…Well, I should start out by saying that I consider myself a political “moderate,” not really left or right wing. And that I, personally, approved of invading Iraq.
Anyway, if we can put partisan issues aside for a moment (:snickers, hysterical laughter:) I’m still wondering…how are we doing in Iraq, from a military standpoint?
I mean, the media pundits seem to like to call the occupation (if I can call it that, without raising anyone’s ire) a near debacle, what with the continuing losses of U.S. troops in bombings, convoy attacks, etc.
But really…we’ve only lost a couple of hundred troops, so far. More than half since the majority of the combat ended. I mean, I don’t want to seem callous, but that doesn’t really seem too bad, considering that we’re garrisoning an entire country that’s the size of Texas. And since most of the casualties are coming from around the region around the capital.
And according to the Iraqometer web site, the Iraqi military casualties were 11,000. At the risk of sounding callous again, that seems like a pretty decent “kill ratio.”
So…any armchair generals care to weigh in on this one?
You have to compare the current occupation against the alternatives thou… by the standards you set:
1 country conquered & good kill ratio = yes wow… the US is a military giant and super effective.
Now was the objective to take Iraq for the US ? Was the objective to kill as many Iraqi per dead American ? Are the troops there for MILITARY reasons or for PEACEKEEPING ?
If you analyze things politically its much less clear cut… and if you compare it too a UN coalition (included the US of course) then certainly the comparison is worse for the current affairs. There would have been a greater chance of less “guerrila activity” and the inclusion of arabs among the occupiers would mean better dialogue with the population.
Also its not much good having good military results if you don't acheive your political goals (eg Vietnam). So if your just getting dead Iraqis and no peace... what good are these kids dying ? Killing more Iraqis doesn't solve anything even if the kill ratio looks good.
As others are suggesting, you’re asking the wrong question - this isn’t a military situation anymore - it has military aspects to it of course, but they’re not going to determine how this turns out.
Measuring how things are going, and determining the effects of coalition actions is next to impossible, as even Rumsfeld seems to be admitting. Bombs etc make the headlines, but how do you measure the effect of restoring a clean water supply, the anti-American ranting of a Shiite cleric, the boom in satellite dishes bringing in news from around the world, the desire of people just to get on with their lives in peace. Etc, Etc. Opinion polls have been held, but I’d guess the results are pretty meaningless in this situation, the questions I’ve seen asked were way too simplistic.
Shit, we’re not even quite sure yet who we’re up against, Al Q? Baathists? Well yes, but in what order of importance? Are they cooperating? (Baathists are likely to be less of a long term problem IMO). Basically, it’ll probably be some time before we find out how things are really going.
It’s going to be tough.
It’s not going to be impossible
Even the aspects that are military now are working against the US army… they are “open” targets and the high tech aspects aren’t much help in patrolling civilian areas.
Then you have the “What are we doing here still?”…