Will the US lose the war in Iraq by running out of soldiers?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


You're challenging my assertion with an assertion of your own; namely that foreign fighters (and Iraqis who might be willing to travel) suffer such a high casualty rate that they won't be able to pass on their experience to anyone.

"the former regime element insurgents are unlikely to go anywhere other than Iraq.

So its the foreign jihadis you must be referring too. Given their inclination to suicidal tactics, i wonder how many of them are going to survive to fight elsewhere"


i made no assertion. I said "I wonder how many" thats raising a question, not making an assertion.


Oerdins post is interesting. I wonder what the CIA number for the number of Jihadis in Iraq at any one time is? They assert that Iraq will be worse than Afghanistan, which produced thousands. So that means thousands from Iraq. But we've been told several times that of the 20,000 or so insurgents in Iraq only 1000 or so are foreigners? Are the rest Iraqis who are willing to travel? IIUC very few Afghans ever traveled to engage in jihad outside afghanistan - I suppose Iraq could be different, but id like to know why and how - common arab culture maybe?

After the events of the last 4 years, from 9/11 to WMD to many other things, I dont accept the word of the CIA just cause its the CIA.

Interesting they mention Saudi. Just this week one of the most wanted Saudi AQ leaders was killed in Iraq. I hadnt posted on that, as I thought by itself it wasnt that important, but it is interesting in this context.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


What about if the turnover is no longer replenished by recruitment?

Apparently recuiters haven't met their targets for the last four months straight and the situation is getting worse. Granted it will take a while for these effects to percolate through, but will this form of attrition be of a greater danger to the US army as a result of the dead and wounded stacking up in Iraq with total US casualties now having reached five figures?

Simple solution - change from this "Army of One" marketing bull**** and improve the enlistment incentives, retention incentives, pay, etc.

The current falloff in enlistment rates isn't enough to affect our warfighing capability in Iraq for a couple of decades, at least, so sorry to burst your wet dream.

[Dinner]

Hell, if they pay me enough even I might agree to a second tour. I'd want lots of yankee greenbacks though.

[Admiral]

In the Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing yesterday, it was mentioned that the US is losing about a battalion a month. Not in terms of deaths, but casualties in general, which appear to be 18000. Now, while many of the injured will end up returning to duty, is this really an attrition rate we can afford? Especially given that there are not that many areas that we can shift troops out of elsewhere in the world without destabilizing the region (DPRK, for instance).

Given the lack of apparent/achievable military objectives in Iraq, it is unclear to me at what point we can say "we win," and leave. And as time stretches on toward whenever that point may come, we will continue to lose troops, and at a certain point, we may not be able to replace them all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Admiral

Given the lack of apparent/achievable military objectives in Iraq, it is unclear to me at what point we can say "we win," and leave.

when the Iraqi forces are able to contain and diminish the insurgency themselves. When the upward line of iraqi force capacity crosses the downward line of insurgent effectiveness.


The whole "its a quagmire" vs "weve got it won" debate nonsense comes down to the fact that while the Iraqi forces line IS going up, the insurgent effectiveness line is not (yet) going down. So its easy to argue either way. And of course the iraqi force capacity is still not where one might have hoped it would be by now.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


when the Iraqi forces are able to contain and diminish the insurgency themselves. When the upward line of iraqi force capacity crosses the downward line of insurgent effectiveness.


The whole "its a quagmire" vs "weve got it won" debate nonsense comes down to the fact that while the Iraqi forces line IS going up, the insurgent effectiveness line is not (yet) going down. So its easy to argue either way. And of course the iraqi force capacity is still not where one might have hoped it would be by now.

I'll agree that the success or failure of the iraq war lies with the iraqi army. I'm just afraid that your "when" could quite possibly be an "if." I'm afraid that the various signs of sectarian dispute will intensify, and that the government could end up not being very effective. I fear that governmental effectiveness is also hampered by gross mismanagement on the corporate side of the US reconstruction. That is an area that I think we do not hear enough about, and I think is an area where we could actually have a real influence on the war.

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm worried that we may run out of Iraqi civilians.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'm worried that we may run out of Iraqi civilians.

That is not a risk - even Saddam couldn't get rid of those civilians despite his murder rate was higher than the current from the insurgents.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


Very funny.

The Americans have lost. How long will it take them to admit it this time, so we can start the gloating?

will you claim as you do for vietnam that they got their asses kicked? Or will you opt for a more accurate description of their defeat?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Sandman
Why gloat?

I mean, if we ever have a real reason to invade a Muslim country, then it'll be much harder, thanks to the education in warfare the insurgents are getting.

They got that in Afghanistan, circa 1979 or so when the Soviet Union invaded. It's been passed down ever since.

Gatekeeper

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Geronimo


will you claim as you do for vietnam that they got their asses kicked? Or will you opt for a more accurate description of their defeat?

You mean, that they had their gluteus maximi forcefully touched by Indo-Chinese tootsies?


You guys suck at war. Everyone that fights with you calls you a packed of spoiled cowards who shoot at anything who moves.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Simple solution - change from this "Army of One" marketing bull**** and improve the enlistment incentives, retention incentives, pay, etc.

People just don't want to get blown up in faraway lands without a good reason.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The current falloff in enlistment rates isn't enough to affect our warfighing capability in Iraq for a couple of decades, at least, so sorry to burst your wet dream.

Is it true that many wounded soldiers who should be resting in hospitals are put back to the front line again?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Agathon
You guys suck at war. Everyone that fights with you calls you a packed of spoiled cowards who shoot at anything who moves.

You, OTOH, excel at stereotyping and generalizations.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


You, OTOH, excel at stereotyping and generalizations.

C'mon. You guys once got beat by Canada. Oh the shame....

[Gatekeeper]

'Tis true Washington, D.C., was sacked by British forces, but I guess that's to be expected — retribution — when we did something along those lines to Montreal, Canada (I think that's the right city anyway).

Since then, I think our armed forces have done reasonably well against Mexico, Spain, in World War I, in World War II, during the Cold War, in Korea and during the first Gulf War. Not so good in Vietnam, and the books are still open on Gulf War II.

Gatekeeper