Interesting read by a LTC in Iraq...

[tharkûn]

And your numbers fail to take into account civilian casualties of US military actions. You think that when you fire artillery into a metropolitan area there is no civilian death? But what the hell, they are all terrorists anyways right?

When the majority of said civillians have run the hell away? Not terribly many. In any even with a population around 25,000,000 the US would have to have killed 10,000 civillians to get to 60/100k. Frankly I don't think there is a way in hell that the men in the field wouldn't notice that.

Even the NY Times study didn't have a handle on civilian casualities in areas like Fallujah, a rather gross oversight wouldn't you say? You know why? Because they US military isn't interested in releasing such information.

Because the US army doesn't have such information. Do you think the scum in Fallujah were kind enough to flag their dead so that they were readily distinguishable from civilian corpses? Hell no. When dealing with militants who piss on the Geneva Conventions you can't get an accurate accounting of who is the enemy and who happens to look like the enemy but happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Is every body found with a weapon a militant? No, many civillians are Kalishnikov armed for their own protection. Is every body found without a gun not civillian? No, it is common practice to take weaponry from the dead, particularly RPG's, for the living to use. Hell you can't even tell definatively with women and children.

What I do know is that people like Coyote are trained professionals, they have been given ROE's and for the vast majority of time follow them. US tactics revolve around minimizing casualties, ours and civillian. Until I see evidence that civillian casualties bring the numbers up substantially I will stand by the fact that much of Iraq is more secure than Gary, Indiana.

BTW, thanks for conceeding that outside of a few "hotspots" Iraq is more stable than certain burned out US cities.

If you don't call vaporizing cities full of civilians with nuclear weapons in retaliation for an attack on a naval base, and the relative balance of casualties, to be a fairly clear indication of our vengefulness when wronged, I don't know what will do it.

Americans beat the enemy until he knows he is beaten or they are unwilling to carry on the war. WWI is the only exception to this and Pershing correctly predicted that it would have be done all over again because of it. The idea behind the complete destruction of Imperial Japan was not to take revenge for dead sailors, but to instill into the Japanese nation the idea that the should not, cannot, and will not ever be able to defeat the US and that being a threat to the US is a decidely BAD idea.

Once an enemy is no longer a threat, perceived or real, Americans happily sell Big Macs and Coke to their newfound allies.

[The Kernel]

When the majority of said civillians have run the hell away? Not terribly many.

Oh please, most of these areas weren't even close to completely evacuated before major military operations began. It took months to properly clear out Fallujah.

In any even with a population around 25,000,000 the US would have to have killed 10,000 civillians to get to 60/100k. Frankly I don't think there is a way in hell that the men in the field wouldn't notice that.

Why not? If you destroy a building with artillery, are you going to say "well, there were probably some civilians in there..." or "nothing but terrorists!"?

Because the US army doesn't have such information. Do you think the scum in Fallujah were kind enough to flag their dead so that they were readily distinguishable from civilian corpses? Hell no. When dealing with militants who piss on the Geneva Conventions you can't get an accurate accounting of who is the enemy and who happens to look like the enemy but happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Precicely. And now you hit on the root of the problem: lack of information. You compared Iraq to the US with OFFICIAL MURDER NUMBERS where the US is a country with an official structure for reporting such things, while in Iraq hundreds of murders could go unnoticed due to destroyed infrastructure and war casualties.

Is every body found with a weapon a militant? No, many civillians are Kalishnikov armed for their own protection. Is every body found without a gun not civillian? No, it is common practice to take weaponry from the dead, particularly RPG's, for the living to use. Hell you can't even tell definatively with women and children.

No you can't, thanks for helping my case.

What I do know is that people like Coyote are trained professionals, they have been given ROE's and for the vast majority of time follow them. US tactics revolve around minimizing casualties, ours and civillian. Until I see evidence that civillian casualties bring the numbers up substantially I will stand by the fact that much of Iraq is more secure than Gary, Indiana.

Then you are fucking blind. You think the US military is going to release any estimates on civilian casualties? Fuck no, even if they knew they wouldn't tell anyone. The professionalism of the troops in Iraq is irrelevent, when you fight a "war" in an urban environment, you are going to get massive amounts of civilian casualties.

BTW, thanks for conceeding that outside of a few "hotspots" Iraq is more stable than certain burned out US cities.

Wrong, this is untrue as well. If Iraq had the same infrastructure for reporting its dead as the US does then you'd have a point, but it doesn't so you don't, especially not on the fringes.

[Thinkmarble]

When the majority of said civillians have run the hell away? Not terribly many.

Anyone older then 16 ( IIRC ) and male was not allowed by US soldiers and policy to leave the city.

[Coyote]

The military would fight like dogs but if the US military was defeated it depends on what the enemy does: harsh subjugation would, indeed, bring the vicious guerrilla war you envision.

But a victorious enemy that moves in and essentially leaves things as they are-- Friends reruns; pizza delivery under 30 minutes; all the beer they can drink; nighclubs left open... I see a lot of people just acquiescing.

This is the part you forgot to make note of when I wrote that.

Well, you just must have grown up with different people than I did ... I simply don't know the Americans you're referring to, not as a majority of the population. Not even as a significant percentage. Question the need to make war far from our shores? Always, that's a citizen's duty in anything that calls itself a democracy. Fail to fight when friends and loved ones are being killed by an enemy on our shores? Let me know when it happens.

Like I said, if the occupation is gentle and peaceful and does not disrupt services and luxuries too much, people will take it. A brutal occupation of blood and fire will be met with war, indeed.

[Chmee]

The military would fight like dogs but if the US military was defeated it depends on what the enemy does: harsh subjugation would, indeed, bring the vicious guerrilla war you envision.

But a victorious enemy that moves in and essentially leaves things as they are-- Friends reruns; pizza delivery under 30 minutes; all the beer they can drink; nighclubs left open... I see a lot of people just acquiescing.

This is the part you forgot to make note of when I wrote that.

Just seemed too farfetched to even comment on ... how do you conquer America 'bloodlessly'? Conquering America's military on its own soil would require massive firepower with massive collateral damage, there would be no way to avoid spawning a huge guerilla resistance. And who would *bother* conquering us just to leave things as they are? No foreign power exists who could or would do it, and the means of doing it are nearly inconceiveable.

Maybe I have a regional bias in this belief ... in a 75-mile radius from where I'm typing are Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base, the Everett home port for USS Lincoln's battle group, Whidbey Naval Air Station, and the Bangor base for Trident subs .... I'm not sure there's a country in the world that could successfully invade this STATE, much less the U.S.

A domestic military coup, something along the lines of Seven Days in May, sure I could see people accepting that without armed revolt in the correct political environment. Foreign invasion? No chance. Nobody likes Canada *that* much.

[Coyote]

Well, I'm from Boise, Idaho land of the hunter-libertarians, and I hear a lot of talk about how they'd resist tooth and nail and all that but there's a whole different perspective to life and what you're willing to put up with when the sharp pointy things are flying through the air.

I agree, the ability to defeat the US military with minimal damage to the US general population would be damn hard to do, but not impossible.

A lot really does depend on the enemy, and once again we're back to the perceptions of what the enemy is going to do with us when they are done taking over. If there is a enemy that is clearly superior and can defeat us, or force a long, drag-out war if we dare resist, I can see a lot of Americans advocating just bowing down.

See, we have exalted safety and convenience over actual liberty and freedom. Liberty and freedom require things like "responsibility" and "motivation", things which have taken on a dirty meaning in the US unless you're in pursuit of a money-making career.

"Freedom" today means, "well, I can buy a Sony or a Panasonic entertainment system". Freedom does not mean, "I'm going to go vote for the guy that I think is the best for the job based on what I've researched."

Right now we are safe-- we cannot be put to the test because no one, militarily, can challenge us. But if, say, China in 20 years has an economy and industrial capacity as strong as ours, and have modernized their military with an aerospace and defense industry equal to ours, and get serious about developing a blue-water navy with littoral assault units...

Well, maybe we'll find out just how much it all really means to us.

During my Archaeology time in Israel, I picked over the ruins of numerous Roman forts. They once thought that they were forever, too.

[tharkûn]

Oh please, most of these areas weren't even close to completely evacuated before major military operations began. It took months to properly clear out Fallujah.

I am not saying a majority of civillians left the city, I'm saying a majority of civillians saw where a bunch of insurgents with guns, RPG's, and masks were taking up positions and did what anyone sensible would do: run away.

Why not? If you destroy a building with artillery, are you going to say "well, there were probably some civilians in there..." or "nothing but terrorists!"?

Because few buildings hold a fraction of 10,000 people. We aren't talking about office towers of apartment complexes here. Given the professionalism of today's US soldier I find the idea that even a significant percentage of the dead are civillian is untenable.

Precicely. And now you hit on the root of the problem: lack of information. You compared Iraq to the US with OFFICIAL MURDER NUMBERS where the US is a country with an official structure for reporting such things, while in Iraq hundreds of murders could go unnoticed due to destroyed infrastructure and war casualties.

I compared the best numbers availible from one area with the best numbers availible from another. There are murders within Detroit that go unreported, Jimmy Hoffa still hasn't turned up. Given a lack of evidence showing massive civillian casualties from artillery strikes, the point stands.

think the US military is going to release any estimates on civilian casualties?

I think that if 10,000 civvie casualties went down the good men and women serving in the armed forces would speak out. If massacres of that size were occuring SOMEBODY would step forward. Besides which arty collateral damage doesn't differentiate between men, women, and children terribly well ... yet the morgues are filled overwhelmingly with men.

The professionalism of the troops in Iraq is irrelevent, when you fight a "war" in an urban environment, you are going to get massive amounts of civilian casualties.

Prove it. Israel managed to go into Jenin and kill 22 civillians, and that is from pro-palestinian sources. Shin Bet identified 2,124 dead Palestinians whom it could identify, 66% were known members of Hamas, IJ, Tanzim, Al Asqa, or Force 17. Modern western urban warfare is not Stalingrad, most of the time strikes are well targeted and if warning is given, most people get the hell away from the guys with guns playing Alamo.

If Iraq had the same infrastructure for reporting its dead as the US does then you'd have a point, but it doesn't so you don't, especially not on the fringes.

What infrastructure do you need? You count bodies in the morgue or graves in the graveyard. Then you determine cause of death and you have the death toll. The LA Times used these basic methods back right after the war to get body counts and the infrastructure then was obliterated. Including auto fatalities is duplitious or downright pathetic journalism.

Given the obscene disparity between "fighting age males" and all other population demographics; it is idiotic to beleive that civillian death tolls come remotely close to isurgent death tolls. The vast majority of individuals shot by US troops are going to be combatants, and for all your talk of artillerly the majority of bodies aren't coming in after having been blown apart by the big guns, but have been shot with assault rifles. Do come back with the numbers showing a dramatic uptick in the number of dead from shrapnel and HE as opposed to bullets and then you might have a point about 10,000 dead civillians being mistagged as insurgents.

The blunt truth is it is far easier to mistake insurgent dead for civillians than it is to mistake civillian dead for insurgent dead.

Many parts of Iraq are safer than Gary Indiana. Take Umm Qasr, has there even been an insurgent attack in the last year? Or go up into Kurdish area, why exactly would the previously autonomous Kurdish zone have a wealth of insurgents? The locals support the elections and the peshmerga aren't about to turn the place over to Arab Sunnis or Ba'athists to make a gallant stand against the Americans. Parts of Iraq are certainly safer than the dregs of America. There is jack didly squat new about holding elections in the midst of violence, assassination, intimidation, and uncertainty. It ain't perfect, but is legitimate democracy.

[Chmee]

Well, I'm from Boise, Idaho land of the hunter-libertarians, and I hear a lot of talk about how they'd resist tooth and nail and all that but there's a whole different perspective to life and what you're willing to put up with when the sharp pointy things are flying through the air.

I agree, the ability to defeat the US military with minimal damage to the US general population would be damn hard to do, but not impossible.

A lot really does depend on the enemy, and once again we're back to the perceptions of what the enemy is going to do with us when they are done taking over. If there is a enemy that is clearly superior and can defeat us, or force a long, drag-out war if we dare resist, I can see a lot of Americans advocating just bowing down.

See, we have exalted safety and convenience over actual liberty and freedom. Liberty and freedom require things like "responsibility" and "motivation", things which have taken on a dirty meaning in the US unless you're in pursuit of a money-making career.

"Freedom" today means, "well, I can buy a Sony or a Panasonic entertainment system". Freedom does not mean, "I'm going to go vote for the guy that I think is the best for the job based on what I've researched."

Right now we are safe-- we cannot be put to the test because no one, militarily, can challenge us. But if, say, China in 20 years has an economy and industrial capacity as strong as ours, and have modernized their military with an aerospace and defense industry equal to ours, and get serious about developing a blue-water navy with littoral assault units...

Well, maybe we'll find out just how much it all really means to us.

During my Archaeology time in Israel, I picked over the ruins of numerous Roman forts. They once thought that they were forever, too.

Don't get too down on us just from the bad apples you meet, and I do know they're out there. Freedom, right here right now, also means people who do fundraising for marine science centers and administer scholarship programs in their spare time, just because they think it's good for their community ... it's volunteering to be a canvasser for your local district on election day, just because you think it's part of your civic duty ... it's organizing your co-workers to wrap Xmas presents for a charity that gives toys to needy kids every year, just because you think it's a good thing to do ... basically the people I know.

It's easy to get down on us because of the greed and commercialism and self-indulgence that you see all around you in this society, but that's probably just as distorted an image of us as it is to say that we should judge the American soldier by collateral damage incidents and a couple sick fucks who torture prisoners in custody -- it would be ignoring the truth about the majority, wouldn't it?

As for Rome .... well, their enemies not only had good reason to hate them, they could just march on down to fight them. The Chinese mindset would have to change so much for them to ever imagine sending a soldier to North America that it seems about as likely as an alien invasion. I can see the U.S. and China coming into conflict over resources or strategic locations, but if they're desparate enough for resources to contemplate an invasion, they'll be invading Australia, not America ..... closer to home, far smaller population, and just as much coastline to defend (sorry Aussies).