9 US soldiers killed Tuesday, up to 67

Thorgrim · 10-18-2006, 05:19 AM

and its only the 17th...(when the information was given)

The military reported nine U.S. troops killed in bombings and combat a day earlier, raising to 67 the number of U.S. troops killed in October.

Police intelligence chief killed in Iraq - Yahoo! News

All of the news is bad, not one good sign

I have yet to hear one official say "its desperation, we're actually killing these insurgents more than ever"

It seems the insurgents are getting better at killing Americans, and our tactics are failing faster than we can adjust...

The only thing that looks worse to the world than leaving Iraq to chaos, is staying in Iraq with 140,000 troops while it hits chaos anyway

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have already been trained, according to Woodward 2007 is predicted to be worse than this year...does anyone here seriously think the Maliki government can survive a year of this? Does anyone think a coup will be taken lightly?

This is not Vietnam, it is worse and its better

It's better in that we'll never allow tens of thousands of Americans to die, its worse in that the SV were not tearing each other apart and while the VC were insurgents, the SV police forces were not forming death squads in Saigon and killing each other, there were no street to street fightings in Saigon for years...you could walk around Saigon

How many more Americans are going to die before we change course?

mididoctors · 10-18-2006, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It seems the insurgents are getting better at killing Americans, and our tactics are failing faster than we can adjust...

there is strategic failure in Iraq but do not conflate the terrible situatuion with details of the tactical situation.

the surge in US casualties is a product of a US inititative to drive home a attack in Baghdad..

the actual number of US casualties may not be a reflection of the military situation in Baghdad.

the real limitation on US success in the battle of Baghdad is alack of troop numbers.. irrespective of the number of casualties is a greater problem of make use of the dead bodies you have flung into Baghadad.

capitilisation on military success has failed several times in Iraq because the ability to hold the ground with a large presence has been lacking.

I find a analysis that jumps from a statisc such as this to a ill thoughtout understanding of why we should run away aas useless as denialists who claim "we are winning".

This is understood by Baker (of all people

) who admitts stabilisation as a priori to running away..

hence the surreal suggestion of handing over responsability to Iran and Syria.
I think in one regard he may have made this suggestion just to reinforce what retreat means......

I think a negoiated hand over to IRan is better than just pulling out nad leaving a free for all as it holds Iran accountable by virtue of "collective security"( a under rated tool of geopolitical stability these days)

Casualties in them selves are not a measure of winning or losing... lower monthlycasualties are attainable in Iraq but at the cost of surrendering control of large areas to militias not incorparted into apolitical framework.

YMMV

Boris
london

Thorgrim · 10-18-2006, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by mididoctors

there is strategic failure in Iraq but do not conflate the terrible situatuion with details of the tactical situation.

the surge in US casualties is a product of a US inititative to drive home a attack in Baghdad..

the actual number of US casualties may not be a reflection of the military situation in Baghdad.

the real limitation on US success in the battle of Baghdad is alack of troop numbers.. irrespective of the number of casualties is a greater problem of make use of the dead bodies you have flung into Baghadad.

capitilisation on military success has failed several times in Iraq because the ability to hold the ground with a large presence has been lacking.

I find a analysis that jumps from a statisc such as this to a ill thoughtout understanding of why we should run away aas useless as denialists who claim "we are winning".

This is understood by Baker (of all people ) who admitts stabilisation as a priori to running away..

hence the surreal suggestion of handing over responsability to Iran and Syria.
I think in one regard he may have made this suggestion just to reinforce what retreat means......

I think a negoiated hand over to IRan is better than just pulling out nad leaving a free for all as it holds Iran accountable by virtue of "collective security"( a under rated tool of geopolitical stability these days)

Casualties in them selves are not a measure of winning or losing... lower monthlycasualties are attainable in Iraq but at the cost of surrendering control of large areas to militias not incorparted into apolitical framework.

YMMV

Boris
london

Well if the tactics aren't working AND more US soldiers are being killed, I'd say thats a deadly cocktail

avsp · 10-19-2006, 12:04 PM

The fascination with troop bodycounts may be perculiarly American

One does not, overly, worry about such things if one is engaged in a war, surely?

After all, they are soldiers & volunteers. I mean no disrespect to the honour of the fallen. I'm just saying they see it as their duty & as such its an 'occupational hazard'.

Donkey® · 10-19-2006, 01:19 PM

Someone interviewing Bush last night compared this to the Tet offensive...Bush didn't necessarily disagree.

ballz2wallz · 10-19-2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

One does not, overly, worry about such things if one is engaged in a war, surely?

Only when it can be used as 'ammo' against someone else.

Stylerod · 10-19-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Someone interviewing Bush last night compared this to the Tet offensive...Bush didn't necessarily disagree.

The Tet offensive might have been a slap to reality. But it was handled and NV lost that one.

Stylerod · 10-19-2006, 01:59 PM

In Iwo Jima we averaged almost 200 dead every day for 5 weeks straight. If it was up to Thorgrim we would have retreated from every major conflict of WW2.

Donkey® · 10-19-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

The Tet offensive might have been a slap to reality. But it was handled and NV lost that one.

Yes but it signaled the beginning of the end and the end result?

Donkey® · 10-19-2006, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

In Iwo Jima we averaged almost 200 dead every day for 5 weeks straight. If it was up to Thorgrim we would have retreated from every major conflict of WW2.

It's called "WWII" for a real reason. WAR being the operative word. This shit in Iraq isn't a WAR.

Stylerod · 10-19-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It's called "WWII" for a real reason. WAR being the operative word. This shit in Iraq isn't a WAR.

Police action

Thorgrim · 10-19-2006, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Police action

Occupation, if we used your logic, we'd still be running the Phillipines and Americans would be dying in another American occupation

motivez · 10-19-2006, 03:22 PM

Lets keep it non personal guys. Talk about subjects, not other posters.

ballz2wallz · 10-19-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It's called "WWII" for a real reason. WAR being the operative word. This shit in Iraq isn't a WAR.

Don't be ridiculous. War will never be like WWII ever again.

mididoctors · 10-19-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Don't be ridiculous. War will never be like WWII ever again.

we have to careful here in making these sorts of assumptions.

the conflict in IRaq has deteriorated as far as the ROE go and the readiness to enact rather brutal displays of cool hearted killing.

moeover there are numerous other conflicts in the world that ae right up there on the carnage per capita scale, somalia and the congo both have been recent examples of the "real thing".

the conflict in the former yugoslavia also had a lot of characteristics in common with the Spanish civil war including the "testing" of various doctrines and systems by outsiders.

I not saying ww2 total conflict is likely or inevitable (especially given the exsistence of MAD via nuke arsenals) I am just saying "never say never"

Boris
london