Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakkasan
its really hard to find any data to talk about this Winkpedia isnt a reliable source and most of what i have looked over , in the last 20 minutes has been opinion pieces on boards like this 
Found one that speaks of the miltary releasing a number of 19 K
Counter to press - 19,000 insurgents killed in Iraq since '03
searched Army Knowledge Online and couldnt find any data that could substanitate this article
but to address those numbers, if true , which i dont agree the insurgent casualties are that low, just from talking to those who still are over there when they do get them to show their faces , they die , due believe most of the high rate of casualties are due to the obvious IED
they have to be lucky once, we have to be lucky all the time. |
Most interesting, Rakkasan.
Note what the source you referred to also wrote:
"There are 25,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq, according to the military. The numbers of enemy killed and detained would exceed the estimate given last year of the size of the insurgency."
So these figures appear to be a maximum of the insurgency losses.
That leaves us with the fact that the US and their allies appear to be unable to deal the lightly armed insurgency any higher casualties than they are themselves sustained through the insurgency.
And this is very, very strange. I am surprised that this has not been the subject of big discussions in the military press.
Of course the insurgency is able to deal the US and their allies significant casualties without "being there" - i.e. through IEDs. But on the other hand, the US forces are able to do the same, through air strikes and long-range artillery which the insurgency has no chance to compete with.
So it seems as though the insurgency is inflicting more casualties on the US troops and their allies than they sustain themselves. In all other similar cinflicts, the regular army is able to deal five or ten times higher casualties on the insurgency than their own rate of casualties.
This situation definitely reflects something very important in Iraq - probably something which is hidden from public attention, since there is no public debate on it.
The insurgency's overwhelming public support can't be the explanation, since no insurgency ever is able to wage such a sustained resistance against a regular army without enjoying a considerable public support. Usually, this does not save the insurgency from suffering huge losses. See SWAPO/PLAN in Namibia in the 1980s as an example.
There have to be other explanations.
I have some suggestions:
1. The insurgency could in fact be far better trained than what we have been told. Actually it probably is superior to the US troops regarding training in irregular warfare. Thus it could reflect a deficiency and obsolecency in US military training which has weakened the image of US military potency in the world.
2. One explanation to the relatively low casualties sustained by the insurgency might be that the US troops and their allies are reluctant to pursue the insurgents once these have staged an attack or an ambush. In such wars, the majority of the regular army's losses is sustained during surprise ambushes by the guerillas, while the guerillas suffer far heavier casualties during the regular army's subsequent pursuit of the force which has staged the attack. But maybe the US troops and their allies are reluctant to pursue the insurgency once they have come under attack. Has the insurgency managed to insert fear among the US troops and their allies to the point that they generally confine themselves to a defensive posture?
In any case, the present ratio of losses in the Iraq war is a most omnious sign to the US military and its Iraqi allies. Unless there is a major shift in this trend soon, it will contribute to reinforce the Iraqi insurgency.
It would be interesting to hear the inputs by Rakkasan and others on this topic.