Here’s a summary of US/COW casualties in Iraq, based on information the Pentagon doesn’t publicly release directly. Have at it.
That’s different, Elvis. We were protecting the people we killed!
:smack: No way can I process this here…if I can process it at all with reguards to what I was asking RM. The one trend I see is that casualties seem fairly steady (though they HAVE been trending up slowly…which would be expected as the insurgency gets rolling) except for a number of period radical jumps (when things like the suicide bombing of the mess tent or the dual helicopter crashes)…looking at the Military Fatalities: By Month table. A cursory examinatin of at least that table seems to bear out, roughly, what I was asking RM…though I could be reading it wrong and I only glanced over it instead of spreadsheeting and manipulating the data into a form to support that fully (and this is assuming the table is completely accurate…don’t see why it wouldn’t be, but have to caviot that).
Other than that I can’t make heads or tails of the figures at this point. What does the data show YOU Elvis? Or did you just toss it at me in the hopes I’d be able to figure it out? 
Thanks for the cites Frankenstein Monster…thats kind of what I was finding in my earlier google search. In other words, there are no firm numbers…but glancing at all the hits that came up of individual insurgent attacks (a hundred here, 20 there, 60 odd NG’s executed on a training excersize, 26 police officers and civilians there, etc etc) it SEEMS to add up to quite a few…and it SEEMS, to me at least, that the attacks have been increasing for the past few months. Again, I’ll see what I can find later, time permitting…and if I can’t find anything I’ll provisionally withdraw my assertion because its unprovable at this time. Of course, the converse is true as well, but I’m the one who made the assertion.
-XT
You asked the question. I linked you the data. Have at it.
Perhaps it would help if you’d tell us what point you hope to prove or disprove?
The broader picture looks like a lot of semi/untrained civilians targeting whoever they can target, and troops on patrol in their own streets are easier to hit than when they’re in their compounds. Nowhere is safe, though, not even the Green Zone anymore.
Er…well, in a nutshell thats what I’ve been asserting, so I suppose thats what I was trying to ‘prove’ (though honestly I was asking RM what HE thought of that assertion, if you re-read what I posted)…though I didn’t make a statement one way or the other as far as the Green Zone goes. I did make a brief tangential statement about our proposed (and under construction afaik) perminent bases…which I think WILL be pretty secure when they are fully on line, even if the entire country goes tits up.
-XT
This just in: Baghdad Governor Is Slain, and Five U.S. Troops Are Killed
Oh, yeah, those insurgents are quaking in their boots, all right…
But rjung didn’t you read xtisme’s post above where he carefully explained that the US casualties in the last 4 months were a result of us trying to do something, like destroy the city of Falloujah. The clear implication was that if we just stayed in our protected bases we wouldn’t have casualties. Except, of course, for the possibility of an occasional suicide mess hall bombing.
I quote xtisme "Part of the reason its been such a bloody 4 months is due to our forces going after them in situations like Fallujah…and the spectacular success of a suicide attack on a mess tent. Take those out and my guess is the casualties have been relatively constant.
…
RM, let me ask you something…with the exception of the attack on the US mess tent, how many of the US casualties have been due to insurgents attacking us in our bases…and how many have been them attacking US patrols, or due to the house to house street fighting in situations like Fallujah?"
Are the majority of our casualties being generated by attacks against our bases, or by our troops on patrol or in assaults like Fallujah? Afaik, its the later. So, its not that huge of a mental step for me that if we didn’t patrol any more or launch assaults that our casualties would in fact drop except for an occasional suicide attack. It wasn’t really the point I was trying to make, but since you brought it up…sure, I’ll go out on a limb there and say that this would be the case. Perhaps you could tell me why this is wrong?
As to the casualties in the last 4 months, I’d say, again, that the reason it was the most casualities we’ve taken since the end of hostilities has a lot to do with assaulting a city, stepping up our own assaults against suspected insurgents, and a suicide bombing that caught us flat footed. I conceed that the insurgency has also ramped up in its intensity as well (something I conceeded in a previous post but that must have slipped through)…but I think the figures are distorted from increased activity on the US’s part as well. If we go out more, they can attack us more…and if we are more agressive we are going to take more casualties because we are looking for fights. Am I wrong?
However, all this isn’t really the point I was making…which had to do with the sharp increase in attacks against Iraqi’s, civilian, police and military by the insurgents. I never meant to imply that by shifting focus away from attacking the US military to Iraqi civilians that this means they aren’t attacking us at all.
Unfortunately I’ve still been unable to find any solid numbers on Iraqi casualties of any stripe thats put together in any kind of rational way…and I am unwilling to skim through every individual news report of Iraqi casualties and add em up with cross references to when they occured. So, as I said I would, I provisionally withdraw the entire line of thought pending either finding something solid or someone else finding it.
-XT
It’s not wrong, it’s just silly. By your own statements we are occupying Iraq. That means it’s mostly up to us to maintain stability in the country. How do we do that if we sit hunkered down in our secure bases?
And of course supply units can’t be immobile but have to be out and about in order to transport the supplies to our bases. They are vulnerable to attack. Your recipe for holding down casualities means our military sits around, does nothing and has a steady trickle of casualties within the supply corps.
How does that contribute to bringing law and order and the blessings of a democratic government to Iraq?
Addendum:
More evidence that much of the blame needs to be put on the shoulders of Rumsfeld (problems of personnell/logistics support):
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1
From the first paragraph:
“Several senior war planners complained to me in interviews that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his inner circle of civilian advisers, who had been chiefly responsible for persuading President Bush to lead the country into war, had insisted on micromanaging the war’s operational details. Rumsfeld’s team took over crucial aspects of the day-to-day logistical planning—traditionally, an area in which the uniformed military excels—and Rumsfeld repeatedly overruled the senior Pentagon planners on the Joint Staff, the operating arm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”
Hirsch refers to the TPFDL (Time-Phased Force Deployment List) rather than the TPFDD (Time-Phased Force Deployment Document). However, the TPFDL is the largest and most important element of the TPFDD. The TPFDL identifies the combat/support modules involved (both people and equipment), along with where those modules are to be deployed and when (what day they leave and what day they need to be at the deployed location).
The departure/arrival dates generally drive the type of transport necessary. Airlift is used to get people and some equipment in place quickly. Sealift is required for heavier cargo. If you change a date for when a particular combat/support module needs to be in place, this will have an impact on when you can have other combat/supoort units in place. Making on-the-fly changes to the TPFDL puts a strain on the entire planning/logistical support capabilites of the military.
Indeed. This just in:
Yea, that just screams stability and peaceful transition to an elected government.
Iraq: It’s the new Afghanistan*!
*Afghanistan is still there, but shhhhhhhhh, we’re not supposed to pay attention to that unless NFL players are killed
Desperation comes at a heavy price.
Agreed. Arrogance begot out of sheer ignorance can only lead to the kind of tragic failure we’re witnessing. But as it almost unfailingly happens it’s not the culprits and their cheerleaders that pay the heavy price.
Then again, *you are * of fighting age are you not? What’s keeping you from joining TWAT? Cozy on the sidelines, isn’t it?
Well I have Asthma, that pretty much barrs me from it. But if I didn’t have it I’d join up the British Army. My father and uncle served there, I wouldn’t see any fear in joining to fight a war myself.
I know, those insurgents are heading for the deathbed Because in the end, thats who I was referring to about the desperation thing.
ATTENTION MODS: Let’s have some even-handed application of the rules! If Aldebaran can get banned for expressing a wish to fight American troops occupying Iraq, Ryan should at least be admonished for gloating over the impending deaths of insurgents in that same conflict.
I don’t see how you can sympathise for people who kill your fellow countrymen, and chop off heads and cripple and destroy countless Iraqi lives who are only working to make their lives a little bit better than the countless tyrannies they’ve experienced in their lives.
We know you don’t see that, Ryan. Pretty clear on that.
What rules do you suggest for resisting foreign invasion? Wouldn’t you largely favor such as the French Resistance movement against the Nazis? Pretty sure you would. I believe they had a policy of executing/assassinating French persons they regarded as collaborators. Were they invariably scrupulous in their use of bombs, boody traps, etc? If they injured innocent civlians, would you demand that they turn themselves in at the nearest Gestapo headquarters?
It would appear that your moral code is inflexible, and based on solid and unyielding principle: what flag do they fly? A large portion of the history of human misery was written by following principles such as these.
Myself, I find the question miserably uncomfortable. I cannot help but favor my own. Let the other guy die, let his wife be widowed, his children orphaned. But I recognize that this favoritism is based on no moral principle whatsoever, merely that I cherish American soldiers. But I cannot escape the awareness that they are posted in a place they have no business being, they were sent on a fool’s errand in support of a false cause. The Iraqi who resists their occupation is entirely justified in his resistance and niether wants nor needs my approval.
My country right or wrong, my soldiers right or wrong. But my country is wrong. And not all the flags, all the anthems, all the lachrymose bloviations about heroism and duty will change that single, ugly fact.
“In case you haven’t noticed, we de-humanize our own soldiers, not because of their religion or race, but because of their low social class. Send ’em anywhere. Make ’em do anything. Piece of cake.”
- Kurt Vonnegut
I find it rather repulsive that you find the thought amusing. Quite a contrast to elucidator’s eloquent and poignant reply. Not a fair comparison to be sure, for I understand that youth is largely wasted on the young. But not all.
Either way, the following link might just help you place the actions of the Iraqi resistance in perspective – in fact, it also takes you to the very source of the word “guerilla.”
I hope in vain that it might also wipe the smile off your face.
Believe me, with your history on these boards, no disclaimer is needed. I simply used it to illustrate that it’s just as fitting a description for either side.