I disagree w/your assessment re : Spiney’s post - if ever I was gonna suggest to folks that believing one sides stated ‘kill ratio’ wasn’t necessarily a good idea, the name “VietNam” would come leaping to my lips - it’s like the gold standard in that respect.
Whoah, touchy. I must’ve missed the memo with the approved list of military conflicts for comparison.
I brought up Vietnam because it’s a really good example of a war that was pretty convincingly lost, although the kill ratio was absolutely excellent. Or, in other words, the kill ratio is at best irrelevant, at worst a statistic that can be put forth as a substitution for progress.
S. Norman
Nope:
Putz. Now go finish your homework.
Fair enough, Spiny Norman, although I would argue that the kill ratio in Vietnam became less of an indicator of success because of attrition and the sheer amount of time that the conflict took. In a short, acute campaign such as the one in Iraq (we’re already knocking on the door to “Berlin” after less than a week,) I would argue that kill ratio is an excellent indicator…especially if the cities and pockets of resistance are effectively cut off from supply lines and reinforcements. The Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard forces are already at a heavy disadvantage in a siege situation (they have fewer numbers, less supplies, and no way to completely protect themselves from our remote assaults.) I think it’s reasonable to assume that if we kill more of them than they kill of us, especially if it’s wrapped up quickly (and Lord, the Coalition is going after them like a dog after raw meat,) we’ll win.
Of course, guerrilla action may continue, and we may have some other problems along the way, but I maintain that Iraq’s military is being ground up into a fine meal, and we’ll see the end of the major fighting very, very quickly.
, please note how the second statement modifies the first, especially in light of my continued explanation immediately above.
Also, fuck off.
IN ADDITION, I say, please ignore my erratic coding.
anyone have any more info on this story?
Not per se, but I’ll note in passing that the article describes thje weapons found as being 23 ft. long. Unless they are partially disassembled pieces, that is too small to be a Iraqi Scud ( derived from the Soviet ‘Scud-B’ ) of any sort, which start out at almost 37 ft. long and on up, depending on the model:
- Tamerlane
So let me get this straight, as long as we manage to kill, say, 100,000 Iraqi troops and suffer what, 1000-10,000 casualties ourselves, then we’ll have won? Especially if this happens quickly?
Is that what you’re saying?
I honestly thought that no-one in the world still thought relative body counts were a good measure of military achievement.
If we kill 100,000 and we lose 1000, then yes, absolutely. We will have won. That’s assuming, of course, that there are that many who shoot back. The closer we get to the top end of your scale, the harder it is to swallow, of course.
I’d rather not see that many on either side dead, but if it comes to a “line in the sand” situation and we either punch through or risk bogging down in a morass outside Baghdad for the next six months, we’d better do what it takes.
No, Andy, but if you want to achieve your military objective against determined defenders(assuming that parleying or surrender is no longer an option,) one thing has not changed in five thousand years: you’ll have to kill them. Hopefully you can minimize your own casualties, but they must be dealt with.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ogre *
…We’d better do what it takes…
[QUOTE]
So if we achieve our military goals, but suffer horribly high casualties will we have won or not?
eg We take Baghdad, lose 50,000, but they lose 100,000, is that a win or a lose?
Could we win by (theoretically) popping off one Iraqi from miles away, taking no casualties (kill ratio 1:0, ie infinite) but didn’t achieve our goals have we won? Surely! We have a higher ratio than anyone!
Depends on who you ask. The media, and probably most Americans, would definitely claim that as a loss.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Andy *
**
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ogre *
…We’d better do what it takes…
100 to 1 = good
2 to 1 = not so good.
Feel free to provide us with some indicators we could use to determine the status of the war.
In terms of the stated goals of the war, which is to get rid of Saddam Hussein’s regime and prepare the way for a democratic government in Iraq, then we have unquestionably “won.” Whether the ancillary goals are met (i.e. discouraging terrorism, WMD, etc.) is more of a crapshoot. Time would tell, although in a case where the kill ratio were merely 2:1, I doubt it.
No, kill ratio is not the only indicator in war, but it is horribly naive to think that it’s not a valuable indicator in certain circumstances, and I believe that in this war, it is (clear military goals, limited time frame, clear numerical and technological superiority, enemies with very little way to reinforce en masse.)