Kill:Casualty Rate-Something To Write Home About

[Annie]

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM

IRAQ: The Election Offensive

September 6, 2004: Fighting in the last three days has killed about 300 and wounded over 600. The government appears determined to regain control of towns and neighborhoods held by Sunni Arab gangs and Shia religious militias, before the January elections. Otherwise, elections will not be held in those areas.

Iraqi troops are said to have captured Izzat Ibrahim al Douri, a senior Saddam aide who had a $10 million price on his head. The Iraqis killed 70 of al Douri’s supporters, and captured another 80, in the battle that broke out in Tikrit during the operation. Al Douri was thought to be one of the key leaders in planning and financing the anti-government attacks. He was number six on the U.S. list of “55 Most Wanted.” However, members of the government, and U.S. commanders, deny that an operation to seize al Douri took place.

At the same time, Iraqi police and troops raided Latifiya, a Sunni Arab stronghold 30 kilometers south of Baghdad. Some 500 people were arrested, while 17 policemen were killed and 17 people were wounded.

Meanwhile, on the Syrian border, U.S. and Iraqi troops are into their third day fighting Sunni Arab gunmen in Tall Afar. The town is thought to be an entry point for men and weapons coming across the border from Syria.


September 5, 2004: American combat losses continue at a historically low level. Since March, 2003, American troops have suffered 7,900 casualties (including 976 dead.) This is an unprecedented killed to wounded ratio of 1:7. In past wars, the ration had been 1:4 or 1:5. American combat deaths over the Summer were 42 in June, 54 in July and 66 in August. There are the equivalent of three American combat divisions in Iraq, each running several hundred patrols and other combat operations each day. Never have combat divisions, operating in hostile territory, kept their casualties this low. The news media, concentrating on any losses as the story have generally missed the historical significance of the low casualties. The American armed forces have developed new equipment, weapons and tactics that have transformed combat operations in an unprecedented way. This is recognized within the military, but is generally ignored, or misunderstood, by the general media.

September 4, 2004: Another bomb attack was made on oil pipelines in the north. Although thousands of Iraqis have been hired to guard the pipelines and oil facilities, there are thousands of kilometers of pipelines and hundreds of facilities to watch. And some of the Iraqi guards can be bribed. The government,
More...

 

[nakedemperor]

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM

While the battlefield medicine advancements of the past 2 decades have turned hundreds of potential KIAs into *mere* WIAs, a casualty rate of 1,000 KIA in 18 months is definitely not something that I would happily write home about.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Rush Limbaugh shed some perspective on the KIA number on his show today. He mentioned that 1,000 young people commit suicide each year and close to 50,000 of our fellow citizens are killed in accidents on our national highways each year, yet very little is said or written by our liberal media about this terrible and senseless loss of life. The loss of our soldiers in battle is tragic, but they volunteered for the mission and are given the best training in the world to get their job done. Loss of life is a byproduct of war; the aim is killing, and far more terrorists have lost their lives since the war on terrorism began than coalition forces.

 

[5stringJeff]

1,000 KIA in a year and a half is almost nothing. The Army loses dozens of soldiers each year in auto accidents.

That said, I have lost two friends and several acquaintences in Iraq. The best man in my wedding is there right now, as are two other good friends. I have several other close friends that have returned from Iraq. Every casualty we take is a human life, and it sucks to lose people. However, all of us (me being a former Army officer) signed up willingly, ready to lay our lives on the line, if need be, in the line of duty.

I don't think you can chalk up the improving casuality ratio to just battlefield medicine. the quality of our troops, leadership, tactics, and equipment have a lot to do with it. And refering to survivors as "*mere* WIAs" in the context you did, nakedemperor, shows your lack of understanding. Would you rather have more KIAs and fewer WIAs?!?

 

[nakedemperor]

1,000 KIA in a year and a half is almost nothing. The Army loses dozens of soldiers each year in auto accidents.

This is such bizarre logic I don't even know where to start... wow. Wow.

And I put "mere WIAs" in quotations because it was meant to be sarcasm. Apologies if it was too subtle.

And to Adam's Apple: I agree with you completely. Very well stated. Where are all the bleeding hearts for the 400,000 a year that die from tobacco-related illnesses? Why aren't we combating that TRULY SENSELESS loss of life? I've always thought that the war on terror was blown way out of proportion for that same reason. We've lost 5,000 people to terrorism over the last 3 years. By GOP Jeff's logic, that is "almost nothing". So why is it BY FAR the most important issue, dominating news coverage, Presidential and Congressional time and effort, etc. etc. etc. Moreover, why is it such a massive concern to those in middle America, whose likelihood of being effected by terror stands close to nil. People are irrationally and inordinatly affraid, and I think the media and the executive administration have a lot to do (and gain) from it.

 

[freeandfun1]

This is such bizarre logic I don't even know where to start... wow. Wow.

And I put "mere WIAs" in quotations because it was meant to be sarcasm. Apologies if it was too subtle.

And to Adam's Apple: I agree with you completely. Very well stated. Where are all the bleeding hearts for the 400,000 a year that die from tobacco-related illnesses? Why aren't we combating that TRULY SENSELESS loss of life? I've always thought that the war on terror was blown way out of proportion for that same reason. We've lost 5,000 people to terrorism over the last 3 years. By GOP Jeff's logic, that is "almost nothing". So why is it BY FAR the most important issue, dominating news coverage, Presidential and Congressional time and effort, etc. etc. etc. Moreover, why is it such a massive concern to those in middle America, whose likelihood of being effected by terror stands close to nil. People are irrationally and inordinatly affraid, and I think the media and the executive administration have a lot to do (and gain) from it.

see, you don't think beyond your partisan nose.

Jeff's point was that in comparison to the GOOD our soldiers are doing and in comparison to the SAFETY THEY are bringing to the world, frankly, that number is QUITE low.

We LOST nearly 3 times that number in ONE day because we IGNORED the WAR that was DECLARED AGAINST US!

So to save a thousand soldiers, you would give up 3,000 more innocents while they work, drink coffee or talk to their loved ones on the phone all while EXPECTING to just live ANOTHER NORMAL day?

Our soldiers are doing a job they volunteered for and THANK GOD they did. They are fighting this war FOR US so that you can sit here and BLAB your FUCKING mouth about something YOU KNOW NOTHING about.

 

[insein]

Nakedemp,

Terrorism is not about killing people. Its about controlling people. 50,000 people die in car accidents every year but how many people really fear dieing everytime they enter a car? When 3000 people were killed in a terrorist attack, millions of others feared going into work, going into tall buildings, and flying in airplanes.

The terrorists controlled our actions through their one incident. If we allow them to run our lives the way they see fit, then we are already dead. That is the point of the WOT. We will not be controlled by a small group of individuals who believe that they are doing Ala's work by destroying our lives.

 

[NATO AIR]

a thought

i think the kill: casualty rate is very worthy of praise... i do agree with gop_jeff's comment that the military is getting better training, better equipment, etc etc. the medical side is good too (my side), but a bullet will always wound you or kill you, whereas with better training and better equipment perhaps you'll be able to dodge that bullet or have its effect nullified (by body armor, etc) compared to the guys whose only defense were their skills and skin in WW2, WW1, etc etc.

here is the main thought though:

compared to the old conflicts (ww2, korean war, ww1), i think war is now more stressful and damaging to the mental state of troops than in the past. you now have insurgencies and terrorists to worry about, as well as the regular ol soldiers you face in battle.

like my friend davey in the 82nd airborne says, "we'd be in a village street with 100 good folks and 2 bad guys among them who would shoot at us hoping we'd shoot one of the 100 good folks and inflame opinion and hatreds against our presence."

oh how simplistic the old days must have been compared to now...

 

[nakedemperor]

see, you don't think beyond your partisan nose.

Jeff's point was that in comparison to the GOOD our soldiers are doing and in comparison to the SAFETY THEY are bringing to the world, frankly, that number is QUITE low.

We LOST nearly 3 times that number in ONE day because we IGNORED the WAR that was DECLARED AGAINST US!

So to save a thousand soldiers, you would give up 3,000 more innocents while they work, drink coffee or talk to their loved ones on the phone all while EXPECTING to just live ANOTHER NORMAL day?

Our soldiers are doing a job they volunteered for and THANK GOD they did. They are fighting this war FOR US so that you can sit here and BLAB your FUCKING mouth about something YOU KNOW NOTHING about.

Well, at least I have manners. And a non-twitchy caps lock finger. You missed my point, but I'm not going to blame it on your partisan nose. While that may have something to do with it, I'm sick and tired of your overt generalizations about Democrats and liberals.

That being said, I was responding ONLY to the part of his post that I quoted, not the rest, which, as as you said, was about the good things our soldiers are doing for us. I wonder why you took me out of context so willingly and/or carelessly.

My point was not about what terrorism does-- my point had to do with "irrational" fear, not the PRESENCE of fear. But, since you chose to read my post as a 'down with the troops', I'm so ungrateful way, I'll have to restate it: people fear terrorism disproportionally. Some people fear terrorism when they don't have to at all. The amount of fear and coverage terrorism gets is WAY out of proportion to the 3,000 deaths in 3 years. I mean, we have an entire section of this forum devoted to it! Its similar to the type of fear people have of sharks when they're going in the ocean. Odds are, you're not going to get bitten by one, even if you went in the ocean every day of your life, several lives over. The same goes for terrorism. Moreover, its taking your attention away from thing you SHOULD be fearing, and have more respect for, like driving your car, or puffing on your cigarette. If only the president would come out one day and say, 'We don't know where, we don't know when....but you're going to die of lung cancer." I think people would listen. That's the type of power the president has. That's the type of power he's abusing.

 

[CSM]

Well, at least I have manners. And a non-twitchy caps lock finger. You missed my point, but I'm not going to blame it on your partisan nose. While that may have something to do with it, I'm sick and tired of your overt generalizations about Democrats and liberals.

That being said, I was responding ONLY to the part of his post that I quoted, not the rest, which, as as you said, was about the good things our soldiers are doing for us. I wonder why you took me out of context so willingly and/or carelessly.

My point was not about what terrorism does-- my point had to do with "irrational" fear, not the PRESENCE of fear. But, since you chose to read my post as a 'down with the troops', I'm so ungrateful way, I'll have to restate it: people fear terrorism disproportionally. Some people fear terrorism when they don't have to at all. The amount of fear and coverage terrorism gets is WAY out of proportion to the 3,000 deaths in 3 years. I mean, we have an entire section of this forum devoted to it! Its similar to the type of fear people have of sharks when they're going in the ocean. Odds are, you're not going to get bitten by one, even if you went in the ocean every day of your life, several lives over. The same goes for terrorism. Moreover, its taking your attention away from thing you SHOULD be fearing, and have more respect for, like driving your car, or puffing on your cigarette. If only the president would come out one day and say, 'We don't know where, we don't know when....but you're going to die of lung cancer." I think people would listen. That's the type of power the president has. That's the type of power he's abusing.

For most of the examples you cite, the individual has some control (driving, smoking, swimming in the ocean, etc.). There is little that an individual can do to protect against a terrorist act and still live a reasonably normal life. Terrorism is a very real threat whose purpose is to create fear. I would say in that regard that the terrorists are being effective in their execution. Whether that fear is unreasonable or not is a whole different discussion.

 

[dilloduck]

Well, at least I have manners. And a non-twitchy caps lock finger. You missed my point, but I'm not going to blame it on your partisan nose. While that may have something to do with it, I'm sick and tired of your overt generalizations about Democrats and liberals.

That being said, I was responding ONLY to the part of his post that I quoted, not the rest, which, as as you said, was about the good things our soldiers are doing for us. I wonder why you took me out of context so willingly and/or carelessly.

My point was not about what terrorism does-- my point had to do with "irrational" fear, not the PRESENCE of fear. But, since you chose to read my post as a 'down with the troops', I'm so ungrateful way, I'll have to restate it: people fear terrorism disproportionally. Some people fear terrorism when they don't have to at all. The amount of fear and coverage terrorism gets is WAY out of proportion to the 3,000 deaths in 3 years. I mean, we have an entire section of this forum devoted to it! Its similar to the type of fear people have of sharks when they're going in the ocean. Odds are, you're not going to get bitten by one, even if you went in the ocean every day of your life, several lives over. The same goes for terrorism. Moreover, its taking your attention away from thing you SHOULD be fearing, and have more respect for, like driving your car, or puffing on your cigarette. If only the president would come out one day and say, 'We don't know where, we don't know when....but you're going to die of lung cancer." I think people would listen. That's the type of power the president has. That's the type of power he's abusing.

Well while you sit on your ass playing the odds, do you mind if the rest of us protect you?

 

[5stringJeff]

Well, at least I have manners. And a non-twitchy caps lock finger. You missed my point, but I'm not going to blame it on your partisan nose. While that may have something to do with it, I'm sick and tired of your overt generalizations about Democrats and liberals.

That being said, I was responding ONLY to the part of his post that I quoted, not the rest, which, as as you said, was about the good things our soldiers are doing for us. I wonder why you took me out of context so willingly and/or carelessly.

My point was not about what terrorism does-- my point had to do with "irrational" fear, not the PRESENCE of fear. But, since you chose to read my post as a 'down with the troops', I'm so ungrateful way, I'll have to restate it: people fear terrorism disproportionally. Some people fear terrorism when they don't have to at all. The amount of fear and coverage terrorism gets is WAY out of proportion to the 3,000 deaths in 3 years. I mean, we have an entire section of this forum devoted to it! Its similar to the type of fear people have of sharks when they're going in the ocean. Odds are, you're not going to get bitten by one, even if you went in the ocean every day of your life, several lives over. The same goes for terrorism. Moreover, its taking your attention away from thing you SHOULD be fearing, and have more respect for, like driving your car, or puffing on your cigarette. If only the president would come out one day and say, 'We don't know where, we don't know when....but you're going to die of lung cancer." I think people would listen. That's the type of power the president has. That's the type of power he's abusing.

Well first, I think free's defense of my post was right on. I am in no way saying that I don't care about 1,000 dead troops; like I said, I knew several of them personally. It is no fun to get an e-mail saying that a friend has died. What I am saying (that has been repeated) is that our KIA ratio is extremely low compared to past wars.

About your view of terrorism. Yes, you are probably correct in saying that most of us will not fall victim to terrorism. Do you understand why? It is because we are actively fighting terrorism. It is because we have stood up and declared that terrorism is not an acceptable means of fighting a war or carrying on a struggle. It is because we are destroying terrorism at its roots. That will make the world a safer place - not burying our heads in the sand and ignoring it, as you advocate.

 

[nakedemperor]

Well first, I think free's defense of my post was right on. I am in no way saying that I don't care about 1,000 dead troops; like I said, I knew several of them personally. It is no fun to get an e-mail saying that a friend has died. What I am saying (that has been repeated) is that our KIA ratio is extremely low compared to past wars.

About your view of terrorism. Yes, you are probably correct in saying that most of us will not fall victim to terrorism. Do you understand why? It is because we are actively fighting terrorism. It is because we have stood up and declared that terrorism is not an acceptable means of fighting a war or carrying on a struggle. It is because we are destroying terrorism at its roots. That will make the world a safer place - not burying our heads in the sand and ignoring it, as you advocate.

Where oh where did I advocate ignoring terrorism? I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I'm fully in support of "defending ourselves" (diloduck), and fully in support of the global war on terror. The distinction I'm trying to make is between the amount of time and energy that politicians and generals have to spend on terrorism, and the amount of time and energy that the general public has to spend on it. It is irrational to fear something that we (as citizens at large) have no control over. We are fighting the war and fighting it effectively (I'm using the fact that no attacks have occured since 9/11/2001 as evidence). From military operations abroad, to intelligence gathering, to local police work, we are winning the domestic war on terror. This is why people don't fear drunk driving as they fear terrorism: there are several layers of measures protecting them from this out-of-the-blue type of catastrophy; police, designated drivers, sober driving initiatives, etc. This phenomenon is vastly, vastly more likely to harm you than terrorism, so why the disparity in how much people fear it? I'm merely advocating NOT fearing it as disproportionally as CITIZENS, ALL THE WHILE, fearing it and responding accordingly at the policy-making level.

 

[dilloduck]

Where oh where did I advocate ignoring terrorism? I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I'm fully in support of "defending ourselves" (diloduck), and fully in support of the global war on terror. The distinction I'm trying to make is between the amount of time and energy that politicians and generals have to spend on terrorism, and the amount of time and energy that the general public has to spend on it. It is irrational to fear something that we (as citizens at large) have no control over. We are fighting the war and fighting it effectively (I'm using the fact that no attacks have occured since 9/11/2001 as evidence). From military operations abroad, to intelligence gathering, to local police work, we are winning the domestic war on terror. This is why people don't fear drunk driving as they fear terrorism: there are several layers of measures protecting them from this out-of-the-blue type of catastrophy; police, designated drivers, sober driving initiatives, etc. This phenomenon is vastly, vastly more likely to harm you than terrorism, so why the disparity in how much people fear it? I'm merely advocating NOT fearing it as disproportionally as CITIZENS, ALL THE WHILE, fearing it and responding accordingly at the policy-making level.

Do you see any panic in the streets?? People just want to make sure the war on terror continues and are not sure that Kerry would do it.

 

[nakedemperor]

Do you see any panic in the streets?? People just want to make sure the war on terror continues and are not sure that Kerry would do it.

Of course not. Well, not in a couple years. But the point is, its dominating national dialogue, and taking attention away from other more important issues. Doesn't sound strange hearing that there are *more important* issues than the war on terror for Joe Shmoe of Middletown, USA? Well, there are, so the media and the administration should stop being irresponsible and dial it back.

 

[freeandfun1]

Of course not. Well, not in a couple years. But the point is, its dominating national dialogue, and taking attention away from other more important issues. Doesn't sound strange hearing that there are *more important* issues than the war on terror for Joe Shmoe of Middletown, USA? Well, there are, so the media and the administration should stop being irresponsible and dial it back.

Actually, the polls show that the WoT is a major concern of Joe Shmoe of Middletown, USA. The ones that don't seem to care are the folks sitting in LA, NYC, etc. (read the liberals) as they are desperately trying to win this election even if it means IGNORING the most important issue to MOST Americans.

Get a grip on reality would ya?

 

[Said1]

Actually, the polls show that the WoT is a major concern of Joe Shmoe of Middletown, USA. The ones that don't seem to care are the folks sitting in LA, NYC, etc. (read the liberals) as they are desperately trying to win this election even if it means IGNORING the most important issue to MOST Americans.

Get a grip on reality would ya?

I don't even live in America, and I think this is a resonably important ISSUE (notice caps) worth reading about often. As gop-jeff mentioned, there are people with family and friends in Iraq. For some, the media may be the only source of info they are able to get.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Call me a war wonger (you wouldn't be the first) but I agree with one of the biggest libs there is: Ed Koch.

Social and economic issues are non issues when your dead.............

 

[nakedemperor]

Actually, the polls show that the WoT is a major concern of Joe Shmoe of Middletown, USA. The ones that don't seem to care are the folks sitting in LA, NYC, etc. (read the liberals) as they are desperately trying to win this election even if it means IGNORING the most important issue to MOST Americans.

Get a grip on reality would ya?

Freeandfun, you frequently make my points for me, and you've done so again. Again, you've misinterpreted: I did not say THAT Joe Shmoe wasn't afraid (indeed, he is very afraid), but that he SHOULDN'T be afraid. It is an irrational fear, and one that is blown entirely out of proportion. Please please don't read: liberal, downplaying terrorism, hates America, loves Islam. Go back to previous posts to see why the fear is irrational. Joe Schmoe is very afraid for a reason, and that is because he is constantly bombarded with terror alerts and color-coded fear factors and Rumsfeld popping up every few weeks with a "We don't know where, we don't know when, but something awful is going to happen". It is WHY Joe Schmoe is afraid that is the issue, not THAT he is afraid. Its being force-fed to him because its sensationalist.

Also, you, like Jeff, interpret what I've said as advocating burying your head in the sand and ignoring it. Again, I have no said anything of the sort. I'm saying we should let it capture out attention, but not inordinantly. It IS the biggest issue, but it SHOULDN'T be the biggest issue, especially to our friend Joe who lost his job and can't afford precription medicine, and whose children aren't getting a decent education. All of these things WILL affect Joe, Terrorism will NOT affect him.

Liberals don't "not care" about terrorism. We see it as something to be dealt with politically, not by instilling fear across middle America which has nothing to fear. People who are inordinantly afraid "don't have a grip on reality". And the media and the Bush administration are to blame.

 

[freeandfun1]

bullshit. he is afraid because he saw 3,000 people get killed in NYC, DC and PA in just a couple of hours. He is afraid because these Islamofacists thugs have attacked us and they have said repeatedly that they will attack us again. He is afraid because sometimes fear is your best defense.

Get it?