Childlike simplicity is forgetting (or being so young and dumb and not knowing) that liberals were wringing their hands and whining that the USA was in a quagmire and losing bad in Iraq back in 2006 at the height of the insurgency.
Thing is, at the height of the resistance, estimates of the number of Iraqi insurgents ranged between
8000-20,000 (US) up to 40,000 (Iraqi intelligence). With 160,000 troops in country our guys enjoyed at
worst a 4 to 1 advantage and at best a 20 to 1 advantage.
Anti-gun leftist ignoramuses either never knew or never acknowledge that the principle behind the armed citizenry in the USA, is that the "standing army" would be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word Madison used) by a ratio of 1 solider opposed by 17 armed citizens.
So back to Iraq, imagine if there were 2.8 million insurgents opposing our 160K troops (Madison's 17-1 ratio) and many of them were very familiar with American heavy weapon platforms and endeavored to seize and offensively use those weapons instead of just blowing themselves up?
Well, in the USA today we fall short of Madison's ratio for the number of "standing army" (active duty and reserve armed forces) that he put at 1% of the total population; today we have about
2.15 million citizens in the military . . . To those are "opposed" 80 million armed citizens, so on
that side we better Madison's ratio a bit, pushing it to each member of the "standing army" being "opposed" by 37 armed citizens.
Back to Iraq, how much of a losing quagmire would we have been in, if our 160K guys were facing 6 million goat fucking, AK toting insurgents?
