BF2S Forums Juba, Iraqi insurgent sniper.

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Ah yes, this is starting to be a recurring pattern.  Another one of your conveniently forgotten sources.

Fine.  Find some data then.

Why do I need to find some data?  I'm not the one who continually quotes articles that I've read but can't remember where or when.

whittsend wrote:

I read recently (think it was in The Economist, but might have been a different journal) that it was in the tens of thousands.  Sorry don't have a link.  If I come across one I'll post it.

As an academic I have access to many journals and newpaper archives.  I can't find the article you refer to.  Perhaps if you could remember the headline, the other content or the possible other journal names it could have been and a more specific date I may be able to help.  But then again, I'm not the one claiming to have read articles saying that the US army has killed tens of thousands of resistance fighters, so the onus for providing the reference is on you, not me.

And when you say that the troops rotated through Iraq are about a million, I assume you have forgotten where you read that as well, or you'd have told me like I asked when made the calculations using peak deployment.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-03-22 09:19:50)

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Why do I need to find some data?  I'm not the one who continually quotes articles that I've read but can't remember where or when.

1) To be perfectly honest, I don't care enough to spend the time footnoting ALL of my arguments here.  It's not a thesis, it's an internet forum.  I'll back up what I can, when I can, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.  I'm confident that I'm not making up facts to fit my arguments.

2) Continually is an exaggeration.  I only stated once that I couldn't find the data.

3) Most of the numbers I have given are public knowledge and easily available in wikipedia or the like.   (But not all of them, I am aware of that.)

4) If you are going to debate a subject without a basic conception of the numbers and facts involved in that subject (something which is all too common on this forum), that really isn't my problem.  Your problem is that you aren't challenging my numbers because you have better ones, you are challenging them because you HAVEN'T ANY.  Some Academic.  Take a little responsibility to educate yourself.  Take the time to make yourself aware of what you are talking about, or don't talk about it. 

Nevertheless...

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/ wrote:

August 31, 2005...

    * Since 2001, the U.S. has deployed more than 1 million troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

    *  More than 210,000 of the National Guard’s 330,000 soldiers have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    * Nearly a third of active-duty troops, 341,000 men and women, have served two or more overseas tours.

    * Iraq’s resistance forces remain at 16,000-40,000 even with the U.S. coalition killing or capturing 1,600 resistance members per month.

Looks like the figures I recalled were low.  Must have been old data.  Anyway, the error was not in my favor...these numbers advance my point.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050412-gone-to-war.htm wrote:

During the 15 years of the Vietnam conflict, around 2.4 million troops served there, according to a study of Pentagon data by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis. Some estimates put another 1 million troops in surrounding countries during that time....

Indeed, the revelation that well over 1 million U.S. troops have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan surprises even close military observers.

Most news reports about current military engagement focus on the number of troops in Iraq now: 150,000 are there, with another 20,000 on the ground in Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon....

The numbers I give are in the neigborhood, or, when my memory fails me, conservative.  You will note that I use the phrases, "On the order of..." or "Approximately" when I don't have total recall (usually).  Nevertheless, a couple of minutes looking on line gave me these estimates.  If you don't like them, do some digging yourself.  Don't bother splitting hairs on these numbers unless you find ones saying they are WAY off.  They don't have to be exact to support the points I have made.

whittsend dont waste your time bro, ive given up talking about iraq to people who dont wanna hear any other version of the story but their own

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Do you have the figures for casualties for the Resistance army to compare?

I read recently (think it was in The Economist, but might have been a different journal) that it was in the tens of thousands.  Sorry don't have a link.  If I come across one I'll post it.

So, you have found an "end the war" site which has an approximation of the figures for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.  That doesn't help with the unfounded claim you made about Resistance soldiers.  You only stated once on this thread that you couldn't find the figures.  But you are right to point of that I haven't given links to the other instances where you've done this, and since searches by post instead of topic seem to be broken (Error: Unable to fetch search results.) and I can't be bothered to manually rescan 40 or 50 pages of other threads you have posted to you saying that you can't remember where it comes from, I will concede that that continually is an exaggeration as I cannot back it up.  I agree that I should have left that word out.  But the point remains, I'm not the one who quoted a source that I couldn't relocate, and when someone challenged the validity, told it to find it themselves.  You still haven't found the article or an alternative source for the figure, nuff said.

whittsend wrote:

Let's compare.  Given the fact that there have been over 10,000 enemy combatants killed in Iraq, I think it is safe to say that their numbers are in the tens of thousands.  Compared with American troop levels of 130,000, that means they are outnumbered approximately ten to one (their odds might be better, but I doubt they are worse).  In three years of conflict, they have managed to kill just over 2000 Americans.

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/ wrote:

August 31, 2005...
    * Iraq’s resistance forces remain at 16,000-40,000 even with the U.S. coalition killing or capturing 1,600 resistance members per month.

whittsend wrote:

1) To be perfectly honest, I don't care enough to spend the time footnoting ALL of my arguments here.  It's not a thesis, it's an internet forum.  I'll back up what I can, when I can, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

whittsend wrote:

4) If you are going to debate a subject without a basic conception of the numbers and facts involved in that subject (something which is all too common on this forum), that really isn't my problem.  Your problem is that you aren't challenging my numbers because you have better ones, you are challenging them because you HAVEN'T ANY.  Some Academic.  Take a little responsibility to educate yourself.  Take the time to make yourself aware of what you are talking about, or don't talk about it.

Now, are you going to continue to quibble about numbers or are you going to:

A) Find better numbers of your own?
B) Debate the substance of the conclusions I have drawn from those numbers?
C) Shut the hell up?

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

whittsend dont waste your time bro, ive given up talking about iraq to people who dont wanna hear any other version of the story but their own

Been standing in front of the mirror too long again?

Very witty.

I have been to Iraq.  Gunslinger has been to Iraq.  You have not been to Iraq.  Hmmm....whose opinion on the subject should be given the most respect?

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-24 10:35:13)

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

whittsend wrote:

I have been to Iraq.  Gunslinger has been to Iraq.  You have not been to Iraq.  Hmmm....whose opinion on the subject should be given the most respect?

The citizens of Iraq?

Do you have some input from them on the subject at hand or is that an attempt to change the subject?

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Do you have some input from them on the subject at hand or is that an attempt to change the subject?

Just an comment on two fronts:

An observation that visiting a country as part of an invasion force and living there are two different things.

And that without living there you (nor, I, nor anyone but the actual insurgents) can have an idea of what the true scale of the restance to American occupation actually is, thus cannot draw conclusion on the proportion of the enemy combatants who have been killed, and thus cannot conclude military performance based on this factor.  The conclusion I personally would draw is that since America is spending $5.9 billion per month on the invasion and yet still meeting fierce resistance 4 years later, they are displaying poor military performance considering the available budget and technology.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB … ?mod=blogs

So yes, I do disagree with your conclusions that you are fighting a foe with no military ability whatsoever.  Part of military ability is the ability to adapt to situations where you may be outnumbered (as you say they are) and outgunned (as everyone knows they are) yet avoid total destruction at the hands of your enemy.  I think underestimating your opposition is why this war is still going on, and why America (or at least Bush) thought it (he) could win without UN backing in the first place.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/lates … hp?id=6327

I....blah, your an expert.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Do you have some input from them on the subject at hand or is that an attempt to change the subject?

Just an comment on two fronts:

An observation that visiting a country as part of an invasion force and living there are two different things.

The observations of a member of an invading force regarding the combat ability of the indiginous resistance is particularly applicable.  In fact, I would say such an opinion could be considered 'expert testimony.'  Who better to judge than the ones they are fighting against?  Furthermore, given that this is the subject we are discussing, it is an apt observation that some of the people involved in the discussion happen to have been members of such a force.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

And that without living there you (nor, I, nor anyone but the actual insurgents) can have an idea of what the true scale of the restance to American occupation actually is

Actually, I lived there for 18 months and fought the resistance fairly regularly.  I'd say I have pretty good grounds for making an estimate - in the process of fighting an enemy one can get a feel for their numbers.  There may be more of them than I think there is, but it is extremely unlikely that there are fewer.  And, if there are more of them than I have said, that would strengthen my conclusions.  You are (still) welcome to post some numbers which are different than mine....any time....really.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

, thus cannot draw conclusion on the proportion of the enemy combatants who have been killed, and thus cannot conclude military performance based on this factor.

Actually, I have more than enough information to judge their military performance.  I can tell you approximately how many have been killed, and I can give you a bottom end figure for how many there are.  I can also tell you how many of ours have been killed, and can say with absolute certainty that the effect of enemy action on allied operations is 'minimal' (and in saying so, I am being generous to them).  With all of that information I can with a high degree of confidence conclude that their military ability is poor (again, in saying so, I am being generous to them).

To top it off, I have the personal experience of fighting them...they suck.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

The conclusion I personally would draw is that since America is spending $5.9 billion per month on the invasion and yet still meeting fierce resistance 4 years later, they are displaying poor military performance considering the available budget and technology.

Here's the problem with your conclusion:  Because you are not a military man, have never been in combat, and have probably never trained for combat; you wouldn't know 'fierce resistance' if you found it in your soup, and your judgement of what is 'fierce' and what is not, is fatally flawed.  The resistance in Iraq is not particularly 'fierce.'  In fact, it is ineffectual.

(And, by the way, it's 3 years this month)

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114178357697392103-TjKUdWN4qoenDbAFbOI8Ywp2O_M_20070308.html?mod=blogs

Wow...this conflict sure is expensive.  Still, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

So yes, I do disagree with your conclusions that you are fighting a foe with no military ability whatsoever.

Had you any personal knowledge of the subject matter I might be concerned.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Part of military ability is the ability to adapt to situations where you may be outnumbered (as you say they are) and outgunned (as everyone knows they are) yet avoid total destruction at the hands of your enemy.

Another part is disrupting the operations of your enemy.  They cannot.  The ability to avoid destruction while FAILING to inflict significant damage on one's enemy does not speak well of one's military ability.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I think underestimating your opposition is why this war is still going on, and why America (or at least Bush) thought it (he) could win without UN backing in the first place.

Are you honestly suggesting that UN troops would offer something meaningful in the way of military or logistical support to the effort in Iraq?  THAT is comical!  I have worked with UN troops (3OCT93- Mogadishu) and I can assure you, they offer little, consume much, and have great difficulty getting out of their own way when bullets fly.

Anyway, I think that the ability of the opposition to mix with the indiginous population, coupled with US reluctance to exterminate every Iraqi in the country to get at said opposition, is why this conflict is still going on.  But then, I'm hampered by experience in the matter and you are not.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=6327

I'm not sure what this is supposed to contribute to the discussion.  If you want to say Bush was committed to the war, regardless of reason or right, Fine.  I don't even disagree.  But that isn't what we are discussing.  We are discussing the military ability of Iraqi troops.  If Michael Moore, expert on matters military, as he is on all other matters in which his experience is zero, has something to say on the subject at hand, perhaps you should post that instead.

UnOriginalNuttah:  You labelled yourself as an 'academic.'  Your opinion is (clearly) that the Iraqi resistance has some value as a fighting force.  Unfortunately, you have no experience in (or of) the matter, and precious few relevant facts.  Is this the state of Acadamia today?  Is it really taught in your University that when discussing a subject with a primary source, you should vehemently disagree if what they say doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas?  When I did my degrees, I was taught to listen, learn, and verify.  I guess that isn't how it is done anymore.

The Iraqi resistance is not an effective fighting force.  There it is, from one who has fought them.  Ask anyone else who has fought them.  They are incapable of disrupting allied operations, and at the end of the day, that is what separates a skilled fighting force from an unskilled one.  Sorry, but those are the facts, and no matter how much you want them to change, they will not.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-27 12:08:38)

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I still believe this is too simplistic for the current situation, and that there are few factors you are not giving full consideration.  I believe that casualties and disruption of operations are not the only keys to ascertaining which of the two sides are more capable of winning an armed conflict and would take into consideration other factors described by Sun Tzu:

We aren't discussing which side is more capable of winning, we are discussing the skill of the Iraqi insurgency.  Winning is as much political as it is military, and I have repeatedly indicated I'm talking about their military skill, not their ability to win a political victory.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I will give you my opinion on why the resistance to the occupation is not as incapable as you think when taking the 7 considerations from section 13 above:

1.  The resistance is fighting against an illegal occupation, this gives a common unity against the coalition soldiers and coalition imposed government.

Unity...uh huh.  That is clearly present in abundance in Iraq.    Do you get to read a newspaper in your Ivory Tower?

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

2.  George Bush is clearly not a capable commander-in-chief.  He's a deserter and drunk, but a capable military mind is not a phrase I have heard used to describe him.  I am not sure who the main commander-in-chiefs for the various resistance groups are, but they'd have a hard time doing worse than him.

Can't argue with the clown-ness of George Bush, but he isn't the Military leader, he is the Political leader.  He sets the objectives of the military, not the methods or practices.  HE ISN'T THE GENERAL IN COMMAND.  The insurgence is NOT unified, and DO NOT have a single leadership.  The results are disjointed, often conflicting efforts.  Thus:  They CAN do worse than him.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

3.  The coalition is fighting in a foreign country with little or no idea of the local traditions, language or public opinion.  The urban landscape is not the type of combat best suited to the types of weapons commonly used by the coalition due to collateral damage and the increased resentment this causes.

The Allies undeniably have a public relations problem.  The insurgents, however, have one that is far worse...for evidence see decapitated bodies regularly found in various places.

The most common weapon used in urban conflict is the rifle.  The coalition is pefectly well suited to fighting, dominating, and winning in an urban environment.  See my account of 3OCT93 in Mogadishu several posts ago.  Collateral damage is a problem, but it is an even bigger problem for the insurgents, with their suicide tactics, than for the Allies.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

4.  Are coalition soldiers more disciplined?  Who can say,

I can.  They absolutely are.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

but certainly the swift and brutal punishment of the type used by the resistance soldiers could be considered a rigourous enforcement.  The extraordinary military expenditure in fighting the war could also be considered as poor discipline, but Sun Tzu's definition in part 10 above.

Read your own quote.  The resistance isn't a properly marshalled army, they are a poorly organised rabble.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

5.  It is obvious that the coalition has greater troop numbers and more equipment to put towards the war, but this is only one of seven factors.

One of seven which, as it doesn't further your argument, can be dismissed, right?

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

6.  For many of the US soldiers, who are often quite young or reservists, this is a first assignment and they have little experience of fighting this kind of guerilla warfare.  This may or may not be true for the enemy so I  conclude that this cannot be compared.

It was my third deployment...about half the soldiers in my reserve unit had previous deployments under their belt, including most of the senior NCO's.  My prior experience included fighting insurgents in Mogadishu.  Allied forces not only have as much experience as the insurgents (many of whom are foreign and/or young), but we have a GREAT DEAL more INSTITUTIONAL experience.  Yes, the Army has a memory, and even if the officers don't always remember, the NCO's generally do.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

7.  The reward of American soldiers is Bush reducing veterans pensions, and the government will avoid punishment unless there is undeniable photographic evidence of mistreatment.

Service is it's own reward.  Clearly this is something you don't understand.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I believe the balance of factors is almost equal, but that the Moral law advantage that comes from disregarding the UN and declaring war on false premise tips the balance away from coalition favour.

My opinion (which probably represents that of the troops in question a bit better than yours, as I was one):

I believe that the balance of factors is clearly to the advantage of the allied forces.  The Moral advantage belongs to the Allies because (despite the fact that we were quite possibly mislead by our political leadership):
1) Nobody denies that Saddam Hussein needed removing...not even the majority of Iraqis.  One may debate the method, but the end was a net positive.
2) The Insurgents do not have the best interests of Iraq at heart.  They kill Iraqis indiscriminately, and their primary purpose is to sow chaos and destruction.  They do NOT represent the desires of the majority of Iraqis.  If there were no Insurgency, Allied forces would already be gone.

Because the primary impact of the 'moral' factors is one of morale, it is only important that troops BELIEVE they are in a moral fight, regardless of whether they actually are.  Your opinions of the actuality of the situation notwithstanding, I can assure you most troops are not worred about the morality of their presence.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

This are just my opinions and I am not saying they are any more or less valid that yours, but I have said before that I don't think just looking at casualties, troop numbers, technology levels or anything else is a fair determination of military ability or chances of victory, merely factors which play a part in a larger equation.

So, despite everything that has been said here, you still believe that a force which is demonstrably incapable of impacting the operations of its opponant, is a military force to be reckoned with?  Don't quit your day job to become a General.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

And fundamentally, apart from anything else, since America is a democracy it will be public opinion and the effect this has on selecting the subsequent president at the next elections in a couple of years that determines whether the coalition can continue to fight this war, or will be forced to withdraw before there is a stable, democratic government in Iraq; this is a factor which doesn't affect the resistance fighters in Iraq.

That is the first sensible thing you have said.  Still, it is an entirely different subject, but it is sensible.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I believe that had UN backing been obtained, then the composition and Moral law of the invasion forces would have altered many of these negative factors which are part of my consideration.  This is only my opinion, I do not care if other people agree or not, they are just as entitled to their opinions just as I am entitled to mine.

My opinion is that you are entirely incorrect.  I have already discussed (above) the UN's military ability and the moral position of the allies.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I agree with your opinion that the ability of your enemies to mix with indiginous population is why this conflict is still going on, but I would add to that that the continous recruitment of new guerilla fighters who have lost brothers, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters because of the coalition occupation means that the resistance numbers are undoubtably growing all the time.  You may feel that this supports your conclusions, I feel it detracts from the idea that you are able to win through casualties and 'operations' alone.

I never said that we were able to win through casualties...that is the 'body count' method of Westmoreland.  I could discuss this in detail, but there is no point.  It is a military philosophy largely discredited by the Vietnam war.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

And yes, you are entirely within your rights to disagree with my opinions or conclusions and question the validity, just as I am within my rights to do so for yours.  I am of the opinion that the shootings depicted in the video which this thread is discussing are genuine, and that the snipers involved were not caught at or near to the time the video was made, at least not before they got a chance to splice together the footage into a film.  You say this video is probably a fake:

It seems some don't share your opinion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juba_(sniper) wrote:

A military commander in Iraq recently hinted that “Juba” may have been captured on June 2, 2005, when an Iraqi sniper in a van from a distance of 75-100 meters away, shot at American soldier Stephen Tschiderer, who was hit but was not seriously hurt due to his body armor. [1] Soldiers from the unit started searching for the sniper, and spotted two of them (the sniper and the driver who video tapes the acts). The two were wounded and captured.

The army located the van from where the sniping took place and discovered a cushioned sniping nest. This nest was lined with numerous bed mattresses to muffle the sound of a Dragunov [2] sniper rifle fired through a hole just big enough for the shooter to engage his target of choice. However, sniper attacks have continued since this date in Baghdad with the same tactics. This probably suggests that there is more than one sniper that represents "Juba".

When I say it is fake, I don't mean that it was shot in a studio, I mean that it is video spliced from many sources for propaganda purposes.  There is no 'Juba.'  Also, I strongly suspect that if you were able to divine the status of the soldiers who went down in the various clips, you will find that most of them are still alive.   I believe the wiki entry quoted above supports those conclusions.  It is unlikely that Juba is one Uber sniper, as opposed to many 'not that great' snipers.

whittsend wrote:

Marconius wrote:

... it doesn't matter if Juba is one guy or one hundred snipers...they are still wounding soldiers which causes a flurry of action from the rest of the squad.

Actually, it makes all the difference in the world.  1 Uber-sniper whacking troops with one shot one kill - that's a morale killer.

Several shitty snipers all over Iraq taking potshots at troops, some hitting, more not...shit dude, that's just another day in Iraq!

THAT is MY opinion, and it is informed by experience.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

whittsend wrote:

It's funny that everyone who has been there says more or less the same thing:  That the Iraqis and insurgents can't fight to save their asses, and that this is probably fake.

What to believe, your speculation, or their (and my) experience?  Tough choice.

Do the soldiers KIA share that opinion as well?

Ah yes, when you are unable to gain the upper hand with the facts, use inflammatory rhetoric.  A tried and true (if a bit lame) debate tactic.  Well, given that the majority of troops killed in Iraq have been killed by mines and IED's, and relatively few buy gunfire, yes I suspect that most would agree.  I don't know a single one who wouldn't have agreed in life.

Conclusion:  Your opinion notwithstanding, the military ability of the Iraqi insurgents is Poor at best.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-29 07:11:22)

and when I say threat to Iraq I dont mean threat to the american military.  I mean the future of the iraqi people and their government.  The Mahdi militia is such a terrible fighting force.....turkey shoot in najaf.

whittsend wrote:

Conclusion:  Your opinion notwithstanding, the military ability of the Iraqi insurgents is Poor at best.

I'm glad that you've taken time to read my post in detail, and even though we differ on our assessments, and even what we are trying to assess, I can understand your why you take your position on the subject.  Time will tell whether this is an enemy without the military ability to prevent it's own destruction or a movement capable of withstanding the coalition army until they are forced to withdraw and leave an unstable and bloody mess in their wake; whatever the final outcome I do want to make it clear that I find all loss of life a great shame, and I am sympathetic to the families of soldiers killed in action and civilians caught in the conflict. 

I have not posted anything that says I believe the skill of individual insurgents is greater or less than the coalition (e.g. mostly US and UK) soldiers, and FYI I actually think that due to factors of poor individual training and weapons most could not compare on a simple one-to-one basis.  However the ability to learn to pick battles which can be won, no matter how small, is a part of military ability; this why sniping and IEDs are used as a method to inflict casualties without getting drawn out into conventional conflict which will surely lead to destruction, and demonstrates the enemy is clearly aware of it's strengths and weaknesses.  I simply got the impression when you spoke of rates of casualties that you were talking of collective ability to gain an overall victory to the entire war and not individual ability.  Hence, this is what I offered my opinions on.

If you read back through what I posted, you will see that my very first post, and the issue of contention I raised was to this statement:

whittsend wrote:

This is a fact:  Casualties are happening at such a slow rate for our army, that victory is almost assured, if given tiime.

I think the fundamental difference in our opinions is that you originally stated that victory was almost assured because of the slow rate of casualties for your army, and I saw this as an simplistic, unreliable and unproven indicator of victory and said so by attempting to demonstrate that the figures for the enemy are not reliable enough to do so.  You claim to have 'a feel' for the size of the enemy you are fighting and based your conclusions around that, which works for you but unfortunately doesn't convince me that you are a reliable source of intelliegence.  Given this, can I assume that you do not acknowledge that the war for hearts and minds is of importance to final victory, and that the military was wasting it's time when it set itself the goal of winning it? Even the Pentagon can acknowledge that on “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, to quote this Pentagon report, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.  I consider this the ability to win this battle in any theater of conflict a part of military ability, and believe that did the US not give support to other totalitarian regimes it would have been less open to criticism.

I cannot be swayed in my opinion that the very purpose of the UN is to ensure that these problems are resolved as fairly and even handedly as possible, without causing unnecessary danger to and sacrifice by the troops of one particular nation.

whittsend wrote:

One of seven which, as it doesn't further your argument, can be dismissed, right?

You seem to be of the misconception that I dismissed the factor of army size, when in fact I conceded that this factor was in the coalition favour.  In case I wasn't clear enough I gave:  1, 2, and 3 to the occupation resistance fighters, 5 to the coalition and I gave points 4, 6 and 7 to neither side. I then said that I thought it would be a more even field, had point 1 gone to the invading army.  What did you say before?  Listen, learn, and verify?

whittsend wrote:

Can't argue with the clown-ness of George Bush, but he isn't the Military leader, he is the Political leader.

George Bush is your Commander-in-chief, sorry to be the one to break it to you.  He sets the objectives of the military and by doing so, determines whether the military has objectives which they can actually meet.  He's the one who should be reading the Art of Warfare.

I personally think it is a shame that the views of the soldiers on this forum have so far been quite one sided on the whole Iraq issue, but I am heartened that not all share these views:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1741942,00.html

To discuss the video:

I don't know where you got the impression that I thought it was one sniper in the video.  Maybe I should have mentioned this, as it was the subject of the thread, but we digressed into a discussion on the definition of military ability.  For a start it was the American army who were trying to blame one person for a massive number of sniper attacks because they found bullet casings with 'Juba' written on them in Arabic in hiding places near to many sniping incidents.  They probably used this convenient fact to throw the book at the poor sucker they caught in the German documentary link I posted.

By your definition of fake I agree.  I assumed you meant fake as in the 1969 moon landing video (jokes).  But I don't think that the people making the video even tried to make it look like the actions of a single super-sniper anyway.  What I think is that:

*Juba is a more of a way of thinking, relating to the concept of Juba Arabic (or creole Arabic) being able to communicate a message inter-ethnically amonsts Iraqis (as was it's purpose when it originated in South Sudan).  This is why this was written on the bullet casings.
*This video is almost certainly as you describe it, propaganda by the Islamic Army of Iraq to help spread the belief that they are fighting a foe who is not invincible, and that individual soldiers can make a difference.
*That many of the clips are non-fatal shooting, these clips go to the black screen with the quotes and newpaper reference (in Arabic) of the fear amongst America soldiers that they may be hit by sniper fire.
*That there are also fatal shootings in the video, and that these clips end with an image of Bush, the American Flag, and the coffins of American soldiers wrapped in the American flag.
*And that only a small proportion of sniper attacks are filmed, due to the massive risk this places the perpertrators in of being caught.

What are we talking about again?

Apologies to anyone who gets charged per gigabyte by their ISP.

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Time will tell whether this is an enemy without the military ability to prevent it's own destruction or a movement capable of withstanding the coalition army until they are forced to withdraw and leave an unstable and bloody mess in their wake;

Their lack of military ability will not guarantee their destruction.  They have the advantage of blending in with everyone else, and if they are smart can carry on for quite a long time.  Here's the thing though:  The longer they want to last, the fewer the offensive operations they can conduct, and the less effective they become.  Any time they go out and do anything, they get torn up.

So, you're of the opinion that they are being killed faster than they are being recruited?  Interesting, I'd have said that the longer the occupation lasts, the more chance to recruit and organise, and the more aware of occupation operations and goals the resistance fighters will become.  We'll just agree to differ.

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

However the ability to learn to pick battles which can be won, no matter how small, is a part of military ability; this why sniping and IEDs are used as a method to inflict casualties without getting drawn out into conventional conflict which will surely lead to destruction, and demonstrates the enemy is clearly aware of it's strengths and weaknesses.  I simply got the impression when you spoke of rates of casualties that you were talking of collective ability to gain an overall victory to the entire war and not individual ability.  Hence, this is what I offered my opinions on.

Casualties are a factor, but not the only factor.  The most important factor is disruption of operations tempo.  What I have said, and continue to say, is that their military ability is poor, even given their disadvantages.  The Vietcong, facing a similar situation, fared much better against US troops.  The casualties and disruption being caused to US forces in Iraq is not very good for a force of the size that we estimate the insurgents have.  I grant you that their tactics are dictated by necessity, yet even so, they are failing to accomplish their MILITARY objectives.  I hasten to add, that the threshold for their political objectives may be much lower.

Would surviving against $5.9 billion per month of military spending until the kitty runs dry or the US economy implodes be a military objective, or a political one?

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

If you read back through what I posted, you will see that my very first post, and the issue of contention I raised was to this statement:

whittsend wrote:

This is a fact:  Casualties are happening at such a slow rate for our army, that victory is almost assured, if given time.

I think the fundamental difference in our opinions is that you originally stated that victory was almost assured because of the slow rate of casualties for your army, and I saw this as an simplistic, unreliable and unproven indicator of victory and said so by attempting to demonstrate that the figures for the enemy are not reliable enough to do so.

I stand by that statement, in the context it was given...that of a political vacuum.  In a purely military struggle, the end is certain.  If politics is not a factor, and time is not a factor, the coalition forces cannot lose.  BUT, as we all know, time and politics are very much factors in the outcome.

In that context I would agree, assuming no resistance recruitment and no external allies smuggling resources and weapons to assist them.  Although if all supplies (including ammo, rockets/bombs, fuel, spare parts, rotated troops) were also excluded from the American troops the outcome might become uncertain. 

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

You claim to have 'a feel' for the size of the enemy you are fighting and based your conclusions around that, which works for you but unfortunately doesn't convince me that you are a reliable source of intelliegence.

Then you clearly don't understand the intelligence business.  How do you think intelligence officers estimate the size of enemy forces?  They compile data collected by troops in contact with the enemy, coallate it, and make estimates.  I was one of the troops supplying intelligence (often), and I was in contact with many others.  Nevertheless, my opinion relies not only on experience, but on information which I have read (some of which I have supplied above).  That information fits nicely with my own experience, and I believe it.  You have dismissed the sources I have quoted above, but you have provided no alternatives...so I'm not sure why you have such a problem with those numbers.  AGAIN:  If you think my numbers are bad, show me some that you think are good.

This relies on the premise that you are fighting an active enemy, but unfortunately a considerable number of resistance cells will lie dormant waiting for supplies, orders and new recruits.  I would assume that even the most informed intelligence agency can only guess as to how much of the opposition is currently in a position to offer direct resistance, and it can only identify particular hotspots once they become mostly or entirely under the control of the insurgents.  It seems to me to be a bit like pushing air bubbles out of a large sheet of plastic, jump on one and two more pop up either side.  Here were the insurgency figures from the site you highlighted:

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/ wrote:

* Iraq’s resistance forces remain at 16,000-40,000 even with the U.S. coalition killing or capturing 1,600 resistance members per month.

The most important figure to make me doubt the resistance force numbers is where it says that they are remaining at within 16,000-40,000 despite killing or capturing 1,600 members per month.  That means that they are replacing lost numbers at a minimum rate of ~20,000 per year (1,600 * 12 = 19,200) and due to the dormancy theory I have outlined above this figure could be much, much higher, IMO.  If the numbers on this site are to be believed as accurate, that is.

whittsend wrote:

I do not assume that the 'battle for hearts and minds' is meaningless, but it is merely one factor of many.  Given the overwhelming strength and ability of our forces, as compared to those of the enemy, it is not a great enough factor to affect the outcome in a purely military conflict.  BUT, this is not a purely military conflict, and the 'hearts and minds' issue is much more important for the political conflict.  Nevertheless, while the people of Iraq may not like us too much, I'm certain they have no love for the insurgents either.  In fact, given the insurgents' tactics of indescriminate killing of Iraqis, thier own 'hearts and minds' problem may be their undoing in the long run.  Thus, the issue of 'hearts and minds' is no advantage for them, and is therefore not as much of a disadvantage for us as it could be.

The Islamic Army of Iraq are blaming American PsyOps for a number of the unattended car bomb attacks on markets and other places, (whilst taking credit for attacks on election, police recruitment and military recruitment queues), as an attempt to undermine them and discredit their movement.  Actually, when you think about it, don't terrorist organisations usually own up to their own attacks and state their motives?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ … E9B3DA.htm

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I cannot be swayed in my opinion that the very purpose of the UN is to ensure that these problems are resolved as fairly and even handedly as possible, without causing unnecessary danger to and sacrifice by the troops of one particular nation.

And I cannot be swayed in my opinion that as a military force the UN is entirely useless.

Well, a UN authorised war worked the last time, and a non-UN authorised war is still dragging on into its 4th year this time, so we’ll just have to disagree.  The UN is the strength of the current coalition and then some.  And the whole becomes much greater than the sum of its parts.

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

In case I wasn't clear enough I gave:  1, 2, and 3 to the occupation resistance fighters, 5 to the coalition and I gave points 4, 6 and 7 to neither side. I then said that I thought it would be a more even field, had point 1 gone to the invading army.  What did you say before?  Listen, learn, and verify?

The context of that comment was in dealing with a primary source.  You are not one in this case, but I am.  In any case, did you not read my comments?  You still insist that the insurgents have the advantage according to Sun Tzu?  I think you need to understand Sun Tzu a little better:

1) Moral right.  I already addressed this:

whittsend wrote:

Because the primary impact of the 'moral' factors is one of morale, it is only important that troops BELIEVE they are in a moral fight, regardless of whether they actually are.  Your opinions of the actuality of the situation notwithstanding, I can assure you most troops are not worred about the morality of their presence.

This is a tie.  Both sides believe they have right on their side.

Let's just hope there aren't more soldiers who think playing football with heads is a bit dodgy then...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten … =News/News

I mean, even I had a kickaround with Gary Coleman using a cops head in Postal 2, but doing that in Real Life and not in a game is quite another matter.

whittsend wrote:

2) Quality of Generals.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

George Bush is your Commander-in-chief, sorry to be the one to break it to you.

Yes, but that occupation doesn't include being a General, or leading the troops on the ground.  Sun Tzu's advice is aimed at one leading forces...the objectives are immaterial, except insofar as they affect the morality of the conflict.  I have already address morality in 1 (above), and As GWB is not a leader of men, he does not enter the equation for 2.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

He sets the objectives of the military and by doing so, determines whether the military has objectives which they can actually meet.

And what objective has been set that the military can't meet?  None that I am aware of.  In any case,  Sun Tzu is referring to quality of leadership, not quality of objectives.   

The distinction between the duties of a General and that of a Sovereign are clear.

..removed for brevity…

That anecdote makes it about as clear as it can be made....Bush isn't the one Sun Tzu is referring to in #2.  Those are the Generals on the ground, who have the responsibility of actually leading the troops.  They should, and MUST do what needs to be done to win once the soveriegn sets the objective.  The Coalition Generals are FAR superior to anything the enemy has.  Factor two easily goes to the Coalition.  To say otherwise is ridiculous.

I would say that this distinction is less clear than you seem to imply.  When Sun Tzu was General he was the highest ranked officer in the army, and so to compare properly the highest ranked officer in the US army should be used. It is Bush who receives the top level briefings from the Pentagon, and through the decisions of which briefings to pass on to the Generals for each of the major branches of the Armed Forces determines the ability of to work to cohesive and achievable goals.  We don't know who the General is for the Islamic Army of Iraq, but I still think having Bush at the top of the military pecking order means they could have Scooby Doo and they'd still be better off.  Yes he's a cowardly, barely comprehensible son of bitch but at least he can provide a bit of entertainment.  Bush, that is, not Scooby Doo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief : "Although the United States presidency was modeled upon the kingship of Great Britain, and the title of Commander-in-Chief was unlikely to have been understood to confer upon the President any powers additional to those inherently held by a Sovereign, the title has increasingly come to be perceived as being a peculiarly military position. This has led to a blurring of the distinction between the President's civil and military responsibilities. It was, for instance, the basis for the trial by military commission of Dr. Samuel Mudd."

The sovereign provides the troops for the CINC to allocate as he sees fit, for this reason I'd say Congress was the sovereign in the current setup as they have final say for troop deployment figures and budget requests.

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

He's the one who should be reading the Art of Warfare.

Reading it isn't enough...one must understand it.  You should read it more carefully.

I suppose it's a bit like the Bible or Qu’ran in that sense, open to interpretation.  And okay then, Bush is the one who should understand the Art of Warfare.

whittsend wrote:

3) Advantages of Heaven and Earth (i.e. Environment).  Coalition forces operate with impunity in Iraq, any time, any place.  Insurgents do not.  Coalition forces have the training and understanding to dominate in any conditions.  Insurgents do not.  Advantage Coalition.

American troops stick out like a sore thumb in Iraq.  Plastic sheet bubble effect means that they can only strike once insurgency reaches a critical mass in a particular region or city.  Not to mention IEDs alleys and blending in to the local population.  Advantage resistance, IMO.  But we'll have to differ on this one again.

whittsend wrote:

4) Discipline.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

4.  Are coalition soldiers more disciplined?  Who can say,

I can.  They absolutely are.

You would, you're one of them.  I'm still calling this a tie though, as I doubt any coalition troops would strap themselves with explosives and run into a police station to help the cause.

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

but certainly the swift and brutal punishment of the type used by the resistance soldiers could be considered a rigorous enforcement.  The extraordinary military expenditure in fighting the war could also be considered as poor discipline, but Sun Tzu's definition in part 10 above.

Read your own quote.  The resistance isn't a properly marshalled army, they are a poorly organised rabble.

To say that great military expense is a lack of discipline, is to take Sun Tzu out of context.  He was referring to the discipline of the soldiers, not of the sovereign.  Advantage, Coalition.

Gotcha... if this was BF2 I'd be calling you a context whore by now :

Sun Tzu wrote:

10. By method and discipline are to be understood
    the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions,
    the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance
    of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the
    control of military expenditure.

That sounds like spending is a part of discipline to me.

whittsend wrote:

5) Strength.  You have already conceded this point...no discussion necessary.

Damn straight I did.  I'm not a total Nuttah, you know.

whittsend wrote:

6) Training.  Please be serious.

whittsend wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

6.  For many of the US soldiers, who are often quite young or reservists, this is a first assignment and they have little experience of fighting this kind of guerilla warfare.  This may or may not be true for the enemy so I  conclude that this cannot be compared.

It was my third deployment...about half the soldiers in my reserve unit had previous deployments under their belt, including most of the senior NCO's.  My prior experience included fighting insurgents in Mogadishu.  Allied forces not only have as much experience as the insurgents (many of whom are foreign and/or young), but we have a GREAT DEAL more INSTITUTIONAL experience.  Yes, the Army has a memory, and even if the officers don't always remember, the NCO's generally do.

I will add to what I have already said, the occupation of US troops when they are not fighting, is training.  That is all they do...fight or train.  Ask anyone in the combat arms.  Advantage Coalition.

And the occupation of the resistance troops when not fighting is fighting.  Probably.  But I still think this one is too close to call that easily.  And hasn’t America spent billions trying to swing the outcome of local conflicts by training people like Bin Laden to set up training camps in countries like Afghanistan and Ir….

whittsend wrote:

7) Constancy of Reward and Punishment.  Constancy of Reward is probably equal, but Constancy of Punishment is probably more regular on the Coalition side.  I'll be generous and call this one a draw.

5 of Sun Tzu's factors easily go to the Coalition and two are ties.  You may disagree, but you are taking great liberties, both in your interpretation of what Sun Tzu is saying, and with how it is applied.  I have no doubt whatsoever that Sun Tzu would laugh at the prospects of the Insurgents.

Clausewitz, on the other hand, would call it a bit closer...

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I don't know where you got the impression that I thought it was one sniper in the video.

The context of the discussion was that Juba is bollocks because the quality of the insurgents is so mind bogglingly poor.  That pretty much sums it up.

I came onto the thread with a question, which I was curious to see if anyone else had noticed something about the Juba video:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

So are the clips that end up with the picture of Bush and the dead soldiers returning to America the kill shots?  Just curious if anyone else got that impression.  It seems to me to imply that the people who made the video see every dead soldier as a blow aimed directly at George Bush, if that is the case.

Sorry if you think this is the wrong thread for that question, but it was directly related to the video which is the subject of this thread.

I agree I should have taken to time to correct the original post, but I had skimmed through and already seen that many people had discounted this as the work of one individual.  And plus I was enjoying the tangent we ended up on.  I can tell we’ve really pissed of specops10-4 though, he’s even started a new thread about threads which deviate from their original topic.  Still, I’ve found this discussion very informative and been pointed to a few sources I hadn’t seen before, plus heard a few bits and pieces from soldiers fighting the war first had, so I’m not complaining.

Still, I did never attempt to provide sources to counter some of the points I believe can be contended in the original post, so here goes:

Nehil wrote:

It is said that he has killed 143 soldiers and wounded 53. Now I know a lot of you will say "BS youre making shit up, you dont have proof, die usa flamer" ec.t... But there is now a video, 15 minutes long, with a lot of real footage with real american soldiers getting shot, mixed up with a lot of terrorist propaganda.

These figures are the total killed and wounded American soldiers between Ramadan 2004 and 2005.  They chose these dates as they have significance in the Islamic community and the video was supposed to be some kind of sick gift  to celebrate the occasion: http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.c … category=0
This is another reason to make me believe this video was never intended to be seen as the actions of one individual.  For a start some of the shots seem to be taken through some kind of video-sniper-scope, and if this was one person wouldn't they have used this clearly superior method of filming for every shot?

whittsend wrote:

Edit:
I almost forgot:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I personally think it is a shame that the views of the soldiers on this forum have so far been quite one sided on the whole Iraq issue, but I am heartened that not all share these views:

This is not a coincidence, because most troops have shared experience, and shared opinions on the matter.  Some will disagree, but that is unavoidable.  Most troops will concur with what Gunslinger and I have said.  Does it not mean anything to you that the majority have largely concurrent views?  Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss those views so casually.

I don't dismiss any views casually; I only hoped that maybe some of the soldiers posting to this forum would have taken my side of the argument.  As I've said before I respect everyone’s opinion and their rights to it.  They have formed their opinion from the information on and thought given to each subject, and as such have every right to them.  I wanted to design weapons when I was younger, spend all my cash on military magazines and collectables, but I do believe that as a teenager there were several incidents where if I had easy access to a gun I would have killed some kids in my area who picked on me.  As I grew up though, I became more and more of the opinion that violence is avoidable, and merely leads to escalated problems in the long run.  I learned to walk away which is never easy in a the less well off areas of a city like London with more than it's fair share of crack addicts and psychopaths, but I feel I am stronger for it.  I just think that there comes a point where my country should do the same, but to achieve this goal requires increasing awareness of the surrounding issues throughout the entire global community, which I believe comes from people sharing and discussing their views.  For this I thank you, as you have provided a more coherent argument than most on this forum.

Btw, just put this post through Word… between us we’ve probably got the basis of a pretty good dissertation, this post alone is running at over 3,500 words.  Chuy’s gonna kill us when he gets the web-hosting bills

Well, might as well twist the knife:

Enemy boat spotted.
Enemy boat spotted.
Enemy boat spotted.