# If there is "fierce resistance", why are there no allied casualties? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 22, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369 "2003-03-22T15:03:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/1 "2003-03-22T15:03:13Z")
So far it appears that there are almost no allied casualties (thank goodness). Yet we keep hearing (at least in the UK) of fierce resistance and tank battles. I suspect that either (i) we are not being told of the casualties … or more likely (ii) the overwhelming superiority of allied troops means that if any body fires at us we sit back and deluge them with bombs etc until they either disappear or surrender? Any ideas? I would not really describe the second as a battle. ---
**Author:** ![galen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecc23a/32.png) [@galen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/2 "2003-03-22T15:27:44Z")
More like shooting fish in a barrel, I would think. The position of the Iraqi soldiers is somewhat like that of the natives in nineteeth century colonial battles. Their weaponry is hopelessly outclassed. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/3 "2003-03-22T15:36:23Z")
Of “fierce resistance”… [http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/22/sprj.irq.southern.iraq/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/22/sprj.irq.southern.iraq/index.html) > [@](#): > > U.S., British Marines securing Iraqi port city > Pockets of resistance holding out in Umm Qasr > Saturday, March 22, 2003 Posted: 3:31 AM EST (0831 GMT) > > \< snip \> > > U.S. and British military sources said allied forces captured the new port of Umm Qasr, on Iraq’s small Persian Gulf coast, but were still battling pockets of resistance. The sources said they hoped to have the resistance under control by the end of the day. > > \< snip \> > > Coalition forces were going from building to building, even looking in shipping containers in the port to ferret out remaining enemy forces, said CNN correspondent Jason Bellini, embedded with the Marine Expeditionary Unit, 15th Artillery. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle\_east/2873311.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2873311.stm) > [@](#): > > Tough battle for Umm Qasr > > After initial resistance, troops continued advance towards Umm Qasr > > The BBC’s Adam Mynott sent this report for BBC News Online from the southern Iraqi port of Umm Qasr. > > Many of the young US Marines aged between 19-24 had been told to expect fairly light resistance from Iraqi forces as they crossed the border with the intention of taking the southern Iraqi port of Umm Qasr. > > But when they crossed, shortly after dawn, through the wide gap cut in the sand reinforcement by 26 Armoured Engineer Squadron of British soldiers, they encountered much stiffer opposition than they had been expecting. > > But when they crossed, shortly after dawn, through the wide gap cut in the sand reinforcement by 26 Armoured Engineer Squadron of British soldiers, they encountered much stiffer opposition than they had been expecting. > > Initially small arms fire was aimed at the front of the convoy of more than 20 vehicles, then mortars were also fired in the direction of the convoy. First, I think the keyword here is “pockets”. There are “pockets” of resistance, but they’re so outnumbered that it’s just a matter of waiting them out, or of calling in air support (see below). And second, the “fierce resistance” is only “fierce” in comparison to the “zero” resistance they’ve been encountering in other places. And third, the “fierce” resistance is actually IMO pretty picayune in comparison to what _I_ would call “fierce”, meaning “hand-to-hand combat, to the death, from house to house”. I can only find references to one tank battle, singular, near Basra–not “tank battles” plural. [http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/616012](http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/616012) > [@](#): > > 22 Mar 2003 00:00 > Fresh blasts in Baghdad, tank battle near Basra > By Samia Nakhoul > > \< snip \> > > U.S. Marines said on Saturday their tanks were battling Iraqi forces defending the big southern city of Basra. > > “We are attacking Iraqi forces, all of which are west of Basra,” Captain Andrew Bergen told reporters in the area. “I would certainly say it’s a major battle.” > [@](#): > > \*\*the overwhelming superiority of allied troops means that if any body fires at us we sit back and deluge them with bombs etc until they either disappear or surrender? \*\*Um, yeah, that’s how it works, in a “war”. [http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/22/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/22/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html) > [@](#): > > CNN’s Walter Rodgers, who is with the 3rd Squadron of that regiment, reported that a “small but determined” detachment of Iraqi soldiers put up surprisingly strong opposition to the armored force. Rodgers said Army commanders used long-range artillery strikes to take out the Iraqi forces instead of engaging them in a head-to-head tank battle. A U.S. Air Force A-10 “Warthog,” or “Thunderbolt,” was called in to provide close air support when surviving Iraqi forces fired on reconnaissance helicopters. Sad but true–it’s a standard war technique. You encounter entrenched infantry opposition, you call in air support and artillery. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/4 "2003-03-22T15:37:57Z")
Two U.S. Marines were shot and killed in a firefight. There have been at least 18 or so Brits killed in helicopter crashes. Some Iraquis tried to shell U.S. positions the other day. Their location was pinpointed using rader returns from the incoming shells, and the U.S. counter attacked with a massive barrage. A U.S. soldier said there were Iraqui bodies all over the place. The U.S. and British have better, more accurate, more powerful weapons. We can take on the enemy at longer ranges. It reminds me of the little guy trying to swing at the big guy, while the big guy holds him at arm’s length. The little guy can’t hit anything, but the big guy can. Not to mention that the Iraqui forces are probably not as motivated and professional as the U.S/British forces, and that they don’t have any air support. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/5 "2003-03-22T16:51:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > And third, the “fierce” resistance is actually IMO pretty picayune in comparison to what _I_ would call “fierce”, meaning “hand-to-hand combat, to the death, from house to house”. If you were to use that as a definition, it would mean that the defenders could only put up fierce resistance if the attackers decided to fight hand-to-hand with them. Just from what was posted in this thread, it’s clear that the Iraquis in this case are resisting house-to-house and mostly to the death. I don’t think their resistance ‘fierceness’ is reduced just because US forces are smart enough not to engage in hand to hand combat when they don’t need to. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/6 "2003-03-22T17:57:16Z")
Well, there’s still “death from friendly fire” and other accidents. ---
**Author:** ![galen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecc23a/32.png) [@galen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/7 "2003-03-23T16:01:51Z")
Anyway, its a damn good thing that the US is going in there. In the future Saddam will be a real threat to the US. I understand that Iraq is developing missiles with a range of several hundred miles. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/8 "2003-03-23T16:05:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by galen \* > **Anyway, its a damn good thing that the US is going in there.** You realize this doesn’t belong in GQ, right? ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/9 "2003-03-23T16:27:12Z")
Anytime you are on the receiving end of hostile fire, you would consider it fierce, heavy etc. In all types of news events, the trend in the media has been to place themselves in the shoes of the participants rather than being objective observers. This trend has led to a great deflation in the meaning of adjectives. ---
**Author:** ![occ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8c91f0/32.png) [@occ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/occ)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/10 "2003-03-23T16:28:35Z")
Slight hijack: why is urban (and similar) fighting being called “hand-to-hand”? I always thought hand-to-hand literally meant “with hand-wielded striking weapons”, like bayonets and whatnot. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Duality](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.duality/32/4098_2.png) [@Mr.Duality](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Duality)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/11 "2003-03-23T16:44:50Z")
The media are exagerating in a pathetic ploy to boost ratings. Got to use more action-packed adjectives to get the audience’s attention. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/12 "2003-03-23T20:00:49Z")
there’s another point to consider when we try to define “Fierce” fighting: how many casualties are we willing to accept? Compare: In WW II, hundreds of thousands died, and the public accepted it as the necessary cost of a justified war.A battle with only 10 wounded wasn’t even worth reporting in the media. In Vietnam, 60,000 died , but the public didn’t complain about the deaths of our soldiers! Instead–they protested the philosopical issues-: intervening in a minor foreign country,the use of napalm on villages,the use of Agent Orange to destroy forests, students protested losing their college deferments–but the outrage expressed at Pres. Nixon wasn’t based on body counts of US soldiers. Today–we expect war to be a clean TV show, that starts on the even hour, breaks for commercials, and ends before the Oscar awards.Just a dozen dead soldiers will be too much for the public to stomach. So the mere SOUND of gunfire coming from the enemy is enough for the TV news to define the battle as “fierce”. If we ever have a real battle with maybe 2 downed helicopters, 20 tanks destroyed and a hundred men killed, the TV will describe it as an unbearable bloodbath, and the US public will demand full retreat. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/13 "2003-03-23T20:16:38Z")
Besides, there can be a big difference between “fierce resistance” and “effective resistance”. ---
**Author:** ![ChalkPit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a88e4f/32.png) [@ChalkPit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChalkPit)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/14 "2003-03-23T20:52:17Z")
There are reports now of some US Marines being killed and some taken prisoner (after a convoy was ambushed) - so that would imply **some** fierce fighting at least. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/15 "2003-03-23T22:20:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by galen \* > \*\*Anyway, its a damn good thing that the US is going in there. In the future Saddam will be a real threat to the US. I understand that Iraq is developing missiles with a range of several hundred miles. \*\* To reiterate, this is _not_ acceptable in GQ. Take it to GD or the Pit, or lose your ability to post here. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/16 "2003-03-24T02:22:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > **Not to mention that the Iraqui forces are probably not as motivated and professional as the U.S/British forces…** Professional? Well, some are conscripts, some not. Motivated? Maybe, maybe not. I think you would find that a significant number of Iraqi’s find the invasion of their country to be quite motivating. As to the OP, I would go for (i) to at least a significant degree. Outside of a war, people will acknowledge freely the old tenet that “the first casualty of war is truth”. But once a war starts, people have a remarkable tendency to forget this basic tenet and believe. Almost all of what you are being told is heavily spun. A very large proportion of what you are being told will be propaganda, which is a standard technique in warfare, and which is another way of saying “big fat lies in the interest of our side”. I’m not commenting on the morality of that or whatever. I am just saying that **all** info currently available about this war will be highly suspect, and barely worthy of consideration on a messageboard dedicated to fighting ignorance and determining truth. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/17 "2003-03-24T03:23:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chappachula \* > In Vietnam, 60,000 died , but the public didn’t complain about the deaths of our soldiers! Instead–they protested the philosopical issues-: intervening in a minor foreign country,the use of napalm on villages,the use of Agent Orange to destroy forests, students protested losing their college deferments–but the outrage expressed at Pres. Nixon wasn’t based on body counts of US soldiers. I’d like a cite supporting this, and may take this up in GD. While there were certainly protests about the things you mention, my understanding (no cite handy, though I will look into it more) is that widespread dissatisfaction with Vietnam was based on the large body count and lack of victory, not on philosophical issues. Certainly, some college students did march about other issues, but I don’t think the majority of the electorate based their decision on Agent Orange and college deferments. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/18 "2003-03-24T04:10:14Z")
As comparison, 50 people died in the battle of Hamburger Hill, on the American side, IIRC, from reading Carnage and Culture. The casulties on the Korean side were in the order of at least ten times as high. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/19 "2003-03-24T05:36:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Duality \* > The media are exagerating in a pathetic ploy to boost ratings. Got to use more action-packed adjectives to get the audience’s attention. \*\* They may also be exagerating because many of them are untrained civilians reporting from the front lines. If you aren’t experienced at getting shot at, it must all seem pretty fierce. ---
**Author:** ![jk1245](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/49beb7/32.png) [@jk1245](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jk1245)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2003, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369/20 "2003-03-24T06:08:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by occ \* > \*\*Slight hijack: why is urban (and similar) fighting being called “hand-to-hand”? I always thought hand-to-hand literally meant “with hand-wielded striking weapons”, like bayonets and whatnot. \*\* They mean “hand-to-hand” in the sense that in urban warfare, it’s pretty much ground troops fighting with handheld weapons. Due to the close proximity of both sides to each other (and, in this case, the coalition forces’ desie to minimize civilian casulaties) air strikes and massive artillery bombardment are pretty much useless. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-there-is-fierce-resistance-why-are-there-no-allied-casualties/163369.md?page=2)