posted
Not that you're likely to have heard this from any regular news outlet, but more American soldiers have been killed in Iraq in 2004 so far than were killed in 2003 (a longer period of time than 2004 until now). Also, we are averaging more coalition deaths per day since the "end" of the occupation than during it.
How is this not being officially declared a clusterfuck?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, I supported the basic concept of attacking Iraq, but absolutly nothing about the way its been carried out. This is because it was carried out by an incompetent executive branch and a bunch of mostly incompetent generals.
To answer your colorfully worded question, it has not been declared a failure because the incompetent ones are those who make the official announcements.
As for the 2003/2004 death count, it does not really have anything but symbolism, and for that the media is probably waiting for 1000 dead. It is the daily average at different times that gives interesting information (terrorist casulties would be useful too, but I doubt that they will be released). Noting this, it would be more informative to count only those that died after major combat operations (not related to the present insurgency) were concluded. This shows an even more marked change!
Edit: the above post was made before I finished. That graph has many features of interest. Thank you for posting it. It seems to me that the insurgents are operating at full capacity now, but we may see another decline and sudden rise if the terrorists want to cause a shock effect. It seems that they must have decent coordination.
quote:As for the 2003/2004 death count, it does not really have anything but symbolism, and for that the media is probably waiting for 1000 dead.
If you add in the casualties from Afghanistan you go over the 1000 mark.
U.S. casualties in Iraq currently stands at 970 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan currently stands at 132 For a current total of 1102
Non U.S. casualties in Iraq stands at 131
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Terrorists or insurgents? The graph deals with military dead, and thus probably ought to be discussed in the context of military insurgency. The same people (or at least some of them) are responsible for acts of terror against civilians, too, but those aren't shown in the graph. And then there's the murky middle ground: if you kill a dozen people who wanted to join the army/police force opposing yours, was it terrorism or a preemptive military strike?
In any case, this rate of casualties appears unsustainable from the US point of view, as it no longer ranks so far below the levels of losses in previous US military conflicts. It probably will not start to have an actual military impact any time soon, though (apart from discouraging people from enlisting - but wars also encourage enlisting; what's the balance nowadays?).
quote:(apart from discouraging people from enlisting - but wars also encourage enlisting; what's the balance nowadays?).
The U.S. military is at a point where is has been forced to maintain troop levels with the use of stop loss orders.
Which the military apparently does because basically there are not enough new troops to fill the positions of troops already in the field. Troops who have served out their enlistment and want to leave the military. When they leave the military, they take their training and experience with them. Which wouldn�t be so much of a problem if there were a pool of trained and experienced replacements waiting to take over. Apparently there is not.
So to prevent the lack of trained personnel from becoming a problem, you just prevent the trained personnel you already have from leaving.
And you call up others from the Ready Reserves. These are people who had left the military and returned to civilian life, but still meet the fine print criteria of being in the reserves because they didn�t serve an allotted number of years in their enlistments.
So, to answer the question, I�m going with Mr. Bush�s handling of Iraq and the War on Terror� has been probably been a net loss for military enlistments.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The manifest lack of any sort of proper planning for the post-war period is also not helping. Apparently the US DoD decided that the privatisation of industry in Poland was the best model for what would happen. Great idea. Then there's the fact the US armed forces simply don't have the institutional experience or training to deal with the current situation. Then there's the nature of the opposition; fervant religious nationalism is usually very hard to beat, especially when you take into account the guerilla type warfare the opposition are using.
quote: If you add in the casualties from Afghanistan you go over the 1000 mark.
If you add in all the Coalition deaths then it goes over the 1000 mark as well.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"Noting this, it would be more informative to count only those that died after major combat operations..."
More informative how? The number of deaths due to terrorist actions is an indicator of Iraq's purported stability (or lack of it), not just a symbolic value to score higher Nielsons with.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It might also be informative to provide numbers on US casualties in Iraq before the start of hostilities. You know, as sort of a 'What if'?
My uncle was a navigator on one of those tongue depressor landing boats in the National Guard in Washington State. He got called up. The man's like fifty-five years old, more or less blind in one eye and his hip is going. They had him marching around in a helmet and flak jacket in 115�F heat with boots a size too small. What the hell kind of desperate operation does that?
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Depends on your point of view. What are the differences? How should each catagory be defined?
I would describe terrorists as those who mount attacks at either civilian or military targets, using any means and regardless of whether or not the target represents a threat to them.
Insurgents would be those who restrict themselves to attacks on military targets, using generally conventional methods.
This is not to say, of course, that terrorist groups will not conduct attacks which could fit in with an 'insurgent' description or that insurgents are always sweetness and light. In fact, it's entirely possible that the difference is entirely academic, especially in a confused situation such as Iraq, where there are a multitude of groups, all with different aims and methods. Not to mention the large number of non-Iraqi, non-coalition civilians from various NGOs who may get caught up in fighting.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Most of the so-called "insurgents" have attacked civillian targets as much as military ones: just this morning, "insurgents" killed 12 civillians while firing into a trafic stop at a US troop carrier. One US soldier was killed- an entire Iraqi family was killed as well as people crossing the street.
I'd still call them terrorists when their own people have to live in fear.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, but were the civilians deliberately targeted? After all, the US army has killed civilians while trying to get insurgents/terrorists.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Civillians were targeted yesterday when they were making the pilgrimage to the mosque in Najaf (sp?). Snipers fired on civillians with not a military (or even police) traget in sight- shooting several for no reason.
US forces were no where near the area (confirmed).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: If you add in the casualties from Afghanistan you go over the 1000 mark.
U.S. casualties in Iraq currently stands at 970 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan currently stands at 132 For a current total of 1102
Non U.S. casualties in Iraq stands at 131
Yes, if you add other things the total casulties go over 1000, but this is the media we are taking about here. They may make a big deal over 1000 U.S. deaths in Iraq.
Also, casualties is defined as wounded/killed/missing/captured, not just dead, so total casulties are 4000 something (very roughly).
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "Noting this, it would be more informative to count only those that died after major combat operations..."
More informative how? The number of deaths due to terrorist actions is an indicator of Iraq's purported stability (or lack of it), not just a symbolic value to score higher Nielsons with.
Well, the initial deaths were largely due to combat with Iraq's pre-existing military/paramilitary force, so those deaths should not be counted when examining the evolution of the current insurgency/terrorism.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
