Interesting topic you raised.

Firstly, there is an explanation. There are many explanations for the way this war is going. The Iraqi Resistance is as Jason correctly mentioned, made up of Iraqis. Many of them joined the movement at the start of the invasion. However, the vast majority are Iraq's Army under Saddam Hussein, who are well trained, well experienced, know the terrain and the area, and at the end of the day,... the US Army came to Iraq, Iraqis did not go to America and attacked it... so US Soldiers are on Iraqi terf. And they dont have sufficient information on the area.

I have seen Iraqi Resistance videos in Arabic with English Subtitles, they have Media Departments, Planning Departments, research and espionage branch, they have very strong secret services. They were the strongest army in the middle east at one point, after Israel. They use conference facilities to plan their attacks, they have engineers, medical experts, weaponry experts, ... a full army has gone underground. With all this expertise, you dont need sophisticated weapons. An IED can blow up a humvee into bits. Helicopters are downed, and tanks are damaged. So all this is enough to provide strong resistance.



Dont forget that the US Army is made up of young unexperienced soldiers... majority of them are promised nationality and other goodies once the war finishes... many of them are hispanics and guys with playstation experience who are just going to war for the money. You see them on their videos, very young maybe 18 19, and enjoy shooting as if its a playstation game.

By the way, my brother is an expert player of a very famous PC Army game... and 100 of the most experienced players have been contacted by the US Army, they looked at their player ratings and scores and decided they will give them ago. Well, I am sure with the money they will offer them, those young guys will accept.

Finally, dont forget that the US is fighting an unjust and immoral war. This is fact. The legality of this war will always come up. When you start an illegal war, you are already heading towards failure. Iraqis fight with their heart, for what? For their country, their freedom, they see this as an invasion and their resources are stolen from under their feet... so they fight with passion. Whats an average American soldier fighting for? For his country's freedom? His country is not threatened and is not under attack. So for what? for the money? For a greencard? If soldiers are not with it mentally, that will pave the road to failure.

Most of the soldiers on the ground did not do the killing... they do the odd fone call to the guy in the jetfighter to drop a bomb... thats all.... very rarely they engaged in a proper battle. And when they do, it usually ends with ariel bombardment, and everyone innocent or otherwise is wiped. So there is that lack of care for innocent lives, this is what also results in failure and more recruitment for the Iraqi Resistance. Every man who lost a brother, a wife, a mother, etc... will definately consider joining the resistance movement.

Oh and when frustration level rises amonst US Soldiers and those young guys seek vengence, or get emotional and unable to reason due to loss of a friend or watever, this will result in mental and psychological problems, emotional problems. Alot of army bloggers speak about this issue.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

In Afghanistan the mujahideen had a favorable kill ratio over the Soviets, when equipped with Lee-Enfield rifles, which disappeared when the Enfields were replaced with AK-47s and AK-74s.
The theory was that when they felt outgunned, using the old bolt action Lee-Enfields, they engaged only from a distance, using cover and surprise to compensate for what the felt was a deficiency in their arms.
When they felt equal in armaments, they engaged from close range.

Probably the same thing is happening in Iraq.

Since the insurgency feels outgunned by the US, they would pick their battles carefully, avoiding what they feel are the strengths of the US forces, and focusing on their weaknesses.
IEDs would be the weapon of choice, as an IED attack rarely results in insurgency casualties, it's like their standoff weapon.
I'd assume the insurgents may feel a bit more daring against the Iraqi Army, and engage them more openly, so the Iraqi Army would probably do better against the insurgents than the US forces in body count anyway.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

How can the Iraqi Army do better when they are not trained, they have been recruited recently. They are unexperienced. The vast majority are shia who only joined cos they had a thing or two against Saddam... and also joined up cos they were unemployed.... they are not with it mentally as well.

I am not the only one saying this.... its US soldiers complaining in blogs saying "when are these Iraqi soldiers gona stand up for themselves and fight for their country".... ermmm cos they are uncapable... and turning Iraqis against Iraqis will not mean success. This is what creates civil war and sectarianism. I think the Americans had enough and pushed untrained Iraqi Shia Soldiers to the front line. Of course, the bodies of those soldiers are found scattered around baghdad the next day.

Oh and by the way, those Iraqi Shia soldiers are divided themselves. Some pay allegiance to Moqtada Al Sadar, some to Iran directly, some to their tribal shia leaders... some to the government... and some are working for the resistance also providing intelligence.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

The Iraqi army may outperform the US army, because the insurgents will feel more comfortable openly challenging the Iraqi army.

I gave the example of the Afghans against the Soviets, where the advantage in kill ratio disappeared as the Afghans became better armed and more confident because they engaged the Soviets more openly, and suffered much higher casualties.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Agreed! I believe the public should know more about what is acctually going on over there.

For example; Does anyone know, how much US-military equipment has been demaged or destroyed in Iraq until now??

Well don't know whether this is really true for most of the Iraqi insurgent-groups.



I think your characterization of US-soldiers lacks a hell lot of balance and understanding. Whatever the motivation to join the military might have been (money, patriotism, personal life-task), over there in Iraq it doesn't matter anymore. There they just have to do their job and somehow I don't believe that rather political/ philosophical questions like "Whats an average American soldier fighting for?" cross their mind that often.
It's just an useless waste of time/energy, as no matter what the individual answer might be, the next second the job continues.

I dont understand your comparison with the Afghans Vs The Soviets. Its the Iraqi Resistance Vs US Army+Iraqi Army... they are considered the enemy. The Iraqi Resistance is openly challenging both US Army and Iraqi Army. And it is causing casulties to the Iraqi Army more because they are untrained and pushed to the front line with little experience.

The Afghans were united against The Soviets. As far as I understand, The Soviets didnt use the tactic the US used,...turning Afghans against each other... because there arent many sects and factions... the vast majority of Afghanis are Sunni and you have the minority Northern Alliance up north who are predominently Shia. When the US attacked, it gave power to them and formed a puppet government out of them.... because lets face it.... number one enemy for the US has always been Sunni Resistance groups, they are standing up and fighting occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Russian Generals have admitted that the Taliban are unbeatable and even though they have light weapons, they have caused Nato and US Army some serious issues. Their strength lies in their passion to fight. Many of them have fought all their lives. You will have a big problem when you are facing an adversary who is not afraid to die.

A more correct comparison would be, The Taliban causing heavy casualties even though they have light and less sophisticated weapons with the Iraqi Resistance who has similar characteristics to The Taliban.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

I would think only US Department of Defense and their weapons contractors would know those kinda statistics. I dont think they would disclose them for obvious reasons.


I was talking about the biggest Resistance group which is The Islamic Army of Iraq. Most of the smaller resistance groups joined up with them. The did a program about them on Al Jazeera and the spokes person for the IAI described their strategies and their organisation and everything.




I am sure that question crosses their mind, and vets who came back from Iraq and spoke of their discontent about the whole war clearly mentioned how so many troops dont understand why they are there. Of course they have to do their job at the end of the day, but the motivation is gone, there is no passion... its like when you are stuck in an office job, you have to do your work but you cant figure out what the purpose is. I am sure the question comes up now and then "Why the hell am I in Iraq", "what am I fighting for?", "is this really worth risking my life for?".

Oh yes, the job continues, I dont think a US Soldier can go up to his superior and say "Sir, I quit". Can they even do this? You can resign easily in any other job but the US Army will make you feel like sht, you instantly become unpatriotic, a traitor, etc....and they will just make quitting a decision you regret making.

Every soldier has the right to question whether what hes doing is for a just cause or not. Even in our daily jobs, we ensure we are following an ethical code of some sort, rules. We are not friggin robots, those fighting in Iraq are human beings. They feel, they get stressed, depressed, hurt emotionally, physically,.. etc.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

then how come they could not beat Iran????



dude...don't even try it….I read this and I have not had a laugh like that in, god , months....yea the army has guys sitting around playing games on network servers, watching to see who "owns" , then contacts them….and by the way, contacts them how? I have played on net game servers for years, I was in a clan, give me a break okay, that’s preposterous……...



as for the rest of this, your understanding of warfare, motivations, tactics and the lot, is infantile at best.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Imperator,

Why dont you type "US Army recruits computer gamers" in Google and educate yourself.

From what i've seen in war videos, the soldiers looked very young and immature to handle rifles. They were not mentally developed enough to handle war.

And plz try not to comment on "my understanding of warfare"... comment on what points I raised. Your only contribution to this forum these days is not discussing the points raised, but to attack and ridicule people at a personal level. You think my opinions are "infantile at best" ?? I dare you to discuss them, you cant even attempt.

Its probably best you go back to your computer games. When you are ready for civilised adult discussions, you may come back.

WS.

yes, by all means, go read the articles and come back and tell me how wildy you have mischaraterzied the subject matter....


infantile, yes I do-okay, Looks equal potential or quality? they are all at the least 18, we have a few wars gone by fought by 18 year olds, billy the Kid was well billy the kid, get the picture?


far as personal I ridiculed you? Really? Where? you? Uhm infantile synonyms= trivial, silly, puerile, I believe that the information and post in those paragraphs you expressed is such.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

You are "off topic" again. Posts unrelated to the topic should be deleted.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

Well, I think it's apples and oranges really....

In Vietnam, American forces were confronted with a much larger enemy than in Iraq:

- The NVA and VC numbered in the hundreds of thousands whereas the number of actual of Iraqi insurgents is not known but assumed to be exponentially less.

- The North Vietnamese employed both conventional attacks and guerrilla warfare whereas the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists have used guerrilla warfare exclusively.

- The American Bombing campaigns in Vietnam were much more numerous and much more indiscriminant, inflicting many more casualties than we have seen in Iraq.

So 2 factors are at play. One is that the number of enemy is much fewer in Iraq and the other is that has been no large scale conventional battles (no, not even Fallujah really qualifies in comparison of scale)

So, I think the raw casualty numbers are misleading because it's an entirely different scale and nature of conflict.

One disturbing parallel I can draw between Vietnam and Iraq is that a large proportion of the casualties of U.S. soldiers happened while they were in transit or on patrol in vulnerable vehicles.... Helicopters in Vietnam.... Humvees in Iraq.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

Yes, all good and factual points. When your enemy holds a specific territory, inflicting casualties on them is more efficient.

As for the enemy casualty lists, I would definitely include the military units destroyed driving them out of Kuwait and the units destroyed in the final invasion to the other side of the list, not just cherry pick counts and make specious assertions of opinion as fact.

If it were my decision, I would never have bothered with an occupation; just sealed off the urban areas and let them slaughter each other. They could surrender at any time, if they so chose to. That way they could murder each other to their heart's content.

__________________
"The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does, what problems this really solves." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

"A day without sunshine is, you know, night."- Shannon

Pure BS lie.

Wrong. Insurgencies don't need overwhelming public support. The just need the public to remain neutral and not turn them in.

__________________
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

Seneca