Posted on 01/03/2007 4:09:56 PM PST by Man of the Right
January 3, 2007: Nearly 14,000 Iraqis were killed by criminal or political violence in 2006. The violence is not quite a war, but it is very violent, especially when you consider that nearly all of it is taking place in only a third of the country. While the Iraqi dead amount to about twelve times the murder rate in the United States, it's about two thirds the death rate in the United States during a year (1944) in World War II. The fighting is more and more Iraqis versus Iraqis, with some 95 percent of the dead in 2005 being Iraqi. While the media highlights those days when there were a hundred terrorist deaths, that was not the norm. On average, about 36 people a day died. But a day with no terrorist deaths is not considered news, and is rarely reported. Some 11 percent of the Iraqi deaths were security forces. That's 1,543 dead, compared to 832 American. No one is sure, but perhaps a third of the civilian deaths were terrorists, or those involved in supporting the terrorism. In 2006, most of the dead were Sunni Arabs (civilians and terrorists). The UN claims that twice as many Iraqis died, but that number is widely seen as motivated more by politics (the UN opposed the overthrow of Saddam, who bribed many UN officials) than a desire for accurate statistics.
"The fighting is more and more Iraqis versus Iraqis..."
Which is exactly as it should be, given that they are fighting a sectarian war that they want to fight, and that we did not come to fight.
And if the Dems had any sense at all, they would recognize this, and exploit that fact in a successful war strategy. Minimize the American casualties by taking US troops as much as possible out of the cross fire, without endangering our real mission, and force the Iraqis to fight this side-bar sectarian war with their own blood. That's a war we can afford to fight for decades, and ultimately win if we keep it up.
There is a country that has 150 killed everyday not considered in any type of war and thousands of miles away from the Middle-East, Brazil.
I heard a Marine state today, that the reason that there are as many casualties as there are is because the soldiers take the fight to the enemy, and kill them. In doing so, they place themselves at risk. God Bless our fighting men, and give us leaders worthy of them.
On the Strategy Paqge site, James Dunnigan and his free-lance reporters (mostly ex-military) report that U.S. casualties per 1,000 adjusted for the type of action is the lowest in military history, reflecting the professionalism of the force. This is especially striking given the fact the Army fighters lacked training in counter-insurgency. In general, the Marines give fighting small wars more respect. Their small wars manual, which has been in and out of print since the Banana Wars of the early 20th century remains the state of the art.
The U.S. and the West has become increasingly casualty adverse. I consider this a positive development. Why pile up a big body count when war-fighting skill and technology can reduce the butcher's bill?
The U.S. has expended $379B, 3000 KIA and 22400 WIA to give the Iraqis a chance at a better government than Saddam. Regardless of the outcome, we owe no one an apology for the effort. Our troops have performed brilliantly, despite committing mainly armored and mech infantry troops rather than light infantry trained in counter-insurency.
A bloodbath that hopefully will never be repeated. Still, we managed to save South Korea, which today is one of the richest countries in the world and a major U.S. trading partner.
Yes, indeedy.
Please don't forget those who were fightng in the Pacific.
Semper Fi,
I vote for malice, Marine_Uncle...
How could I disagree.
Believe me, we won't.
A respectful USN Semper Fi to you and your compatriots.
I have just finished a fantastic book called "American Spartans", which is a history of the Marine Corps beginning with Iwo Jima
(Note: The author explains in the book why he started with Iwo Jima and not the many earlier campaigns-it is not a slight to those men, just a way of presenting information due to the way the Marine Corps and its mission were under assault beginning with the end of WWII and how it has changed up to today)
It is a brilliantly written analysis on why the Marine Corps is the most successful fighting force in the world, and generally produces more with fewer men and materials.
Given the way you wrote your post, I think you would greatly enjoy it.
Given your admirable sentiments on your Freep page...you wouldn't...:)
"wouldn't". I couldn't. Thanks for serving your country in uniform.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.