[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[Ace Pace]

Ghetto edit so it dosn't seem like I support KHL....

These numbers are actual executors of plans made by planners, led by cell leaders(each with their own bodyguards), who cordinate with informats and the like while spreading propaganda.

A good chunk of the insurgency is used on tasks such as moving people, keeping tabs on people, making bombs, the like, far less are actual people who go out and shoot.

[KHL]

But lets say it takes 10 men to perform a bombing attack: 1 man to set off the device, maybe another 1-2 to act as spotter and the other 7-8 can do whatever else would need done to set up the attack (make the bomb, acquire the material, scout the location etc).

The claimed likely number of insurgents is 180,000. If we use that figure, and lets go with a conservative estimate that for every 10 man "team" they can average 1 attack per month, then we should be seeing well over 600 attacks per day. At an average of 1 attack per team per week and we should be seeing 2571 attacks per day.

We know there is no shortage of explosive materials or other weapons. Nor is there a shortage of targets for them to attack. So what the hell are the rest of them doing? Playing darts and shooting pool all day?

You have any sources for these numbers, or you just pull them out of your ass?

Well for the total number of insurgents, I got those numbers from posts here from Brianecyi. I believe he got them from globalsecurity.org among other places. I did a brief google search and found an average of 50-60 attacks per day, but I went with Brian's 100 attacks per day figure quoted earlier in the thread.

As for the estimates of 10 insurgents per attack would be needed, I guess you could say I "Pulled them out of my ass" however, they don't seem unreasonable.

[Ace Pace]

As for the estimates of 10 insurgents per attack would be needed, I guess you could say I "Pulled them out of my ass" however, they don't seem unreasonable.

See my post above, do you understand the concept of logistics and supplies? While an insurgency does not need the backend of a modern army, the ratio of combat to rear end soldiers in modern armies should give you an idea of how many of those insurgents are actully tied up doing rear end work.

[Stravo]

Once again dropping in with another random and abberant factoid. A recent study by US Army indicates that on average a successful insurgency (meaning it is not completely destroyed, etc) lasts on average 9 years.

Add in a drop of personal anecdote. A woman complained about losing her son in a recent attack on Haifa(I may have the town name wrong, going from memory) which was retaken for the FIFTH time since the end of hostilities. That's right folks. We've secured the country so well that we lose entire towns and fight to retake them over and over again.

There are no functioning banks in Iraq (Two years after a Mission Accomplished) so people are paid in cash that is airlifted into distribution centers.

Electric power is only now, two years after Mission Accomplished at Pre War Sadaam levels.

All these facts can be found in the latest issue of Newsweek which I read on the train ride up to Boston this weekend.

[KHL]

Ghetto edit so it dosn't seem like I support KHL....

These numbers are actual executors of plans made by planners, led by cell leaders(each with their own bodyguards), who cordinate with informats and the like while spreading propaganda.

A good chunk of the insurgency is used on tasks such as moving people, keeping tabs on people, making bombs, the like, far less are actual people who go out and shoot.

The 10 person estimate was to account for the other tasks you mentioned: moving people, keeping tabs on people, making bombs etc.

The point I was tryign to illustrate is that people throw out these huge figures represeting the "number of insurgents" but when they are only average 1 attack per day for every 1800 of them, either the total is vastly over estimated, or the vast majority of them are non combatants. Although I suppose one could argue that they are just plain "lazy" too ...

[Surlethe]

I personally think that Religion on its own terms isn't the problem. Its when you slap the word organized on it and that people start forming political power blocks that you begin to have trouble.

Care to throw out a religion which isn't organized? Especially since the definition of the word "religion", given the context, is "a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship [of a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator of the universe]."

Nearly every religion out there has organizations of some form or another, but not everyone who follows a religion belongs to one of these organizations. And I'm not talking your local church or mosque, I'm talking about large organizations such as the "Christian Right" or the "Nation of Islam" who seek to influence politics and impose their religious views on the general populace.

The "Christian Right" is an actual organization?

[LordShaithis]

Incidentally, I recently spoke to an online friend of mine who's a Stryker driver on leave from Iraq. According to him, the local Iraqi forces really are that bad. He says they "fuck off" whenever the Americans aren't around, and describes their building-clearing tactics as a "death blossom" ala The Last Starfighter. He expects them to collapse as soon as their aren't enough Americans around to keep them in order.

[Ace Pace]

Add in a drop of personal anecdote. A woman complained about losing her son in a recent attack on Haifa(I may have the town name wrong, going from memory) which was retaken for the FIFTH time since the end of hostilities. That's right folks. We've secured the country so well that we lose entire towns and fight to retake them over and over again.

Uh...Stravo....Haifa is a city in Israel, one of the largest, with an Intel development center and a port.

It does definetly not exist in Iraq.

[Surlethe]

As for the estimates of 10 insurgents per attack would be needed, I guess you could say I "Pulled them out of my ass" however, they don't seem unreasonable.

See, the problem with these random numbers is they disagree with numbers brianeyci provided. The difference is his numbers are from a real source, not shitstained like yours.

[Stravo]

Ghetto edit so it dosn't seem like I support KHL....

These numbers are actual executors of plans made by planners, led by cell leaders(each with their own bodyguards), who cordinate with informats and the like while spreading propaganda.

A good chunk of the insurgency is used on tasks such as moving people, keeping tabs on people, making bombs, the like, far less are actual people who go out and shoot.

The 10 person estimate was to account for the other tasks you mentioned: moving people, keeping tabs on people, making bombs etc.

The point I was tryign to illustrate is that people throw out these huge figures represeting the "number of insurgents" but when they are only average 1 attack per day for every 1800 of them, either the total is vastly over estimated, or the vast majority of them are non combatants. Although I suppose one could argue that they are just plain "lazy" too ...

You know I think its funny too that 2000 Americans soldiers lie dead, another 10,000 wounded and I believe over 25,000 Iraqi Civilians dead or wounded because of 'lazy' insurgents. Thank you for putting in perspective for us just how tiny and insignificant one attack a day is.

[Ace Pace]

Ghetto edit so it dosn't seem like I support KHL....

These numbers are actual executors of plans made by planners, led by cell leaders(each with their own bodyguards), who cordinate with informats and the like while spreading propaganda.

A good chunk of the insurgency is used on tasks such as moving people, keeping tabs on people, making bombs, the like, far less are actual people who go out and shoot.

The 10 person estimate was to account for the other tasks you mentioned: moving people, keeping tabs on people, making bombs etc.

The point I was tryign to illustrate is that people throw out these huge figures represeting the "number of insurgents" but when they are only average 1 attack per day for every 1800 of them, either the total is vastly over estimated, or the vast majority of them are non combatants. Although I suppose one could argue that they are just plain "lazy" too ...

Again, as I've mentioned, these things have massive rear end, not to mention a large number of insurgents do not operate 24/7, some have to keep up a facade of real life, others need to keep moving. I'll gladly concede this point if you bring up solid proof to show that the insurgency should be alot more active then it currently is. Otherwise we're dealing with imaginary numbers with only the vaguest evidence behind them.

[Stravo]

Add in a drop of personal anecdote. A woman complained about losing her son in a recent attack on Haifa(I may have the town name wrong, going from memory) which was retaken for the FIFTH time since the end of hostilities. That's right folks. We've secured the country so well that we lose entire towns and fight to retake them over and over again.

Uh...Stravo....Haifa is a city in Israel, one of the largest, with an Intel development center and a port.

It does definetly not exist in Iraq.

Well damnit it had H in it and it sounded Iraqi.

[SirNitram]

The 10 person estimate was to account for the other tasks you mentioned: moving people, keeping tabs on people, making bombs etc.

The point I was tryign to illustrate is that people throw out these huge figures represeting the "number of insurgents" but when they are only average 1 attack per day for every 1800 of them, either the total is vastly over estimated, or the vast majority of them are non combatants. Although I suppose one could argue that they are just plain "lazy" too ...

As I've always expected, Republitards have no clue what the footprint of military operations, organized or guerilla, require. This explains why Bush sent insufficient troops: He and his are simply imbeciles.

So, you want to lay explosives? You need someone to obtain the materials, someone to prepare them(Which, of course, requires skills; otherwise, you just blow up your apartment), someone to scout the routes of your target, and finally, a team to go lay them. If it's the remote-det kind that has been around alot, you need someone physically there.

Oh, and you need people to provide support for these fighters. And people to make sure no one notices they're not where they would otherwise be.

And of course, it's not the same ten guys every day. Only in the cartoon-like delusions of you and yours, KHL, would a Snidely Whiplash and his cretins scamper hither and thither across the desert doing all the work.

You're an imbecile. Smarter people than you worked this out. But I suppose that's all discredited because you can't understand it.

[KHL]

As for the estimates of 10 insurgents per attack would be needed, I guess you could say I "Pulled them out of my ass" however, they don't seem unreasonable.

See my post above, do you understand the concept of logistics and supplies? While an insurgency does not need the backend of a modern army, the ratio of combat to rear end soldiers in modern armies should give you an idea of how many of those insurgents are actully tied up doing rear end work.

Yes I understand the concept of logistics. And yes logistics for a group such as the insurgency would be far lower than those of a modern army since . However, figuring in 1-3 combat personnel backed by an average of 7-9 support personnel (hence the 10 man "team") per attack would seem to be rather conservative on my part which is why I went with it. "By contrast, in the U.S. Army, the proportion of combat forces to support elements -- known in military jargon as the "tooth-to-tail" ratio -- is closer to 50/50" (information found approx 2/3rds down the article)

[KHL]

*Edit*

I got interupted on that post. First part should read:

Yes I understand the concept of logistics. And yes logistics for a group such as the insurgency would be far lower than those of a modern army since the insurgency doesn't have to fuel and maintain the fleet of Vehicles the army has, and most of the insurgents likely provide their own food, water, and clothing.

[Edi]

Goddamn I'm glad there's several people doing the heavy lifting against KHL's IWOI, his obstinacy might cause exhaustion if he only had one or two opponents. It's like he's channeling the worst of Axis Kast.

KHL, take the suggestions given here and go and read some FACTS about what the situation is like in Iraq. Time Magazine has had several good articles based on interviews with insurgents that give a good, if rough, outline of how they operate. You have no argument, and I assure you that the quota for regular trolls whose IWOI insanity is kept around for amusement value is already full. So persisting with the line of idiocy you've spewed in this and the other thread is more likely than not to get you banned when the staff gets irate enough.

We value facts and logical analysis highly, and you've shown no propensity to use either. You just prefer to state your opinions as fact and then get pissy when called on it. You've even ignored statements based on direct experience fromn people who served in Iraq and told you you were on the wrong track (Coyote). It's no wonder you're getting dogpiled on here. You're asking for it and N&P hasn't had a good chewtoy for a while.

Edi

[SirNitram]

*Edit*

I got interupted on that post. First part should read:

Yes I understand the concept of logistics. And yes logistics for a group such as the insurgency would be far lower than those of a modern army since the insurgency doesn't have to fuel and maintain the fleet of Vehicles the army has, and most of the insurgents likely provide their own food, water, and clothing.

So the fact it doesn't have a military-industrial complex behind it doesn't matter? Fascinating bullshit, really. What next, the power of the LAWD! will defeat the insurgency?

Just a little something for you to chew on: If they're so pathetic, weak, lazy, and powerless, what does it say that the Bush Administration and US Military can't stop them?

[KHL]

Care to throw out a religion which isn't organized? Especially since the definition of the word "religion", given the context, is "a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship [of a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator of the universe]."

Nearly every religion out there has organizations of some form or another, but not everyone who follows a religion belongs to one of these organizations. And I'm not talking your local church or mosque, I'm talking about large organizations such as the "Christian Right" or the "Nation of Islam" who seek to influence politics and impose their religious views on the general populace.

The "Christian Right" is an actual organization?

Er I meant the Christian Coalition...

[Coyote]

Minor nit to pick-- there is a 'Haifa' in Iraq, it is a common Arabic name for towns. It means 'beautiful' and a lot of Arab girls get names 'Haifa' as well. There is also a 'Paris' in Texas and a 'Bagdad' in California, for example.

In a way, though, one of the best things we could do to defeat the insurgency is to remove ourselves from the area. If we could manage it, we could remove our fottprint from the ground and fight this Kosovo-style: use our airpower to back up Iraqi Army strikes. If we need boots-on-ground, use heliborne insertions and then leave.

Without the Americans to unite them, a lot of the resistance would fall upon each other and fight for control of the country. Secular Ba'ath loyalists and religious theocrats have nothing in common except a desire to kill Americans. Remove the Yanks and they go to each others' throats.

I suspect that if the Iraqi Army gets to a reasonable degree of competence, reasonable enough for political purposes, we may see most US troops pull out and replaced with such air-power-projection, depending on who's in charge of the White House by the time it gets to that phase. It would be a good compromise between 'pull out' and 'stay the course'-- fulfilling the task of backing up ther Iraqi gov't without getting dirty ourselves.

Niow, whether this ends up being a good idea or not, well...

[brianeyci]

The insurgency has managed to kill just over a percent of all American military forces in Iraq. A percent. Think about it. Without aircraft, without artillery, without tanks. And they don't need it. Because, it's a logical problem. No matter how efficient the Americans are at killing, one man can only secure so many square meters of territory, and there aren't enough Americans. The population is apathetic at best or openly hostile to the Americans at worst. The insurgents will continue to move among the people, and there's not a damn things the Americans can do about it except persevere and hope for the best.

Your entire premise KHL relies on number of attacks being the only quantifier of capability of the insurgency. That's not necessarily true, and you don't even need to go into the logistical implications. One big damaging attack is better than a hundred smaller attacks. Just because there's a hundred attacks a day, that doesn't mean the insurgency is somehow weak or pathetic or lazy. The fact that they've managed to kill a percent of the American forces in Iraq is proof of their capability.

Brian

[KHL]

*Edit*

I got interupted on that post. First part should read:

Yes I understand the concept of logistics. And yes logistics for a group such as the insurgency would be far lower than those of a modern army since the insurgency doesn't have to fuel and maintain the fleet of Vehicles the army has, and most of the insurgents likely provide their own food, water, and clothing.

So the fact it doesn't have a military-industrial complex behind it doesn't matter? Fascinating bullshit, really. What next, the power of the LAWD! will defeat the insurgency?

What?

Just a little something for you to chew on: If they're so pathetic, weak, lazy, and powerless, what does it say that the Bush Administration and US Military can't stop them?

The simple answer: They're working on it.

[KHL]

The insurgency has managed to kill just over a percent of all American military forces in Iraq. A percent. Think about it. Without aircraft, without artillery, without tanks. And they don't need it. Because, it's a logical problem. No matter how efficient the Americans are at killing, one man can only secure so many square meters of territory, and there aren't enough Americans. The population is apathetic at best or openly hostile to the Americans at worst. The insurgents will continue to move among the people, and there's not a damn things the Americans can do about it except persevere and hope for the best.

We are continuing to attrit their forces as we discover them. I'm sure we will never completely "wipe out" the insurgency anymore than we can wipe out all crime in America. However we can continue to weaken it and we are.

Your entire premise KHL relies on number of attacks being the only quantifier of capability of the insurgency. That's not necessarily true, and you don't even need to go into the logistical implications.

Not just number of attacks. The number and scale of the attacks indicates a much smaller and weaker insurgency than you would have us believe. Even with the 100 or so attacks per day, the most we hear about are the 3-4 "big ones" that end up killing a few people. The rest may inflict injuries etc, but they aren't anything major. For a so-called "180,000 member" insurgency that is just plain pathetic.

One big damaging attack is better than a hundred smaller attacks. Just because there's a hundred attacks a day, that doesn't mean the insurgency is somehow weak or pathetic or lazy. The fact that they've managed to kill a percent of the American forces in Iraq is proof of their capability.

Brian

All that prooves is that their capability is negligable. Their kill to loss ratio essentially guarantees that they have no chance of victory, especially as they erode their support amongst the people by taking out scores of civilians in their "successful" attacks.

[Surlethe]

The rest may inflict injuries etc, but they aren't anything major. For a so-called "180,000 member" insurgency that is just plain pathetic.

You know, KHL, you're using brianeyci's claim "we should be planning for 180,000 insurgents" and distorting it to claim he said "there are 180,000 insurgents".

[KHL]

The rest may inflict injuries etc, but they aren't anything major. For a so-called "180,000 member" insurgency that is just plain pathetic.

You know, KHL, you're using brianeyci's claim "we should be planning for 180,000 insurgents" and distorting it to claim he said "there are 180,000 insurgents".

The reason you would plan against 180,000 insurgents is because that is the estimate given as the likely number of insurgents.

C'mon Brian back me up on this

[Darth Wong]

Precisely how many dead bodies would it take for you to consider the insurgency to be a serious problem, troll? And how do you justify your assertion that it is not a serious problem below this magic threshold?