[subego]

I read this article in the Economist, which discusses the Army's (recently revised) manual "FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency" You can download the 14 meg behemoth here

Paragraph 1-67 puts it down in black and white:

Originally Posted by FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency

A better force requirement gauge is troop density, the ratio of security forces (including the host nation’s military and police forces as well as foreign counterinsurgents) to inhabitants. Most density recommendations fall within a range of 20 to 25 counterinsurgents for every 1000 residents in an AO. Twenty counterinsurgents per 1000 residents is often considered the minimum troop density required for effective COIN [COunter INsurgency] operations; however as with any fixed ratio, such calculations remain very dependent upon the situation.

Let's see. Plus two... carry the four...

So we need something along the lines of 535,000 to 670,000 boots on the ground. The good news? Once the Iraqi army can pass that darned "shoot yourself out of a paper bag" test, they count!

So, with that big surge being planned, and all those crack Iraqis, we're only about 100k short. Maybe Rumsfeld was a genius.

Speaking of Rumsfeld, I note that this little nugget of information is conspicuously absent in the "final" draft of the manual, dated from when Rumsfeld was still top dog.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, with that big surge being planned, and all those crack Iraqis, we're only about 100k short.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webg.../TMW010307.jpg

[Troll]

I wasn't the only one who noted this requirement back in 2003. Given that Bush alienated most of his allies, the only way he was going to get 500,000 troops was to institute a draft and it soon became clear that that was never going to happen.

500,000 troops was the minimum number required immediately after the invasion to stabilise Iraq. Now that the insurgency has had a chance to get their act together, it would take significantly more than that number to bring things back under control.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

http://www.workingforchange.com/webg.../TMW010307.jpg

[Powerbook]

"Boots on ground" is still the common formula for winning a war or especially winning the peace. Another member here already stated the low numbers of troops per square kilometer and the comparisons.

Here is a list of the multinational forces from the first gulf war (sum ca. 812.000, the fighting force itself was iirc 660.000):

* United States: 575,000 troops
* Saudi Arabia: 52,000 troops
* Turkey: 50,000 troops
* United Kingdom: 43,000 troops
* Egypt: 35,000 troops
* United Arab Emirates: 1,000 troops
* Oman: 950 troops
* France: 14,663 troops
* Spain: 3,000 troops
* Syria: 16,000 troops
* Kuwait: 7,000 troops
* Bangladesh: 2,000 troops
* Pakistan: 5,500 troops
* Canada: 4,500 troops
* Niger: 500 troops
* Bahrain: 200 troops
* Morocco: 2000 troops
* Czechoslovakia: 200 troops
* Netherlands: 200 troops
* Honduras: 150 troops


Regards
PB.

[subego]

Why hasn't anyone tried to pin this on the Democrats yet?

I've lost all faith in you people.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I wasn't the only one who noted this requirement back in 2003. Given that Bush alienated most of his allies, the only way he was going to get 500,000 troops was to institute a draft and it soon became clear that that was never going to happen.

500,000 troops was the minimum number required immediately after the invasion to stabilise Iraq. Now that the insurgency has had a chance to get their act together, it would take significantly more than that number to bring things back under control.

Gradual escalation is never a good way to win a war (or most any conflict). Hit them with overwhelming force from the beginning -- real shock and awe, not Rumsfeld's made-for-TV they'll-be-dancing-in-the-streets six-weeks-or-six-months version. Adding 10,000 or 20,000 troops hasn't worked so far in Iraq, and it won't work this time.

[Troll]

Sending another 20,000 troops in will make absolutely no difference at all. It's like putting an ice cube into a gallon of boiling water.

[subego]

Does anyone have any idea what the point of the surge is?

I mean, for reals?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Sending another 20,000 troops in will make absolutely no difference at all. It's like putting an ice cube into a gallon of boiling water.

20,000 more will absolutely help the security situation in Baghdad. I want to know if we should also send 20,000 soldiers into those US cities that have a higher violent death rate than Iraq.

... the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia (61.7), South Africa (49.6), Jamaica (32.4), and Venezuela (31.6). How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9.

Spinning The Reality Of Iraq War - May 16, 2006 - The New York Sun
Many US Cities Have Had Murder Rates Higher Than Iraq's 2006 'Violent Death' Rate | NewsBusters.org

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

20,000 more will absolutely help the security situation in Baghdad. I want to know if we should also send 20,000 soldiers into those US cities that have a higher violent death rate than Iraq.

... the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia (61.7), South Africa (49.6), Jamaica (32.4), and Venezuela (31.6). How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9.

Spinning The Reality Of Iraq War - May 16, 2006 - The New York Sun
Many US Cities Have Had Murder Rates Higher Than Iraq's 2006 'Violent Death' Rate | NewsBusters.org

I am very fascinated with this "study". Looking at the second article, the author states that there were 16,000 deaths in Baghadad (pop. 7,000,000) and compares it with the population of Iraq (28,000,000) and comes up with the figure 25.71/100,000 people. (Anyone catch the problem yet?) I'll assume his math is correct. He then compares those values with the violent death rates in NYC, Detroit, New Orleans, etc. but, for some reason, he didn't compare the violent deaths in each city with the population of the state that city is in, but rather just the population of that city. Makes sense.

It's curious then, that he didn't use the same method for Baghdad. If he were to do so, he might find that deaths per 100,000 people was closer to 100. Or 1 in 1000.

[Nicko]

uh....isn't the ny sun a tabloid...

[tie]

Make up some more numbers for us, Spacefreak.

20,000 will do nothing, as everybody knows. Even the original "surge" proposals called for 50,000 troops.
Kagan and Kristol: Time for a Heavier Footprint
Kagan and Keane: "It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq." Gideon Rachman's Blog
(As far as I know, these proposals were the basis for the term "surge" instead of the more accurate term "escalation." But I could definitely be wrong! Does anyone know for sure?)

We need to get out of Iraq now. We are no longer fighting to win, but just to delay our defeat past 2008. If Bush wanted to win, he'd send hundreds of thousands of troops. I don't see the point of fighting a war you aren't serious about winning. Oh well, who cares, hopefully we'll get more tax cuts.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

20,000 more will absolutely help the security situation in Baghdad. I want to know if we should also send 20,000 soldiers into those US cities that have a higher violent death rate than Iraq.

... the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia (61.7), South Africa (49.6), Jamaica (32.4), and Venezuela (31.6). How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9.

Spinning The Reality Of Iraq War - May 16, 2006 - The New York Sun
Many US Cities Have Had Murder Rates Higher Than Iraq's 2006 'Violent Death' Rate | NewsBusters.org

Those are nonsense figures as Warren has pointed out. The Lancet Study in 2005 had the most conservative figure at 1 in 1,000 Iraqis killed since the invasion. That was 2005 and it was a conservative figure. Anyone who thinks Iraq isn't as bad as Washington needs to read the papers. Hundreds of people are dying every day in Iraq. Hundreds. I know, most of us don't even notice any more when the headlines say another bomb went off in Baghdad. But pay attention and you'll see it's nothing like Bogota or Johannesburg or freaking Washington!

Besides, 20,000 troops MIGHT have an impact in Baghdad. They might. But what the hell difference does that make in the grand scheme? Baghdad is ONE CITY. What do you think the insurgents and terrorists and freedom fighters will do when (nay, IF) 20,000 American troops march into Baghdad and start beating them? That's right, they will go to Tikrit and start blowing sh!t up there. And if those 20,000 troops go to Tikrit? The insurgents and freedom fighters and terrorists will go back to Baghdad. See the pattern? The only way you can stop this is if you cover the entire country. Not just Baghdad, the entire country. You needed, and this is not rocket science or thumb suck, slightly over 500,000 troops in 2003 to get it right. To do it now, you'd need substantially more than that and they'd need to stay another 5 years or so. Bush has wasted 3,000 lives and 3 years through incompetence. And because of that, he is not going to get 600,000 troops for 5 years which is the only long-shot still left.

This President was wrong about WMD, he was wrong about major combat operations being over, he was wrong about the nature and the scale of the Insurgency, he was wrong about not firing Rumsfeld, he was wrong about his choices of people to look after Iraq ... he has been wrong about every single damn thing to do with Iraq. Why do you think he's suddenly going to be right about his 15% "surge"? Because a guy who gets it wrong this often is due a break? This President is so incompetent it should be criminal. Honestly, he should be impeached for being brainless and useless if he can't be impeached for crimes. Even with all the good intentions in the world, someone who makes this many stuff ups and gets this many people killed because he's such a hard-headed moron shouldn't be allowed to stay in power.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

Make up some more numbers for us, Spacefreak.

20,000 will do nothing, as everybody knows.

Nice try, but I didn't make up any numbers.

If you think that 20,000, or 17,500 additional soldiers in Baghdad (or any other city) won't make a difference, then you are logically impaired.

[subego]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Many US Cities Have Had Murder Rates Higher Than Iraq's 2006 'Violent Death' Rate | NewsBusters.org

I smell major BS from someone.

Here's a BBC article that places the number of violent deaths in Baghdad at over 6,000, in only the first five months of 2006.

Here's a USA Today article that places the number of violent deaths (again, only in Baghdad) during July and August 2006 at 3,000.

If you do the math, for these seven months, Baghdad's violent death rate per 100,000 is 128.9. The real number is probably closer to a jaw-dropping 200.

[Warren Pease]

War's Toll on Iraqis Put at 22,950 in '06

The Health Ministry's full-year death toll of 22,950, although incomplete, is higher than the 13,896 violent deaths of civilians, police officers and soldiers reported Jan. 1 by Iraq's ministries of defense, health and interior. The United Nations, in a November report, estimated that more than 28,000 Iraqi civilians had died violently in the first 10 months of 2006, but that count was disputed by the government. The differences in the numbers could not be reconciled.

...

The Health Ministry compiles data from morgues across the nation and from government hospitals. Those figures include Iraqis killed in bombings, terrorist acts, militia attacks, roadside explosions, drive-by shootings, kidnappings and other acts of violence. They also include the numerous unidentified corpses that turn up virtually every day, often handcuffed and showing signs of torture.

The Health Ministry data are believed to be more reliable than those issued by other sources because they are based solely on death certificates. But the Health Ministry, as a policy, does not publicly release these statistics. The ministry is under the control of the Shiite religious party of Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is behind much of the sectarian killing.

...

"Yes, we have casualties, but not that huge number of casualties," Health Minister Ali Hussein al-Shamari said on Iraqi television. "The true number might be a quarter that, although we feel sorry for those who are dying. But they want to mislead the world about the conditions in Iraq." During a visit to Vienna that month, however, he said as many as 150,000 Iraqi civilians had died since 2003 as a result of violence. Dabbagh, who is traveling outside of Iraq, was not available for comment on Friday.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

I am very fascinated with this "study". Looking at the second article, the author states that there were 16,000 deaths in Baghadad (pop. 7,000,000) and compares it with the population of Iraq (28,000,000) and comes up with the figure 25.71/100,000 people. (Anyone catch the problem yet?)

Funny, every time I point this kind of thing out when stat mongers compare figures for European countries with far smaller populations to the vastly larger US (which has so many more people with many different ranges of conditions to equal MANY entire European nations combined) it's poo-pooed.

You can monkey with stats and make anything look worse than it actually is. Comparisons of stats that don't take into account actual conditions in the real world are meaningless. So yes, comparing Baghdad to Washington D.C. is useless, just as it's generally useless to make blanket comparisons of places and things that have no real-world relation to one another.

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Nice try, but I didn't make up any numbers.

If you think that 20,000, or 17,500 additional soldiers in Baghdad (or any other city) won't make a difference, then you are logically impaired.

The numbers are just wrong, as several people have pointed out. See posts by Crash, Warren, Subego, Troll.

I'm logically impaired? Bush has been wrong about everything on this war from day one, and that is why we are in this $2 trillion mess. As far as I can tell, you have parroted him from day one -- in fact, you even made up secret sources of your own to support Bush's WMD lies and fantasies. (At this point, the traditional critique of the opposition -- that they oppose an initiative merely because Bush supports it -- is making a lot of sense. ) Bush is incompetent, and at the best we are waiting for 2008 for a real president to take over. But by then it will be too late; so we should leave now. What's the story of what we are fighting for now? Not WMD, terrorism, freedom -- but to maintain "American credibility" in the region?! How many lives and how many hundreds of billions of dollars is "credibility" really worth?

No, I don't think 20,000 additional soldiers will make a difference. As the first poster said, we need hundreds of thousands of troops. As I said before, gradual escalation is not the way to win wars.

[Troll]

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Albert Einstein

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Troll 

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Albert Einstein

Yeah, welcome to the sublimely stupid.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

The numbers are just wrong, as several people have pointed out. See posts by Crash, Warren, Subego, Troll.

Perhaps those numbers are wrong or misrepresentative, but in no way does that mean that I made up numbers as you accused. I linked to the articles I read, and the post was a direct quote from one of those articles.

Originally Posted by tie 

I'm logically impaired?

Yes, if you think that inserting 17,500 soldiers into a city will make no difference with regards to security.

Originally Posted by tie 

As far as I can tell, you have parroted him from day one -- in fact, you even made up secret sources of your own to support Bush's WMD lies and fantasies.

Go ahead and grab those posts of the past and show me where I was wrong. Nothing was made up. Heavan forbid I repeat a portion of a conversation I had with persons who were in Iraq telling me that they found some interesting stuff.

Originally Posted by tie 

Bush is incompetent, and at the best we are waiting for 2008 for a real president to take over. But by then it will be too late; so we should leave now. What's the story of what we are fighting for now? Not WMD, terrorism, freedom -- but to maintain "American credibility" in the region?! How many lives and how many hundreds of billions of dollars is "credibility" really worth?

How many times must you be pointed to Bush speeches prior to the war outlining all the goals and reasons?

Originally Posted by tie 

As I said before, gradual escalation is not the way to win wars.

We do know that quitting (as you have so often suggest) and whining will win nothing. The way to win is to keep fighting until the enemy stops.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

One thing we do know is that quitting, as you have so often suggest, or your whining will win nothing. The way to win is to keep fighting until the enemy stops.

Through American incompetence, the situation has devolved into a CIVIL WAR between Shia and Sunni. The violence in Iraq is sectarian. Iraqis vs. Iraqis. Who is the enemy, Spacefreak? The Shia or the Sunnni?

There is no defined enemy that you can make stop. There is no way of winning when you're standing in the middle of a civil war ... Well that's not entirely true. If you decided, let's say, that the Sunnis should win, you could side with them and you might defeat the Shia. However, if you did that, you would ignite a major war in the region. Hopefully your President isn't THAT stupid. Alternatively, if you could somehow, through diplomacy, convince the sides to stop fighting, you might put an end to the violence. Either way, as long as you don't take sides, military force ain't going to get you anywhere. Being in the middle of a civil war is an unwinnable position for an army.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Through American incompetence, the situation has devolved into a CIVIL WAR between Shia and Sunni. The violence in Iraq is sectarian. Iraqis vs. Iraqis. Who is the enemy, Spacefreak? The Shia or the Sunnni?

If American "incompetence" has enabled the situation to evolve into a civil war, than American competence can reverse it. That is, unless American involvement had nothing to do with the centuries-old friction between the Shia and Sunnis. Then your statement above is false.

Why no mention of Iran? Why no mention of Al Qaeda? How can you think that anyone is going to take your analysis seriously when you fail to mention their involvement?

Regardless, victory equals a stable Iraq, and that is what we are striving for. Quitting doesn't get us there. Hopefully, a change in strategy will be just what the doctor ordered.

[subego]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The way to win is to keep fighting until the enemy stops.

Bush said the goal is to stop fighting in November.

Sounds like a quitter.

[subego]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Hopefully, a change in strategy will be just what the doctor ordered.

Did you read the OP?

The doctor ordered 500,000 troops.

"Ooooh, that unexploded RPG in your chest cavity looks like it smarts. Here's a band-aid. spacefreak sends it with his compliments."

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Troll 

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Albert Einstein

THE US President, George Bush, said he took personal responsibility for mistakes made in the Iraq war, as he ignored public and congressional opinion and chose to send a further 21,500 troops.

I pity the poor bastards caught up in this war. Even the ones who want it.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by subego 

Bush said the goal is to stop fighting in November.

No he didn't.

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace - and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November.

He said Iraq plans to take responsibility for security after November. That doesn't mean anything. White man speak with forked tongue.

Haven't you watched the TV show Yes, Minister? It was Margaret Thatcher's favourite show.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

He said Iraq plans to take responsibility for security after November.

Hence my use of the phrase "the goal".

This was meant to imply things weren't absolute.

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

If American "incompetence" has enabled the situation to evolve into a civil war, than American competence can reverse it. That is, unless American involvement had nothing to do with the centuries-old friction between the Shia and Sunnis. Then your statement above is false.

Of course, American involvement has nothing to do with centuries-old religious friction. But that doesn't mean a civil war was inevitable (ask Cheney in 2003 and he'd have said a civil war was inconceivable), and nor does it mean that we can stop a civil war. Can you elaborate your argument?

Regardless, victory equals a stable Iraq, and that is what we are striving for. Quitting doesn't get us there. Hopefully, a change in strategy will be just what the doctor ordered.

Whatever happened to "stay the course"? A change in strategy was ordered for years ago.. but let me guess, you voted for Bush in '04?

You want to change the course now? Good, I'm glad you are finally learning. But you are still years behind what everyone else knows. And you are still indulging in the same wishful thinking that got us into this mess (seeing WMDs where there were none, expecting dancing in the streets) instead of looking at the facts. Meanwhile, thousands of people are dying.

Bush is incompetent. (Proof: See Iraq. QED) He will not fix things by sending 1/10 as many troops as are needed.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

Of course, American involvement has nothing to do with centuries-old religious friction. But that doesn't mean a civil war was inevitable (ask Cheney in 2003 and he'd have said a civil war was inconceivable), and nor does it mean that we can stop a civil war. Can you elaborate your argument?

The poster I responded to stated that American incompetence caused a civil war. i said that if that were the case, then competence could stop the civil war. But as you state, the US is not the cause. That is what I was implying.

Originally Posted by tie 

Whatever happened to "stay the course"? A change in strategy was ordered for years ago.. but let me guess, you voted for Bush in '04?

Yeah, stay the course as in keep fighting until we win, not quitting and running away as liberals demand. I did vote for Bush, because he had the platform closest to my desires. His opponents were crap.

Originally Posted by tie 

You want to change the course now? Good, I'm glad you are finally learning. But you are still years behind what everyone else knows.

I want to obliterate anyone who screws with us, but it appears that is not an option. I'd have flattened much of Iraq on day one, apologized for a few weeks, then rebuilt from scratch. I'm talking a brutal display of overwhelming force, until those who are left are all waving white flags.

Originally Posted by tie 

And you are still indulging in the same wishful thinking... instead of looking at the facts. Meanwhile, thousands of people are dying.

Yet more platitudes. If you gave half a sh-t about people dying, you'd be whining and crying about a whole lot more than Iraq.

[subego]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I want to obliterate anyone who screws with us, but it appears that is not an option. I'd have flattened much of Iraq on day one, apologized for a few weeks, then rebuilt from scratch. I'm talking a brutal display of overwhelming force, until those who are left are all waving white flags.

So we should have shot all those people who were "greeting us a liberators"?

Sure thing, Generalissimo.

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The poster I responded to stated that American incompetence caused a civil war. i said that if that were the case, then competence could stop the civil war. But as you state, the US is not the cause. That is what I was implying.

The US is not the cause of the religious conflict, of course. But the US could still be the cause of the civil war, or at least bear responsibility for it or have prevented it. Sorry, I shouldn't have interjected myself into your discussion.

Yeah, stay the course as in keep fighting until we win, not quitting and running away as liberals demand. I did vote for Bush, because he had the platform closest to my desires. His opponents were crap.

The binary alternative "stay the course" or "cut and run" was as imaginary as your treasured WMD fantasies.

I want to obliterate anyone who screws with us, but it appears that is not an option. I'd have flattened much of Iraq on day one, apologized for a few weeks, then rebuilt from scratch. I'm talking a brutal display of overwhelming force, until those who are left are all waving white flags.

Then you voted for the wrong guy. Bush is the guy who planned an invasion on the cheap. Maybe you'll figure that out in a few more years; you do seem to be slowly catching up.

Yet more platitudes. If you gave half a sh-t about people dying, you'd be whining and crying about a whole lot more than Iraq.

Yeah, I'd be crying about all the people being murdered in Washington, DC. Or in car accidents. What about cancer!? Give me a break. This right after you say you'd have flattened Iraq on day one. The fact is thousands or hundreds of thousands of people are dying because of our failed Iraq policies. Arguing that I don't care about people dying because hundreds of thousands of dead people are insignificant says more about you than me.

People make the same arguments about terrorism, that you are a thousand times as likely to die in a car accident as in a terrorist attack*, and therefore we shouldn't take terrorism seriously. I think they are dead wrong, and so are you.

*made up number, not a real statistic

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

.


I want to obliterate anyone who screws with us, but it appears that is not an option. I'd have flattened much of Iraq on day one, apologized for a few weeks, then rebuilt from scratch. I'm talking a brutal display of overwhelming force, until those who are left are all waving white flags.

I agree. Minimizing collateral damage to the enemy comes at a cost to our own side. Either these people are a serious threat to us or they are not and if they are, then we need to take serious action. I would have no problem with leaving them alone if they were only killing each other but as long as they can get on an international flight and come to my country, they are a serious threat which means we have to take serious action. Anything short of an all out war is tantamount to squadering the lives of those we've lost.

The lesson that Vietnam should have taught us and that we still haven't learned in Iraq is that our enemies will do whatever it takes to kill us. They don't play by any rules. They don't need infrastructure for their armies because they are indiginous to the area. They can dress however they want, use whatever weapons they want, use whatever tactics they want to and do whatever it takes to kill us. Not taking this kind of advantage the enemy has into account when deciding what tactics will be used to counter them, makes victory impossible in my opinion.

If there is a building of some sort where those inside are suspected of being up to no good, that building should be leveled with bombs. But we are so afraid of killing civilians that we risk the lives of our own troops. Even for some highly trained guy like those Army Rangers or Delta force, etc .....what they have to do so that we can minimize collateral damage is extremely risky to their own lives. Storming into buildings, kicking open doors with their rifles is extremely risky. There can be booby traps, set ups, etc, and we lose our own instead of just bombing the crap out of the place. If the rules of engangement don't change, we can be there for a thousand more years and nothing will change and we still haven't learned that lesson. We shouldn't ever engage in another ground war again until we've learned that lesson.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I agree. Minimizing collateral damage to the enemy comes at a cost to our own side. Either these people are a serious threat to us or they are not and if they are, then we need to take serious action. I would have no problem with leaving them alone if they were only killing each other but as long as they can get on an international flight and come to my country, they are a serious threat which means we have to take serious action. Anything short of an all out war is tantamount to squadering the lives of those we've lost.

The lesson that Vietnam should have taught us and that we still haven't learned in Iraq is that our enemies will do whatever it takes to kill us. They don't play by any rules. They don't need infrastructure for their armies because they are indiginous to the area. They can dress however they want, use whatever weapons they want, use whatever tactics they want to and do whatever it takes to kill us. Not taking this kind of advantage the enemy has into account when deciding what tactics will be used to counter them, makes victory impossible in my opinion.

If there is a building of some sort where those inside are suspected of being up to no good, that building should be leveled with bombs. But we are so afraid of killing civilians that we risk the lives of our own troops. Even for some highly trained guy like those Army Rangers or Delta force, etc .....what they have to do so that we can minimize collateral damage is extremely risky to their own lives. Storming into buildings, kicking open doors with their rifles is extremely risky. There can be booby traps, set ups, etc, and we lose our own instead of just bombing the crap out of the place. If the rules of engangement don't change, we can be there for a thousand more years and nothing will change and we still haven't learned that lesson. We shouldn't ever engage in another ground war again until we've learned that lesson.

Yup, it's tough being the good guys. Much easier to be the bad guys.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yup, it's tough being the good guys. Much easier to be the bad guys.

First off, we are the good guys separate from our tactics we use in warfare. We are the good guys because we don't have a screwed up civilization where girls can be stoned to death for being raped. Where women are treated like slaves and non-muslims live in complete humiliation, subjugation, and fear. Where school children are beheaded and locked into burning buildings because they weren't covering their faces properly. Where civilians are taken hostage at random and beheaded in the name of our God.

Second, the decision of whether or not an enemy poses a serious threat to us needs to be decided before we send in the first servicemember in to fight and die on our behalf. If the threat is serious enough to go to war over, then the action taken needs to be serious enough to win the war. We have fooled ourselves into believing that the nature of warfare has changed and it hasn't. It's as ugly and bloody as it ever has been. All the precision weapons in the world do not change the nature of warfare. Our troops are fighting an urban war, among civilians, and against people who mask themselves as civilians. Against those that are willing to use their own children as suicide bombers. How do precision weapons make that not bloody and not ugly?

Third, there is a huge difference between intentionally targeting civilians and letting the fear of collateral damage limit our actions and prevent us from attaining our objectives and victory. War should not be entered into if the fear of collateral damage will limit our actions and limit our ability to achieve victory. Limited wars only end in a lot of death, destruction, and despair with no victory for our side in the end.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

If American "incompetence" has enabled the situation to evolve into a civil war, than American competence can reverse it.

How does that make sense? It isn't necessarily the case that because you can bring about one set of consequences, you can also bring about the reverse. That's like saying that my negligent driving killed the kid crossing the road so my careful driving should bring it back to life. The incompetence was NOT sending in 500,000 troops immediately after the invasion. Because there were too few troops in Iraq, the religious parties stepped in to fill the power vacuum. Their struggle to take power has devolved into a civil war. But for the Bush Administration allocating the appropriate resources, civil war may never have happened.

Now that there is a civil war, it's too late to send in 500,000 troops because right now, it's impossible to know who to fight. And as for sending in 20,000, well that is just insane.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Why no mention of Iran? Why no mention of Al Qaeda? How can you think that anyone is going to take your analysis seriously when you fail to mention their involvement?

Do I need to mention Iran? I said that if you took sides, you'd cause a regional war which meant Iran, Saudi Arabia ... Al Qaeda have always been a tiny minority. Your own military has consistently said that they make up less than 5% of the insurgency. But pray tell, how do you propose to distinguish between Al Qaeda and Mahdi Army?

The easiest way of taking this forward is for you to explain to us how you propose that America wins an Iraqi civil war. Because I don't see a way of winning that war and neither do any analysts I've heard speaking. The whole reason Rummie and Bush were so keen to avoid a civil war is precisely because they knew it wasn't winnable.

[subego]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006 

I agree. Minimizing collateral damage to the enemy comes at a cost to our own side.

Another armchair Generalissimo.

Okay. I'll try and play nice and entertain the idea that the problem is (was) the Rules of Engagement being too restrictive.

Rules of Engagement don't exist in a vacuum. They are dependent (obviously) on the amount of force you want to project, but (less obviously) the amount of force you have available.

The best analogy I can come up with that covers the importance of the idea of available force is the difference between a 5'5" 140 pound cop and a 6'3" 250 pound cop.

They both have the same RoE with regards to use of deadly force, a key rule being fear for one's life.

It should be obvious that there are plenty of situations where the small cop would be in fear for their life, but the big cop wouldn't.

So that's what I throw back to you. Fill in some of the blanks with your looser RoE. Taking into account what I said above about the effectiveness having more available force, what kind of deployment would be appropriate to achieve your goal without crossing the line into murderous?

I ask because, as an armchair Generalissimo myself, I would put this number pretty close to the number cited in the Army's Counterinsurgency manual for doing it the "nice" way (i.e. limited RoE).

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

20,000 more will absolutely help the security situation in Baghdad. ...

By itself, i.e. the fact alone that there are 20.000 more troops? I think that 20.000 troops have the potential to make things safer. If stationed and deployed wisely.
Baghdad's security is in any case step no.1 to do. Let's see what (further) happens.

Regards
PB.

[Troll]

Everyone likes a good game of whack-a-mole.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

Then you voted for the wrong guy. Bush is the guy who planned an invasion on the cheap. Maybe you'll figure that out in a few more years; you do seem to be slowly catching up.

Bush is the only guy who actually wanted to fight back. Maybe in a few years, you'll grow a spine.

Arguing that I don't care about people dying because hundreds of thousands of dead people are insignificant says more about you than me.

You didn't seem to care when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered by Saddam's regime, and you whine incessantly about our removal of the brutal, raping, thieving tyrant. People who give a crap about hundreds of thousands of people dying don't sit idle and allow a dictator to continue the practice of mass slaughter unimpeded.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Troll 

The easiest way of taking this forward is for you to explain to us how you propose that America wins an Iraqi civil war.

Frst of all, I'm not convinced that Iraq is in a full-blown civil war. Northern Iraq is as peaceful as one could hope for, and so is much of southern Iraq. Central Iraq (including Baghdad and Al Anbar province) are the hot spots.

A US victory in Iraq is a stable Iraq. Enabling the Iraqi government to quell the sectarian violence in the central part of the country is the key, but only if the Iraqi government does what it says: secure areas and clear out fighters regardless of their sect.

[subego]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

People who give a crap about hundreds of thousands of people dying don't sit idle and allow a dictator to continue the practice of mass slaughter unimpeded.

Sure thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur

[tie]

subego, spacefreak isn't saying that he cares if hundreds of thousands of people die. (After all, he posted those statistics earlier to try to minimize Iraqi deaths in the war.) Instead, he is arguing that liberals are being hypocritical when they say Iraq was a mistake because of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died because of it. There are hundreds of thousands dead in either case, war or not, so we might as well have tried to secure Iraq's oil.

Of course, Iraq was a mistake not just because of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead because of it, but also because of all the Americans dead, because of its $2 trillion cost, because of the national security consequences of ignoring Iran and North Korea, and because of our inability to help out in other places like Darfur. So spacefreak's argument is a bit one-dimensional.

At least, this is how I'm reading his argument. Imaginary WMDs and fairy castles of course also make up a large part of it, but that part is a bit difficult to discuss seriously.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Bush is the only guy who actually wanted to fight back. Maybe in a few years, you'll grow a spine.

He certainly leapt at the chance to get into Vietnam, didn't he?

Meanwhile, SpineMan, do you have YOUR application in yet for Iraq?

[Zarqawi's Eye]

Face Ache you make me happy. If the West's sentiments grow more like yours, my living brethren will buy you and your progeny dinner some day. That is, after your continent converts, grows beards, and demolishes your infidel society.

[Zarqawi's Eye]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sure thing.

Darfur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see any of you Darfur freaks lining up to volunteer with the peace corps or UN.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Zarqawi's Eye 

I don't see any of you Darfur freaks lining up to volunteer with the peace corps or UN.

Well, maybe if I got to shoot people.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Frst of all, I'm not convinced that Iraq is in a full-blown civil war.

You know about that river in Egypt right? You would be one of very, very, very few people who thought it wasn't a civil war. Even the US Army says it's a civil war.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Zarqawi's Eye 

Face Ache you make me happy. If the West's sentiments grow more like yours, my living brethren will buy you and your progeny dinner some day. That is, after your continent converts, grows beards, and demolishes your infidel society.

Because I think the war is worth winning?

I'm quite serious when I say it's time for the war supporters (that's you, brave keyboard warrior) to step up and go fight the war.

I agree 100% that the war should be won*. I agree 100% that there will be serious consequences if the US loses. I agree 100% that the Democrats want to end the war for all the wrong reasons.

I have presented my plan to win the war and I think it's do-able if the people who wanted the war go and fight it. I include the people who wanted the war but have since "changed their minds" as if they were dress shopping.

So what's the problem? Answer please.

Also: How old are you and are you fit for service?





*

Originally posted by Face Ache, Nov 17, 2003, 11:57 AM:
You break-a de eggs, you make-a de omelette.

Now get cooking.