UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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.
Hmm. Not sure how you got that, but no I don't agree with that. I think that they are probably being recruited faster than they are being killed or captured...that is the only way they could maintain their level of activity in the face of the damage we are doing to them. All I meant by the original statement was, the more they do, the more we hurt them.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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.
Actually, they can smuggle and recruit all they want, I don't think that would help them in a purely military conflict. They are incapable of disrupting Allied Supplies, so that isn't really an issue.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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.
If you are stating that there may be many more than have been estimated here, then fine. I will agree with that....and it supports the point I was making with those numbers in the first place: That given the numbers they have at their disposal, the damage they are causing indicates that we are dealing with a force that is incompetant, in millitary terms. In any case, intelligence can give you a bottom end figure for the enemy, but as you say, they can't give a top end if some are inactive.
My understanding was that you thought my numbers were too large. If you think they are too small, I have no problem with that. I have said all along, that if the numbers were in error, they erred in being too conservative.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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?
Do I really need to respond to this? That is bullshit. Plain and simple.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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.
'Approved by the UN' and 'Run by the UN' are two very different things. Anyway, do you mean to suggest that the outcome of the first Gulf war would have been different without UN approval? Sorry. I don't buy it. UN support is meaningless.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Let's just hope there aren't more soldiers who think playing football with heads is a bit dodgy then...
Inflammatory and irrelevant to the point. This has nothing to do with 99.999% of the troops. Most troops have no problem with what they are doing. 1 is still a tie.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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.
Did you read what I posted? More importantly, did you GET it?
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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.
Ok, you didn't get it. I suggest you read the anecdote again, but meanwhile, I'll try to make this as simple as I can:
CinC is a title, indicating overall responsibility. Does he have final authority? Yes. Does he exercise it? Rarely...and to the best of my knowledge, not once in Iraq. Think of the Queen. On paper, she has all kinds of authority. In reality, if she excercised any of it, that action would undermine the state. Same with CinC and the army. In my military Career, only one time did a decision from that high ever filter down to my level...and that was a different CinC. And he was widely disrespected for it. Don't ask for details, you won't get them.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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.
I'll say it again: Coalition troops operate with impunity. You said it yourself...they stick out like a sore thumb, and they make no efforts to do otherwise. Why not? Because they don't have to. We own the day, and we own the night. Simple. Sorry, this cleary is a point for the coalition.
whittsend wrote:
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.
That is an example of fanaticism, not discipline. It blows my mind that you can even consider the enemy as being more disciplined than coalition troops...but then you have never met one of them. I have. I have met Marines, SF, Brits, Dutch, Poles, Ukranians, Japanese and more. All of them very well disciplined troops. I have met plenty of the enemy. They tend to piss themselves on long trips...no discipline. Another clear point for the coalition.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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.
Missed that...well, it's tough to argue that the army is disciplined in it's spending. Nevertheless, we have no information on the spending habits or abilities of the enemy, so I would say at best this is a tie.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
And the occupation of the resistance troops when not fighting is fighting. Probably.
I doubt it. If it were they wouldn't be so useless at fighting. I'd say that the most likely occupation of resistance troops is 'Student' or 'Clergy', but suspect that there are plenty of shopkeepers, tailors, rug merchants, etc. That isn't to say that they don't train, but to compare their training with that of a professional western army isn't a comparison one can take seriously. I suggest you look into what the average Infantryman does for training annually.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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….
I don't. Easily another for the coalition. We didn't set up 'camps', in Afghanistan, we sold them weapons, and trained them how to use them (stinger missiles). Yep, that came back to bite us in the ass, but it doesn't change the fact that they aren't trained to our level. I trained Iraqis, and we didn't bring them anywhere near our level. Getting them to the level to which we could was hard enough. Watching an Iraqi trying to do any kind of military drill is like watching a monkey trying to fuck a football.
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.
I don't know the answer to that question...and I strongly doubt that the people who made the video do either. There's no way they could know the final disposition of the troop.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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?
Well, I thought the whole Juba thing was intended to affect US morale. Only a good sniper would do that, and, as I already mentioned, I don't think they have been successful. Beyond that, I have no way of trying to divine what goes through the minds of these people. It always seemed to me that they behaved very erratically.
UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
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.
As far as the opinions of troops go, I don't think there is any way of getting around it: The experience of the troops shapes their opinions. That is why so many of them are in agreement. You will find it difficult to find one who would disagree strongly with anything I have written. You would find it even harder to find one who has
actually fought with the enemy and disagrees. I have seen some of the shit people in my unit have said to the press...and it's very amusing hearing someone who left the wire maybe 5 times talking about all the atrocities they saw, when you know they didn't see a goddamned thing. Some folks like attention. Those of us who don't really need it, tend to have parallel viewpoints.
As far as violence goes, I don't disagree that it is never good to use violence as a
primary method of getting what one wants. The initial use of force is always wrong. BUT that doesn't mean that the reactive use of force is always wrong, or that one should never use force. Force is essential, if unfortunate, as there are always going to be those who will rely upon it. Before you say it, I understand the implications of what I have just said for some US policies, and to be honest, I'd rather not get into it. My point in this discussion is ONLY that Iraqi insurgents are, in military terms, poor fighters at best. I will argue that to my last breath, and I think I have been fairly effective here.
As far as being a 'context' whore...I do think you misunderstood some of the things Sun Tzu said. Enough.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-31 09:31:25)