The Body Countdown Begins: Gen. Abizaid Says There's < 5000 Insurgents in Iraq

[RTFirefly]

This floored me when I heard it on ATC tonight:

Yesterday, Gen. John Abizaid, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, said that there are fewer than 5000 Iraqi insurgents

(Audio link to All Things Considered story: go here, then click on “Exposing the Problematic Rules of Guerilla Warfare” javascript link.)

You realize what this means, of course: we’re into Body Count Land. We’ve been down this road before.

But maybe this time it can work both ways. Beginning today, each Iraqi killed by coalition forces, each suicide bomber gone to his reward of virgins, reduces that “fewer than 5000” by one. Eventually the tally will reach 5000, at which point the guerrilla attacks will cease. Right? Well, of course! The arithmetic says so.

Of course, if the insurgents are capable of recruiting new adherents, then that 5000 figure is meaningless, and the impression Abizaid meant to convey by saying there were “fewer than 5000” insurgents is just another bit of dishonesty.

Anyway, that’s my take on this little announcement. Yours is welcome.

(Mods, I don’t know if this is the beginning of a debate or not. If you decide it’s really just a rant - which it may be - feel free to move it to the Pit. Your call, as always.)

[Atreyu]

I’d like to know how Gen. Abizaid came up with the figure of “fewer than 5000.” Is that discussed in the audio link? If so, please let me know, since I’m presently unable to hear anything.

[robertliguori]

Actually, they should cease when the count reaches 4999, unless we are dealing with fractional terrorists.

And yes, it’s very stupid, but that has been dealt with, so I won’t reiterate.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Atreyu *
I’d like to know how Gen. Abizaid came up with the figure of “fewer than 5000.” Is that discussed in the audio link? If so, please let me know, since I’m presently unable to hear anything.

Unfortunately, no mention was made of his reasoning. If there was any.

[Jonathan_Chance]

RTF, that wasn’t my take on it at all.

With Bremmer being hauled in for ‘briefings’ earlier this week I think Abizaid is basically trying to backstop the administration’s line that the bombers/insurgents/patriotic freedom fighters/terrorists are really a small cadre of individuals and that minimizes the threat they pose.

It also spins well for the folks back home (which is why Abizaid would make this announcement in the first place). If the administration maintains that it’s a small group causing trouble they can portray the situation as close to stabilizing and continue stating that everyone outside of the ‘small group’ loves us and knits the soldiers blankets and such.

Of course, call me cynical, but if the attacks continue or escalate for some time we’ll start hearing that there were 5000 but they’ve been importing more.

So, IMHO it’s not a matter of setting up a countdown of bodies but more a matter of spinning the story for the home front.

[Scylla]

I guess there’s a tendency to try to see everything in terms of perceived spin and propaganda, but really, this is going to far. One cannot let their preferences get in the way of reality.

I listened to this, and then I listened to this link again with my father who was over for dinner tonight. He has the the interesting perspective of having fought in a guerrilla way.

I beleive RTF that you have horribly misrepresented argument being made and taken General Abizaid’s comments completely out of context in order to create an argument that is the opposite of what he is saying.

To complete Abizaid’s quote in context:

When you understand that they are organized in cellular structure, that they have a brutal and determined cadre, that they know how to operate covertly, that they have access to a lot of money and a lot of ammunition, you will understand how dangerous they are

(My transcription)

Frankly RTF, I don’t have any clue how you get from this that Abizaid is saying “Hey look, only 5,000 more to go!” He is not attempting to minimize the problem, or say it’s small and unimportant.

From context, it is clear that he is saying the opposite.

And, if you listen to the rest of the analysis by Mr. Rothstein of the Special Forces he concurs with this analysis.

The significance of the number “5,000” as it is being used here, and echoed by Rothstein is that 5,000 well-funded, well-armed, knowledgable and experienced guerrilla insurgents is a big goddamned problem.

5,000 is a lot of guerrillas.

So, I don’t have any idea where you come off with this reverse body count load of crap, or that somebody’s saying “Oh look, there’s only 5,000 guerrillas.”

That’s the opposite of what’s being said here.

[London_Calling]

They don’t know how many. Period. I read it as part of an attempt to characterise the opposition – if you think you ‘know’ what you’re fighting it worries you (the US public) less. Much better than a not quantifiable enemy, or saying you don’t know.

Just designed to create a sense back home that the forces on the ground have measured and are aware of the scale of the problem and, from here, can begin to address it.
Fwiw, 5,000 was the official position at the back end of July – 5,00 Sunni’s.

Yesterday, the leaked CIA documentsuggested the ‘insurgency’ may soon spread to the majority Shiite’s as well:
Among other concerns raised by the CIA report, the officials said, was the danger that Iraqi Shiite Muslims, who represent a majority of the country‘s population, could soon join minority Sunni Muslims in carrying out armed attacks against American forces. The report also described what it portrayed as major obstacles to efforts by the United States and American-led Iraqi forces to halt a small but steady infiltration of foreign fighters from Syria and Iran.

• I guess the other possible area of interest from this approach is that it could be seen as an indictaor of the military mind set; maybe you have to become slightly delusional to maintain confidence, I just don’t know.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**

• I guess the other possible area of interest from this approach is that it could be seen as an indictaor of the military mind set; maybe you have to become slightly delusional to maintain confidence, I just don’t know. **

Saying that there are 5,000 well-armed, funded, trained and experienced guerrillas at large is a not a confidence building statement.

Did anybody listen to the link?

[London_Calling]

Psychologically, it’s a lot better than saying “Actually, we haven’t a clue, could be anywhere from 500 to 50,000. Maybe."

Or "Pick a number, double it, add 17, take off the numbere you first thought of . . .”

It suggests they’re getting a measure of the opposition. Which the CIA report from yesterday contradicts.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**Psychologically, it’s a lot better than saying “Actually, we haven’t a clue, could be anywhere from 500 to 50,000. Maybe."
**

I don’t accept your total ignorance thesis, and I see no problem with attempting to quantify the scope of the problem they are dealing with.

Any rationale algorithm for dealing with a problem is going to have to estimate its scope as a practical matter.

Surely there is a lot of propaganda noise to deal with, but not everything is a propaganda statement, and from listening to the link you thesis that this is some kind of confidence boosting statement is absurd.

[London_Calling]

I think you agree with me. As I said, they are indeed trying to imply the idea that they’re “dealing with it” (as you put it). Makes perfect sense to try and sell that line. But as the CIA says, they are not “dealing with it” That impression, the one they are trying to create, is false.

More accurately (infer the CIA), it’s a runaway train they’re trying to make look like a manageable problem because it comforts the folks back home, and maybe, some of those in the field.

Truth is, they don’t know where they are with numbers and they don’t know where those numbers are going. Picking a number and sticking it on the ‘insurgents’, gives a contrary impression to the actual situation.

In a word: Propaganda.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**I think you agree with me.

**

I’m all for consensus building, but if you think this, we must not be communicating in the same language.

As I said, they are indeed trying to imply the idea that they’re “dealing with it” (as you put it). Makes perfect sense to try and sell that line. But as the CIA says, they are not “dealing with it” That impression, the one they are trying to create, is false.

Just stop thinking in terms of propaganda and spin for one second, and consider the possibility that Abizaid is actually making a legitimate attempt at communicating the situation, based on hypotheses derived from rational observation.

More accurately (infer the CIA), it’s a runaway train they’re trying to make look like a manageable problem because it comforts the folks back home, and maybe, some of those in the field.

I don’t think your thesis that the scope of the problem is unknowable holds water, as I’ll explain.

Truth is, they don’t know where they are with numbers and they don’t know where those numbers are going. Picking a number and sticking it on the ‘insurgents’, gives a contrary impression to the actual situation.

How do you know they don’t know where they are with those numbers? It doesn’t seem to me to be an especially difficult estimate to make.

The nature of the attacks provides valid information as to the quality and scope of the opposing force being engaged.

If they are able to say that the opposing force is well-armed, well-trained, experienced and committed why would you acccept these statements yet feel that the scope of the force is fundamentally unknowable?

These attacks have been going on for quite some time you know, and this general is not an idiot.

The qualities and scope of the actions that have been taken against us provide a wealth of information, as do their tactics which are dictated by the size and nature of their force. Combine this with forensic information and there is more than enough information to build a reasonable estimate of the quality and scope of the guerrilla forces engaging us.

Your suggestion that we have no information and are simply trying to paint a comforting number on a totally unknown and unknowable quantity is just ridiculous.

[aahala]

The General would not have reached his high rank without knowing the proper ratio of US troops to insurgents.

As his superiors have repeatedly stated we have the right number of troops over there, the General had the insight to apply a top secret military procedure called long division. He looked up the number of troops and divided by the ratio. Voila.

[Desmostylus]

<snerk>

[London_Calling]

Once more I’m reminded of why they keep trying to get away with this nonsense, it’s because they can.

The ink isn’t even dry on the year-long WMD debacle, and already the faithful are blinding themselves to next the bleedin’ obvious lie.

I hope for their own sake, the military also have the full names, address, ages and inside leg measurements of these ‘insurgents’. They seem to be pretty well informed, it seems only a matter of time before they’ve solved this problem. Just a few weeks now. For sure. Home for Christmas

Anytime you guys want to buy a bridge, you let me know.
Link:

"The classified document - first reported by the Philadelphia Enquirer newspaper - warns that Iraqis are losing faith in the US-led coalition and are supporting the Iraqi resistance in growing numbers. "

• I’m out of here, have a nice thread.

[TheQuagmire]

*Originally posted by aahala *
**The General would not have reached his high rank without knowing the proper ratio of US troops to insurgents.

**
Only a fool would try to predict how many guerilla fighters there are. Any civilian can be converted to the cause against the U.S. especially if their relatives are being bombed and killed (which they are.)

**
As his superiors have repeatedly stated we have the right number of troops over there, the General had the insight to apply a top secret military procedure called long division. He looked up the number of troops and divided by the ratio. Voila. **

Because the superiors are always right, right? Like McNamara etc… umm.
This isn’t a board game you don’t count the enemy’s pieces in a guerilla war because it’s impossible. America has little intel in the region willing to give concise information. People that America recruits are assassinated faster than they are replaced.

[Desmostylus]

Whooosh. aahala was joking, TheQuagmire.

[TheQuagmire]

*Originally posted by Desmostylus *
**Whooosh. aahala was joking, TheQuagmire. **

Sometimes you can’t tell on these forums :D. My fault…

[Dissonance]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**I guess there’s a tendency to try to see everything in terms of perceived spin and propaganda, but really, this is going to far. One cannot let their preferences get in the way of reality.
<snip>
5,000 is a lot of guerrillas.

So, I don’t have any idea where you come off with this reverse body count load of crap, or that somebody’s saying “Oh look, there’s only 5,000 guerrillas.” **

I’d tend to agree. I don’t see Abizaid’s comment on the number of guerillas as a reverse body count. It’s a guestimate of the number of hard-core guerillas operating in Iraq, and like all military estimates during ongoing operations it is likely one part solid intelligence, one part poor intelligence, three parts guess work, and an added sprinkle of the magic eight-ball. While it doubtlessly incorporates a war-time spin on numbers for public consumption, 5,000 full time guerillas in organized cells with plentiful supplies is nothing to scoff at.

For the record, I’m somewhat to the left and was not in favor of the invasion of Iraq.

[pantom]

I do think Scylla has a reasonable point, and Abizaid I don’t think was trying to minimize the situation at all.
That said, it should be noted that the conduct of the war will decide the number of guerrillas. It’s not our country, and the tendency in any occupation is for more people to go over to the side of those rebelling. As the war widens and more people get involved, more people will rebel. The dynamic is not unknown in American history. From an official history of The Battle of Kings Mountain, in South Carolina, during the American Revolution:

The Battle of Kings Mountain, South Carolina, occurred on the 7th day of October, 1780, and resulted in the defeat of Lieutenant Colonel Ferguson, who commanded the royal forces, and the loss of his command, not one man escaping from the battle field. The thoroughness of the disaster, and the death of the brave and highly trusted leader, was by far the most serious blow to which the British forces operating in the Southern Provinces had been subjected. The immediate effect upon Cornwallis was to put an end, for the time being, to the further subjugation of the Province of North Carolina. His contemplated advance from Charlotte Town to Salisbury was menaced by a new and unheard of enemy—the men under Campbell, Shelby, Sevier, and others—who came from the region of the mountains, and the back, waters that flow to the west; from places so remote and unknown to the British leaders as to be almost mythical. This avenging horde made necessary a hasty revision of Cornwallis’s plans following Kings Mountain, which resulted in his immediate withdrawal to the South, and the concentration of his main army, detached posts, and flanking parties, into positions capable of rendering mutual assistance.
These hardy men of the Blue Ridge and Alleghenies, of deep religious convictions, were accustomed to the hardships and independence of a pioneer life, and in their mountain homes in the highlands and the backwaters they but seldom were concerned
1
with affairs beyond their borders or interfered with by Crown or colony. When Ferguson approached their kingdom and threatened to invade their lands and lay waste their country with “fire and sword,” and to “hang their leaders,” he aroused their indignation and anger to such a degree that they determined to rid the country forever of this enemy, who menaced their independence and the safety of their homes and families. Had Cornwallis and his leaders known more about these mountain and backwater men, they would have carefully avoided all military and punitive measures which might tend to draw them from their mountain fastnesses to enroll amongst the enemies of the King.
The causes of the Revolution were but little known to many of these pioneers beyond the Blue Ridge. They were concerned in the establishment of their homes, breaking the soil of their new settlements, and wringing a livelihood from it; and with their rifles securing much of their sustenance. They sought the seclusion of the western waters; and in the valleys of the Holston, the Watauga, and the Nolichucky, found freedom in the exercise of their religion. Had the western covering force of Cornwallis’s army, as it advanced into the Province of North Carolina, confined its activities, to the plains and lowlands east of the Blue Ridge, and had not Ferguson from Gilbert Town uttered his threat of fire and sword and the hangman’s noose, these mountain men would probably have remained in their homes, and but few of them would have joined with those who were in rebellion against the King.

Link: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/revwar/KM-Cpns/AWC-KM1.htm

So, estimates are nice, but events will decide just how many guerrillas there really are when all is said and done.