You sir are out of your ever lovin mind.Quote:
The numbers of dead every week is now equalling Vietnam
Printable View
You sir are out of your ever lovin mind.Quote:
The numbers of dead every week is now equalling Vietnam
Yes, I am out of my mind, but you are avoiding the point. We are seeing 20-30 people dead every week- those are Nam numbers. I know this from several people who lived during that time, and I can trust to be unbiased (and from a couple who are biased, but that's beside the point.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The fact is that the last polls were heavily weighted. In most only 30 % of the rrespondents were conservtives and 40 something percent going to liberals and 30 something percent by independents. Even though the majority of Americans classify themselves as conservatives. Its more like Lib Land than Gawains world here.
As one who actually fought in that war I tell you once more your out of your mind. Oh that we only lost 20-30 people a week. Also I doubt thats what we are averaging now. We lost more than that in a skirmish nevermind a week. WE lost 50000 men. Do the math.Quote:
Yes, I am out of my mind, but you are avoiding the point. We are seeing 20-30 people dead every week- those are Nam numbers. I know this from several people who lived during that time, and I can trust to be unbiased (and from a couple who are biased, but that's beside the point.)
Think about the beginning of the war, when things were just getting heated up. That's where we are now. I'm not saying that was the average for the entire war- perhaps that is the misunderstanding.
Also, how is losing 20-30 people a week okay? :thinking:
The US does spend a lot on the military but most of the money is spent on tech and equipment and research. Did you know that a cruse missile costs around a million bucks (how many of them have we used?) each and an M1A1 (I saw one this weekend! Sweet!) tank is around 4+ million each and an F-18 comes in at around 28 million and an aircraft carrier costs in the neighborhood of $5 billion! IMO the US military is designed to smash and use/endanger as few troops as possible but operations in Iraq call for an occupying force and that is not what our military is setup for and frankly I think we have proven that we (for a number of reasons) suck at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by faisal
Also, the things that made Nam a mess were the fact that it was (as I have argued about in the past) communism, China and Russia vs. democracy, the US and allies all focusing into the quagmire that Viet Nam turned into. The US couldn’t go all out against the enemy, even though we knew exactly where they were, because there would be incredible global consequences. But in Iraq we can go all out, there are no superpowers backing the terrorists, the trouble is, we can’t find them! The big reasons are way different but there are some similarities between Iraq and Nam, like it is taking a long time, the death toll is a consistent trickle and the results are not clear. No one really knows what we are still doing there. :bow:
What a bogus comparison. In the "beginning of the war" in Vietnam there werent nearly the number of American troops in Vietnam that there are in Iraq. In fact, I believe there werent any combat troops at all until 1965 and it took until the end of that year before US forces were there in numbers close to what we have in Iraq now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
Maybe if you researched your own facts instead of relying on hearsay you wouldnt make such baseless comparisons. Im not going to pretend to be an expert on Vietnam- but this is just basic statistics.
I know that there are more troops there now than there were at the onset of Vietnam. I have spent a lot of time studying Vietnam, and hearing about it from various reliable sources- they are not "hearsay." The number of troops, however, is not nearly as important as how the resistance in Iraq is building itself up to become a new Vietminh. They have not come close to their maximum levels of effectiveness, and when they do, I fear for the troops in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The resistance is also building itself under a different set of circumstances than the Vietminh; they have not had to face a major invasion by a brutal imperial power (before now ~;)) and thus the people were not immediately prepared to take up arms, nor did they have the opportunity to hone their tactics beforehand, as the Vietminh did with the French. Also, we did not train and equip them. Frankly, under the current set of circumstances, it is incredible that they are already killing 20-30 soldiers a week without being wiped out, especially considering that there is no equivalent of the NVA base of support, as there was in Vietnam. If they are doing this well, with their only support being foreign combatants who are not nearly as well trianed or organised as the forces of Ho Chi Minh, they have the potential to become an even greater force than the Vietminh ever were. I highly suspect that, in just a few years, they will be.
All you've just done is lay out more reasons that the 2 are not that similar. ~:handball:
No, I am showing how they will become similar, despite their differences. The partisans in Iraq are going to become just as effective as the Vietminh ever were.
I have to work for a while, I will be back to argue without any gain in an hour or so.
Quote:
No, I am showing how they will become similar, despite their differences. The partisans in Iraq are going to become just as effective as the Vietminh ever were.
They are doing a miserable job of it. Most of those they kill are Iraqis. Also the Vietcong were wiped out. Only our spineless politicians cost us that war. Well that and the liberal media. Thank you Water Conkrite.
Is that like voting for something before voting against it? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
Well, you're wrong anyway- they are getting outside help. One of the reasons they're still hanging on is because of help and supplies from Iran and Syria, explosives and bomb making materials in particular.
It is doing things half-right that gets people in the situation. More patrols and more people will clamp down on the zones meaning that the insurgents cannot retake areas. You cutoff their rallying points, cutoff the borders, and heavily patrol the areas already taken over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You end up losing less men because you have an overwhelming presence and knowledge of the terrain. It is like standard warfare, field to little and you get more casualites. The reason it is not being done is lack of guts of the electorate and the lack of setup for high intensity urban conflicts.
In the end of the day this is looking like lack of resources is causing the issue.
If Iraq is not stabilised, then every casuality was for naught, because Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorism that makes Palestine look benign in comparison if it goes south.
:stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
John Kerry was not a flip-flopper. That was a load of crap invented by the rightwing media. Anyone says different and I'll belt them in the throat.
I give up. This is like five-year-olds arguing; noone's opinion is going to change, and everyone is going to leave feeling a lot more pissed.
Also, the belt-in-the-throat line is a joke. I'm not that bad.
The numbers are tricky to compare, as we've stayed understrength in Iraq, etc. The killed to wounded ratio was higher in Vietnam as well: by a factor of about 1.5 from what I've read.
1965 Vietnam troop strength was 184,000 with 2,432 killed.
2004 Iraq was around 140,000 (give or take) with 848 killed.
1966 Vietnam strength was 365,000 with 6,053 killed.
2005 Iraq strength has been around 140,00 with an *annualized* rate of ~850 killed.
Once you adjust for troop strengths and the killed/wounded ratio, losses in Iraq in 2004 were very much like Vietnam. However, 2005 is also very much like 1965 Vietnam on that basis, but about 1/4 the 1966 Vietnam rate.
So things are not really improving casualty wise, nor does the insurgency show signs of waning. Quoting from a recent Time article: Major Dan Williams tells members of Fox Company after another fruitless day of chasing enemy fighters. "But you've almost had insurgency Darwinism. All the stupid ones are dead."
Don't worry- I thought it was funny. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
I would love to see your math for that. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
That is exactly right. But it is counter to what Bush thought it would take. Xiahou missed the point. If we really want to win, no matter what, our best shot is to put enough boots on the ground to HOLD places and secure them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
We haven't really tried to strangle the insurgency, Instead we let it grow by having inadequate forces in place to counter it. We couldn't provide security, and the insurgents seized upon this weakness.
The truth is that it is too late for that. Politically, you can't make a good case for sending 100,000+ more troops to Iraq while you try to set up a functioning Iraqi army and govt. No, we are stuck with consequences of earlier mistakes.
My conclusion is this: if we are not going to commit to doing a job right, we should leave as soon as possible. This half-assed approach isn't working. Give it 1 year, then pull the plug unless things are much, much better.
Indeed- that's my point adding half a million US soldiers now wouldnt solve the problem. I think it's likely that we could've benefitted from more troops in the first stages of the occupation- but that's well in the past and adding more now won't help what happened back then. I think the bigger mistake was the wholesale disbanding of the Iraqi military. They definitely needed to clean house in a big way- but disbanding it in its entirety was a mistake, imo. Even if they had just paid them to sit around and do nothing it wouldve stripped the insurgency of much needed man-power very early on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
But again, there's no helping that now- what's done is done in that respect. I did think it was good to see the Iraqi government take some iniative on its own and call for the return of former army mid-level officers. (captain thru major I believe) With proper vetting, they should be an asset to the growing Iraqi military.
And the smart ones are becoming vets and if we are particularly unlucky they will follow the Allies model in WWII... have the vets start training the green ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Depends on their level of organisation... one disadvantage of being a cell (resistance to terrorist doesn't matter) is that their knowledge base is not easily shared with others by design. This protection also is a hinderance in knowledge transfer.
However if they rotate the best out to training camps and teach the next wave then we really have issues. All the more reason to have more people on the borders.
====
One of the comparisons I would make with Vietnam is the recapturing multiple times of zones. And then giving the zones to the locals to look after and then losing the zone so you have to send in your troops again.
A cost-benefit analysis should be done. Is it more deadly to patrol an area thoroughly or is it more deadly to reinvade an area repeatedly. Common sense would say that patroling is less deadly, however I wonder what the stats say.
====
The other part of it is training and intergrating the Iraqis.
Are there any units like the Gurkhas. In the sense that you have Iraqi Soldiers lead by American Officers.
Also combined patrols, hardening of police outposts. Integrating them into the communication structure so they can get support when attacked etc
For the lazy...or mathematically challenged--because conservatives love to have people waste their time: To do the full analysis you need the wounded figures too. I shortcutted with the 1.5 times higher fatality rate in Vietnam. I also used a round figure for the troop count. It was a shortcut and causes a small skew that I'm not satisfied with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Let's check that 1.5 figure to see if it made sense. I don't have a breakdown of Vietnam wounded by year, but I have been able to find a figure of 304,000 for the conflict with 58,169 killed (quoted together as a set.) Wounded/killed ratio = 5.23
In Iraq it was 15,477 wounded as of Nov. 1, with 2,029 deaths. Wounded/killed ratio = 7.63.
Comparing the two ratios we get: 1.46. Whoever did the analysis of that appears to have been correct. I'll treat it more rigorously here, since it is a more conservative approach.
So total casualties for 1965 Vietnam would be something like:
2,532 * (1 + 5.23) = 15,774
Casualties per troop strength = 15,774 / 184,300 = 0.086 ( 8.6%)
For Iraq in 2005
848 * (1 + 7.63) = 7,318
Casualties per troop strength = 7,318 / 140,000 = 0.052 (5.2%)
Using more ballpark numbers with simplified treatment of the ratio it was 6.1%. Regardless, the numbers are rather similar in the comparison. They are certainly not an order of magnitude different.
Red H:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
You and I disagree 4 outa 5, but for this I just gotta say Thanks.
Still ROTFLMFBO.
I disagree. The problem is not in the past, it is still with us. Earlier I believe you said that we would have more casualties from more patrols/forces. If we are having to keep a low profile to keep down casualties, then we have already lost. We are unable to keep zones suppressed. It's whack-a-mole. That is because we don't have the forces on the ground for the job. If you can't hold a position, you are not making progress. Instead, you are doing a Ground Hog day scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The Iraqi military isn't likely to handle this because it is Shiite military vs. Sunni insurgents. To them it is still going to be a "foreign occupation" type of problem whether it is U.S. or Shiite. Sure there are plenty of foreign insurgents, but the Sunni districts are the home for it now, and they oppose the new govt on average.
What really bothers me is how many officer reports I'm reading that are saying the people won't speak out or help the U.S. troops because they know the troops will be gone in a few hours, but the insurgents are amongst them all the time.
Right now the grand strategy seems to be to just hang around, hoping things eventually get better. I don't have much faith in this working. If we can't come up with something better--something that gets tangible results within 6 months, then we need to be planning to pull out 6 months after that. It's not like we haven't been there two and a half years already.
What a mind boggling twisting of numbers....Those calculations are statistically worthless and make way too many assumptions. You're taking numbers from many years and trying to extrapolate and apply them to just one year- that doesnt work.
Here are some numbers I found:
1965: 22655/3144 = 7.2
March 2004 - March 2005: 8516/930 = 9.16
link
So, in a sense your statistic may be right- but it's a totally pointless red herring that tries to hide the real truth. The important point is that in two 1 year periods, with similar troops levels, casualty rates are approximately 1/3 that of Vietnam.
Similar wars, my foot. ~:handball:
People have been trying to tie this war to Vietname since day one. It was bogus then and it still is now.
Actually the wounded to killed ratio is a useful number in figuring out intensity of the conflict and the amount of medical support/flight time/assests etc
And that's not what I said. ~:angry: How friggin' dense are you? ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I wasn't trying to "hide" anything. I just supplied some numbers to the most similar year in the comparison. I wasn't saying they were identical. That's your myopia warping your perception. I also supplied the following year showing that it was diverging and commented about that as well.
Get it right before you try to attribute something to me I was NOT saying. :knight:
And? Sure it can be a useful statistic- but not while comparing casualty rates, which are clearly not close at all. If anything, a higher wounded to kill ratio is good news for Iraq in the terms you mention- it means less of those wounded are dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Again, really, this line of comparison between the wars has no basis at all.
People have been trying to tie this war to Vietname since day one. It was bogus then and it still is now.
Nah its just the same , a war fought over a pile of lies , with unclear or unattainable goals , little understanding of the situation on the ground , and so many mistakes made in the initial phases that its near impossible to put right .
One big difference is that this time it is America that wants to start the domino effect instead of stopping it .
I guess when you said this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
You were really trying to say the numbers were different? I see....Quote:
Regardless, the numbers are rather similar in the comparison. They are certainly not an order of magnitude different.
Now, if you're trying to backtrack and say that wasnt supposed to be evidence of similarities between Vietnam and Iraq... why the hell did you post it? ~:confused:
THAT WAS FOR 1965! I did one year (1965) fully for you since you asked for it. I commented on that one year. I had already talked about 1966 separately in the original post. I didn't feel a need to work it out as well or to comment on it again, since I had already said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
" However, 2005 is also very much like 1965 Vietnam on that basis, but about 1/4 the 1966 Vietnam rate."
Self explanatory. ~:rolleyes: You are seeing things that aren't there. I'm not backtracking, and I fully understood what the numbers meant. The level of conflict in Iraq is similar to 1965 Vietnam. It doesn't reach 1966 Vietnam levels. The problem with Iraq is that it isn't getting any better, either. Instead it is staying in the same rut.
I posted the numbers because I thought actual figures might be useful rather than relying on someone else's spin. Heaven forbid that someone should actually try to inject data into this... :duel:
No it isnt- that should be obvious to everyone by now. The casualty rates are a fraction of what they were in Vietnam. Sheesh...Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
:no: Wrong. The numbers speak for themselves, casualty rate similar to 1965 Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou