi military was a solid icon like the USSR military - and once defeated, the war would be over. Not very bright.

Soft touch counter insurgency was practiced in Iraq before, with no more troops than there were on hand. Although on a small scale since nobody higher up seemed to like the idea.

To do it on a large scale requires tremendous numbers of infantrymen - soldiers that do not exist.

It also requires a willingness to put up with far more casualties than we've had to date - because more troops on the ground means more at risk, and at least in the beginning, the insurgents will take it as an opportunity.

Not saying it won't work - I'm saying the men don't exist, the training doesn't exist, and the people at home would never accept the losses.

One could be mistaken and believe the US military was designed to defend the country. Ahahahaha, what an absolutely ridiculous notion. Haaaa...

Seriously though, isn't it simply grand to see yet another instance of the military being trained to fight the last war all over again? I think it's sweet. Especially how the military could have instituted better counterinsurgency training and chose not to - even after the insurgency had begun and was growing stronger. Too slow, always too slow.

Thing is, the mistakes and HUGE blunders are on the military side as well. Their choice of tactics and strategy was lacking, their failure to train troops properly, and their failure not to speak up when the civilian leadership comes up with such "plans" that must have gotten some of the generals to wake up screaming in the night. But hey, when that promotion is so close you can smell it you'd better not rock the boat, seeing as how those who did got replaced eh?

May some of the generals that went along with this disaster never sleep again for the rest of their lives; and if they do sleep, may they wake screaming seeing the faces of the fallen American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. The blood is on their hands too.

By the time this war came along, the generals who went along with the civilian (read Senators and Congressmen and President) leadership who grew or shrank the military and made it into a tool to fight conventional wars against armored opponents had already retired, leaving the current generals holding the bag.

Don't you remember the drawdown? The "peace dividend" (whatever that was, it didn't save money, but it did reduce troop numbers drastically)?

America's distaste for counterinsurgency warfare (from Vietnam) led to a decision not to train to fight in such a war, because we anticipated that the civilians would never allow the military to fight in one (Powell doctrine, anyone)?

And here we are...

Sure, there have been some adaptations - but none can be done in time, especially with the small number of infantrymen at hand.

By the time this war came along, the generals who went along with the civilian (read Senators and Congressmen and President) leadership who grew or shrank the military and made it into a tool to fight conventional wars against armored opponents had already retired, leaving the current generals holding the bag.

Don't you remember the drawdown? The "peace dividend" (whatever that was, it didn't save money, but it did reduce troop numbers drastically)?

America's distaste for counterinsurgency warfare (from Vietnam) led to a decision not to train to fight in such a war, because we anticipated that the civilians would never allow the military to fight in one (Powell doctrine, anyone)?

And here we are...

Sure, there have been some adaptations - but none can be done in time, especially with the small number of infantrymen at hand.
I made a thread on this some time back... They didn't even try to adapt to the situation on the ground before it was too late. They lived in their fantasy worlds, some of them inside the bubble of the 'Green Zone'. And the blame for this mess is shared by both the military and civilian leadership, but all you see are presidential medals of freedom, reassignments and promotions. So much for accountability...

I made a thread on this some time back... They didn't even try to adapt to the situation on the ground before it was too late. They lived in their fantasy worlds, some of them inside the bubble of the 'Green Zone'. And the blame for this mess is shared by both the military and civilian leadership, but all you see are presidential medals of freedom, reassignments and promotions. So much for accountability...

It's clear that some ground troops tried to adapt - and not all in a positive manner.

I think that using a large sledgehammer as a lockpick yields predictable results. The door will be open, but you'll fuck it up so badly you'll never use the door again - you'll have to make a new one. Until then, you either guard the doorway, or let whoever wants to come in, come in.

A UN press release? Could that get anymore anti-US? Really, I expect better of you, mon ami.

I'm not playing down anything. But if you're going to throw out numbers from a clearly biased source, try looking at how they're coming to those numbers -- including the displaced bit. You don't think the UN Refugee Agency doesn't have any interest in inflating that number? Come now...

O yeah..its run by the anti-christ.

In the US, roughly 16,000 Americans died a violent death by firearm (and you can add about 1/3 of that number to account for violent death not by firearm (this is only for murders, thank you - not for legal shooting of people by police, etc).

Tell me, how many of the 34,452 Iraqis that died were killed by American soldiers, and how many were killed by other Iraqis?

are you aware of the fact that population of the us is like 10 times bigger that the population of iraq?

anyway, i reckon that most of them died not directly because of the american soldiers but because of the unstable situation caused by the invasion. although i dont have numbers for the pre-invasion years, bombings and raids seemed to happen not as often as they do today

are you aware of the fact that population of the us is like 10 times bigger that the population of iraq?

anyway, i reckon that most of them died not directly because of the american soldiers but because of the unstable situation caused by the invasion. although i dont have numbers for the pre-invasion years, bombings and raids seemed to happen not as often as they do today

Maybe you need to read the whole thread.

For the benefit of those here who may have tuned out the daily horror in Iraq. Never forget what's going on there.

At least 34,452 Iraqis died a violent death last year.



Short article here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070116-Iraq-toll.html).

imagine if someone set up a field of 34,000 crosses to demonstrate the number of deaths visually. I'm sure it would make much more of an impression than saying the number.

Many people are shocked to see the 3,000 crosses they set up for the US American soldiers. It takes that visual to really hit home to a lot of people who otherwise find the number 3,000 to be low.

I had a dream not too long ago where a bomb exploded in Iraq and it was reported that 1 thousand people were killed. It really got to me and I broke down crying and woke up crying but relieved it was just a dream and then not so relieved because it was a less harsh reality than the actual numbers.

which would change what you said in what kind of way? i did read the whole thread...

maybe i got you completly wrong, but seems unlikely

which would change what you said in what kind of way? i did read the whole thread...

maybe i got you completly wrong, but seems unlikely

Yes, you're way off...

so what did you want to tell all the users in here?

so what did you want to tell all the users in here?

I've already typed my responses in the thread...