This starting to look a bit like what the afghani/early al-quada struggle against the soviets was like. Even though they are taking higher loses they think they are winners.
Ummm, is there a debate here? And who exactly is the “they” that you refer to.
Umm…what are you basing the supposed casualty figures for the Iraqi resistance on? You are claiming that there is a higher ratio of US to Iraqi resistance, and also that that ratio is as high as the ratio of Afghan resistance to Soviet troops? You will need to basically provide a cite for that, as well as fill in your OP to say what exactly we are debating here.
Reguards,
XT
I gotta look up where I seen it ,but basically their insurection is pretty much a failed thing ,except when the lives of american servicemen and women, and allied personel are snuffed out.
But basically they started the insurgency with vast amounts of military hardware that was never figured into the occupation equation , enough money to pay people to attack coalition personal and somewhat sorta supportive population.
With the Afgan war against the sov’s , the mujahadeen had the support of both the population at large , fighting the lesser satan , ie russia, plus the support of the western world , while the muji’s may have won eventually against the sovs, the introduction of western military aid , plus a liberalization of the soviet regime (gorby) led to the pull out of the Soviet forces.
In Iraq , a dictator that had almost no support in the general population , with the exception of the people that were able to work the situation and thrive , no incoming monies , no support of the general population , and no new incoming weapons of the sort that the soviets had problems with.
Thats not to say that there are no high tech weapons , only that there does not seem to be any silver bullets that would take down an Abrams tank, in any kind of analogy to what the soviets went through.
Basically with the tactics that the feyadeen are using now , they seem to be concerned that they be viewed as a viable force , to outside eyes.
Declan
I hope someone could find some support facts. I recall on on some documentary on television a eye witness account of Bin Laden days fighting in afghanistan. They would storm soviet convoy and take on heavy loses and then come out thinkign they were vitorious even though they suffered heavy loses.
I am trying to see if the ideology of former feyadeen/bathist has taken on or similar to that of Bin Ladens followers during the Afghan war.
For example the attack that happened just yestarday that resulted in bunch of these attackers getting killed. The figure in news was 54 but i am sure actual attackers dead its probably much lower but still substantial. But in any case none of the americans were killed. Obviously it is a defeat by any strategic measure. In the minds of the attackers who did get away they must be thinking that they are vitorious ? But what could these people be thinking. If we can look at former bathist as people who are selfishly looking after their interest and trying to hold on to power, this does not seem like they just would turn to a jihad. Could something be motivating this people other then money ?
Thread looks to be dieing as no supporting facts have been layed out.
From felix9x
I think you are a bit confused. This was definitely NOT a defeat in a strategic sense. In no way, shape or form. You could, perhaps, make a case that it was a defeat in the TACTICAL sense, and be correct, but strategically, it wasn’t even a major setback.
Basically it was merely an ambush that ran into something a bit bigger than they planned for…and paid the price. This, as far as I know, has NOT been the norm, where most of their ambushes are coming off fairly well, kill ration wise. Also, we have no feel for what level of casualties might or might not be acceptable to either the leadership (such as it is) OR the average resistance fighting grunt. Maybe 10 to 1 is acceptable to them…maybe 100 to 1. Who knows at this point.
There are huge differences between Iraq and Afghanistan when the Soviets were there. Some work to our advantage, such as the fact that, atm, there are no large 1st world powers bankrolling the resistance with arms, money and training. The other side of the coin is, Saddam basically made the entire country into one big armory. It will be YEARS before they burn through all their expendables. Radical types are literally pouring in from all over the region to kill their very own American…and while I question their fighting abilities, I don’t question their dedication to die and take someone with them (see various suicide bombers for illustrations).
They can basically live IN the population, who seems to be fairly neutral over all…thats a bad thing for the US btw. It means they won’t be turning these guys in any time soon. Finally, its unclear how many casualties the US is willing to take. The US isn’t the USSR…at a certain point, the anti-war/anti-US in Iraq movement WILL ignite here if things stay bad or get worse. At some point, another administration WILL be in power here. That means that the situation, as far as the US is concerned, has to improve (and fairly rapidly) or there is the very real possibility we’ll cut and run, say a year or so from now. Thats a Very Bad Thing, IMO…but the US has done such things in the past. Read your Vietnam history for examples of how popularist movements can force such changes. For the oppositon though…all they have to do is remain a pain in the ass long enough, and eventually the US will get tired. I’d say that they have a very GOOD chance of pulling that off, atm. Time will tell…
Reguards,
XT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3257460.stm
the figure of 54 may be a bit inflated