Debunking the myth: We are losing in Iraq

It's funny that all these death counter on anti-war and move on compare it to coaliton forces deaths or Afghanistan? You know why? Because if you compare it to any other war it seems like a blip. That might sound callous, but I feel preventing a nuclear bombing going off in downtown Manhatten is pretty important. And isn't cheapening their deaths by saying they are dying in an illegal immoral unneccessary war even worst? Or how about getting rich off their deaths and watching the numbers tick off in glee hoping it will reach the magical number of 60,000?

Well the fact is that taking over two countries and rebuilding them in 4 years with only 2,000 dead is a phenomenal military accomplishment. It amounts to about 500 a year. The number isn't top heavy by much. Since 5/1/03, it's about 1300, which is about 650 per year.

And guerilla warfare, as romantic as it sounds, never works and is a sign of a decaying enemy. The only place it really worked is in Spain against the Napoleon and they had 40,000 British soldiers. You can't say it worked in Vietnam, because the Vietnamese had the Soviets giving them weapons, the Chinese given us food, and a bunch of kids convincing their parents to get out of Vietnam which we decided to do.

And look at the past great victories of the US.
Iraq Occupation
Dates: 5/1/03-Today
Troops in action: roughly 130,000
Total Deaths: 1,605
Deaths per day: 1605/2/365=2.19
Casualties: 13,000


Normady
Date 6/6/44:
Troops in action: 150,000
Deaths: 2,500
Casualties: 12,000

Gettysburgh:Union side,
Troops: 88,000
Deaths: 3,200
Casualties: 23,000

Okay from looking at the figures you would think Iraq was much more of a success than Normandy and Gettysburg. We have the 2nd highest amount of troops there, the longest time spent in there, and the lowest amount of deaths and casualties.

Also take in the battle context. Gettysburgh and Normandy didn't seal the deal. Iraq is a close as you can get to saying we won. Are main effort isn't the fighting, but founding a government and rebuilding the electric plants, water pipes, and hospitals. Our enemy is decimated and reduced to suicide bombings and haven't made one military offensive in two years.

With all this taken into consideration, how can a strategist objectively say we are losing?

The problem is, Vietnam and even Napolean were armed forces fighting other armed forces, not civilians making their defences in their kitchen.

Also, Vietnam took longer than 4 years before it really got started:



www.lies.com...

But yeah, compared to Gettysburgh and Normandy, the US are doing pretty good in Iraq fighting civilians who the majority should be starting college.

You're comparing apples to oranges. When are you saying the Vietnam War started? A lot of historians say it started in 1945 after World War II. The US got involved in 1954. BOth of these would skyrocket, as it became the showdown between Soviets and the US in the 60s.

Vietnam didn't start off with the high number of troops Iraq has. Iraq started high, and is getting lower. Vietnam started low, and got higher (that's pretty funny).

Also, N. Vietnam had better logistics than Iraqis. They had a military superpower giving them weapons and food. Iraqi terrorists don't.

And that last line is very revealing. They are super soldiers fighting 21st century warfare when you want to convince people we are losing. Now they are college kids that are a step of above criminals when I proved to you we are winning.

If they are college kids, doesn't that say something about your Vietnam theory? That they are going to loose big time?

Also doesn't that say something about the Anti-War movement? That they will spread lies about the unbeatable enemy when you know that they are nothing but glorified criminals?

Good stats there RedWhiteandBlood. I believe i feel the same as you. I hate to say that i "support" this war because i know our soldiers will come home in body bags. But it is a fact that evil will ALWAYS be there and unless you FIGHT it, you and your loved ones will die.

I can FULLY understand a pacifists point of view. ALL forms of murder, death and violence is ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE. It sucks! To have to think that people do it to one another sickens me.

However, what a pacifist fails to understand is that evil will NEVER go away and unless you you violence against it, it will flourish.

A difference between a Liberal and a Conservative is (and yes i resorted to using the L and C words) that if someone was breaking down my Liberal friends door to kill him, i would protect him to the death. If someone was breaking down my door to kill me, my Liberal friend would stand aside and try and talk to my assailant from stopping this madness while stabbing me in the heart.

I would not look at US casualties as a guide for how the Iraq war is going at this point. The insurgents are primarily targeting Iraqi civilians and law enforcment personnel now. What I would look at is how strong is the Insurgency. Accroding to Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the insurgency could last for many more years. If this is the case I would say Iraq has become a quagmire that we can't really win. Utimately the new Iraqi government maybe able to subdue the insurgency on it's own at some point in the future once we are out and the necons can claim a victory then, but I doubt that will happen.

The deciding factor on our side is not going to be troops or even resovle. The US is not going to be able to sustain it's presence in Iraq at current troop levels for much longer because of simple economics. This war is creating an enormous debt and 40% of that debt is owed to foreign nations, including major competitors like China. There is going to come a point when the cost of this war is having a serious negative effect on both our wider foreign policy and our ability to deal with domestic issues. Simple economics is going to decide this war if the Iraqi insurgency does not die off quickly and it shows no sign of doing so.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Delta 38]

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
You're comparing apples to oranges.

The point is, that's what YOUR doing by comparing Iraq to any armed conflict with a warring nations army or armies.

It's like saying less people drowned in the desert than in the ocean in the last 4 years when the elements that make up that comparison are completely different.

Compare Iraq to another situation in which America's army (150,000 of them) were being killed, mamed or sent home crazy when fighting civilians and you might get closer results.

Also do you accept that an army of today would have better medical resources and abilities to get people to these resources than say, during Nepoleans wars? If you look ONLY at the numbers of deaths and compare with wars 50 years ago then of course they will be different but there's been well over 10,000 US soldiers who are not soldiers anymore and who a lot of probably would of died in a 1940s war rather than having a leg removed or intense surgery because they were flown out of combat in 2005's technological war. The only people still fighting with equipment from the 50's are the Iraqi's!

Things don't always add up with simple statistics and that's when logic should be used.

Nice post Delta. Simple and true, i don't see how anyone could argue with that.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
You're comparing apples to oranges.

It's like saying less people drowned in the desert than in the ocean in the last 4 years

BUT, IT'S TRUE!

Originally posted by Faust
However, what a pacifist fails to understand is that evil will NEVER go away and unless you you violence against it, it will flourish.

So to put out a fire you should start a fire?
An eye for an eye and we all go blind - never heard of that saying?
Why expect 'them' to stop, why not take that road yourselves since America is a 'Christian nation' and all, turning the other cheek is the heart of Jesus' teachings after all.

A difference between a Liberal and a Conservative is (and yes i resorted to using the L and C words) that if someone was breaking down my Liberal friends door to kill him, i would protect him to the death. If someone was breaking down my door to kill me, my Liberal friend would stand aside and try and talk to my assailant from stopping this madness while stabbing me in the heart.

OK, well a liberal would probably find out first if the person kicking down the door was trying to kill you so they don't kill your brother trying to get in because he was locked out in the first place. A conservative would shoot first and ask questions later and then make up an excuse when they realise they stuffed up and killed someone unlawfully.

In otherwords what pointless examples these both are and what little relivence they have in regards to real life.



[edit on 28-6-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Originally posted by Faust

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
You're comparing apples to oranges.

It's like saying less people drowned in the desert than in the ocean in the last 4 years

BUT, IT'S TRUE!

Exactly and with the war comparisions, LESS people are fighting in Iraq than in his examples so of course LESS should be dying. If it were any other way then it would be so obvious that even a neo-con could understand it.

The main point is thou, he's comparing wars with mulitple national armies with a war on a civilian population.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

So to put out a fire you should start a fire?
An eye for an eye and we all go blind - never heard of that saying?

[edit on 28-6-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Those silly sayings won't protect your family from terrorists. They arent using such sayings. They use sayings like, "all infedels must DIE!".

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Boatphone]

Another thing to consider is that US casualties/ deaths in Iraq have been low in large part to new technologies and advancements in medical treatment that allow wounded soldiers to survive injuries that would have killed them in the past. They didn't have Kevlar at Normandy or Gettysburg.

OK a couple of points.

Donald Rumsfield says the insurgency will go on for 12 more years so he's true here? I thought Rumsfield always lied. Oh wait, he lies when he disagrees with you, but not when he agrues with you. I got it.

I think that 12 years statement was insane. No one can predict what will happen in twelve days, let alone 12 years. Look 12 years ago was 1993. What were people predicting then?

And it just doesn't make sense to me:
1. We are cutting off the terrorists food, money and weapons.
2. Infrastructure, government, and economic conditions are improving.
3. Domestic police are increasing.

Therefore the terrorists are going to GROW???????

And as far as using casualties to predict the success of war, why don't you talk to these people who put out death counts and say Iraq is a quagmire, Iraq is a death trap, Iraq is Vietnam 2, and we must pull out of Iraq?


This war is creating an enormous debt and 40% of that debt is owed to foreign nations, including major competitors like China. There is going to come a point when the cost of this war is having a serious negative effect on both our wider foreign policy and our ability to deal with domestic issues. Simple economics is going to decide this war if the Iraqi insurgency does not die off quickly and it shows no sign of doing so.
You have no clue how much money we have in America. Our debt is about a third of the money we produce a year. To show you how trivial it is, if Americans stop buying pornography the debt would be paid off.
And debt is a good thing. Reason foreign countries buy it is because it is the most secure place to hold your money. We aren't going anywhere soon. And we make money off it in the long run. T-Bills have a 3% interest rate at best. Inflation is a steady 6-7%. Look, what would you rather pay? 1 million dollars in 1800 (when half the US was purchased for 30 mill I think?) or 30 million in 1900 (I think my math is correct. I don't know)

[edit on 28-6-2005 by RedWhiteandBlood]

Originally posted by Boatphone

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

So to put out a fire you should start a fire?
An eye for an eye and we all go blind - never heard of that saying?

[edit on 28-6-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Those silly sayings won't protect your family from terrorists. They arent using such sayings. They use sayings like, "all infedels must DIE!".

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Boatphone]

Who's saying "all infedels must DIE!"? Some small groups in Jordan? A couple of rouge extreemists that get a blurry video posted on a website message board? Pfft, my family has NEVER and will NEVER be under threat of these people because believe it or not, they've been around a lot longer than you and i have. Extreemists didn't just rise out of the ground on Sept 11th believe it or not.

Common sense and WISDOM or what you call 'silly sayings' are what will save us. Jesus was full of 'silly sayings' like 'turn the other cheek', 'treat others how you wish to be treated' etc etc.

Okay Shroud,

What would you do, right now, if you were the President of the United States? It is clear you know better, so i'd like to hear what you would do.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by Faust
However, what a pacifist fails to understand is that evil will NEVER go away and unless you you violence against it, it will flourish.

So to put out a fire you should start a fire?
An eye for an eye and we all go blind - never heard of that saying?
Why expect 'them' to stop, why not take that road yourselves since America is a 'Christian nation' and all, turning the other cheek is the heart of Jesus' teachings after all.


[edit on 28-6-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

No, you can't put out a fire with fire because the laws of science would dictate that the fire would get bigger. However, by KILLING the guy trying to KILL someone else PREVENTS the victim from being KILLED by the same person trying to KILL them because the would be KILLER is now DEAD. Why is this simple math so hard to understand???

"An eye for an eye" - yes, i have heard this before. It's in the New Testament. Jesus spoke these words after he came back to life. He didn't refer them in a sense that you drop your guard and let yourself be destroyed by your enemies.

Then again, the LIBERAL judges in our country are destroying Christianity thoughout our country. First they took it out of our schools and now they are taking it out of our Court Houses. Where does it end?

Okay I am comparing wars with nations because the anti-war crowd is portraying it this way. They are saying we are losing. They are saying it is a blood bath. They are saying it is a brutal beating, when it is not the case.

And why don't you tell people that Iraq really isn't a war. That the people we are fighting are just a step above criminals? Oh, because it will ruin any attempt you have at a troop pullout and proving your side was right.

Compare Iraq to another situation in which America's army (150,000 of them) were being killed, mamed or sent home crazy when fighting civilians and you might get closer results.
Then why are you guys trying to make this as a bloody war we are losing? Anti-war, moveon, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, all want to prevent a view that we are getting our asses kicked, which we aren't.

The only thing that comes close to Iraq is Civil War Reconstruction. I think winning Iraq is as important as winning the Civil War Reconstruction. Some might differ and I would like to save that debate as a new topic.

Also do you accept that an army of today would have better medical resources and abilities to get people to these resources than say, during Nepoleans wars? If you look ONLY at the numbers of deaths and compare with wars 50 years ago then of course they will be different but there's been well over 10,000 US soldiers who are not soldiers anymore and who a lot of probably would of died in a 1940s war rather than having a leg removed or intense surgery because they were flown out of combat in 2005's technological war. The only people still fighting with equipment from the 50's are the Iraqi's!
The death rate is those found dead on the battle field. Casualties are the total number of dead+wouded+captured+MIA. It doesn't mean wounded. It means soldiers that are useless in battle from now out.

Things don't always add up with simple statistics and that's when logic should be used
I don't know. Trying to turn into America's bloodiest defeat just so you can prove to the world that your side is right sounds pretty illogical to me.

This part of the war most people gloss over because we already won. There is no way we are giving up ground. The enemy has never taken any ground.

To me this sounds like saying "We should get out of Berlin and give it back to the Nazis because those werewolves are killing 2 people a day." Pathetic.

The only way we loose now is that we choose to loose.

Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
It's funny that all these death counter on anti-war and move on compare it to coaliton forces deaths or Afghanistan? You know why? Because if you compare it to any other war it seems like a blip.

Maybe to those who have never served.

That might sound callous

No. It sounds inexperienced.

but I feel preventing a nuclear bombing going off in downtown Manhatten is pretty important.

Not creating terrorists is an excellent place to start.

The rest of your points are not worth wasting space answering.

Originally posted by Boatphone
Those silly sayings won't protect your family from terrorists.

Neither will folks who run their mouths while refusing to serve.

[edit on 6/28/05 by EastCoastKid]

To work out if the US is losing you have to pick out the aims of the invasion.

As stated the aims were:
1: The removal of Saddam.
2: The discovery and destruction of WMD's.
3: The establishment of a stable deomocracy that is amenable to western interests and can protect itself.

If the war was successful then these aims would have been fufilled, however as things stand only one has been accomplished.

The removal of Saddam has been achieved and he now awaits trial, a clear step on the road to victory. This is the only area of success so far.

No WMDs have been found, denting the case for war and humiliating the invaders.

And in so far as establishing a democracy and functioning organs of government the continued terror campaign that targets police and military bodies continues to destabilise the country at an alarming rate.

All in all the US is failing in its war aims, therefore the US is losing the war despite regular victories over insurgents. For a similar situation look at the war of 1812, where the US army and navy inflicted some blows on Britain but failed to achieve any of their major war aims.