BS?: "US Marines Are Locked In Battle With Syrian Troops"

[Bigduke6]

Drusus,

Is that "killed in combat" or "killed in the war zone, meaning more than half the deaths are accidents, mostly automobile accidents".

It seems to me the number of U.S. troops killed by bombs and so on every month is about 20 or so. Maybe 30. But not 70, that would be an average 2 dead or shot daily, plus a few extra on holidays. That seems a bit high.

You raise a valid mathematical point, except for one thing: the 150,000 Americans in country rotate through. I have no idea of the statistics, but I guarantee you the average U.S. policeman stays in the job, longer than the normal service tour in Iraq, even if the Feds make you go two or three times.

How much of that policeman's career is actually dangerous, considering he will probably move on to an admin job, is of course another thing to consider.

My point is that if the definition of being in a war is wandering around a place where people can shoot you, and given the arms levels in the U.S. civilian population, the average U.S. cop works in a situation qualifies as a combat zone, by U.S. military standards. Let's not forget U.S. Apache pilots, heck, fast mover F-18 pilots, are getting combat pay for the very small risk of flying over Iraq. This zoomie is a hero that needs a write-up in the newspaper, and that cop over there in the wards convincing drunks to put down the knife isn't doing something more dangerous and difficult?

Also let's not forget that most of the U.S. military is tail, meaning at max 20 per cent of the force is ever on something even vaguely resembling a battlefield with enemy actively shooting at them. The rest just ride around, do their admid/log/combat support job, and run the risk of being hit by a roadside bomb - which is a lot less than the risk of smashing up in an automobile accident.

Now look at the policeman. The civilians are mostly armed, the cop is wearing armor, and if the cop looks the wrong way at the wrong time, he's dead. And the cop can't call in artillery.

Every time a cop stops a speeder in the states it can be life or death. It is true that Iraq is a heavily-armed country, but the U.S. is not so far behind.

Kind of a shame no one is paying attention to the cops.

Although if you want deaths on the job supposedly the winner is fisherman aboard a trawler, their annual mortality supposedly is 3 per cent.

[Peter Cairns]

Aren't there cities or neighbourhoods, in America where someone of the average age of a soldier in Iraq is more likely to get shot than someone on active duty, or was that just someone spinning a line on TV.

Peter.

[Tarquelne]

It may be a deocratic government, but, it won't be like ours.

Freudian

slip?

[Cpl Steiner]

A few people have mentioned "road-side bombs" in Iraq.

As a Brit, I grew up with the Northern Ireland "Troubles" on my doorstep as it were. I remember that there, the British Army avoided roads like the plague. They went everywhere by helicopter. The reason? Lots of roads in Northern Ireland have streams running under them through culverts, and the IRA would routinely place explosives in these culverts to blow up passing British Army vehicles.

What I cannot understand is why the US in Iraq is losing so many men per month to simple bombs of this kind. The US has more helicopters than any other nation on Earth. Just stop using the roads so much!

Perhaps there is something in the American psyche that would see this as some sort of admission of defeat. I certainly wouldn't see it that way. If it saves lives, why not?

Am I being simplistic, or do others agree?

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It may be a deocratic government, but, it won't be like ours.

Freudian

slip? </font>

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke... you have to include the non-combat injuries. If you look at how these guys have to drive, what they are driving, and how they are driving... it is a part of their job and therefore valid to calculate. And the fact is the troops in Iraq are, on an average and daily routine basis, cops. That is the role the military hates the most, is least prepared for, and is least suited for.

There is a quiet, and unfortunately not well listened to, debeate about creating a separate "occupation" type force to replace frontline troops for all but the most difficult offensive operations. The occupation troops would be trained for the duties instead of having to learn them on the job. It would also fix one of the major problems reported by troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan... the guys raiding and blowing up houses, and carting away the surviors, wear the same uniforms as the guys patrolling the streets and overseeing reconstruction. I've yet to hear anybody say this is a good thing, but have heard many stress how very bad it is for nation building.

On that note, the US does have an extremely poor record nation building. The major success was Germany. To a lesser extent Italy and Japan. Although stable, they each have had rather significant long term problems that they are still working through. But they are stable, peaceful, and generally demacratic. So they are successes. South Korea and the Philippines were decent acheivements, but the corruption and totalitarian tendencies in both show that the job of stabalizing a country is not the same as making it free and fair for the population that lives in it. Bosnia and Kosovo are too early to tell yet, and they are 10 years in progress already. Repeated raids into Central and South America have not yielded very good results, and Haiti is a disaster many times over. I think I've hit the major ones, with tons of involvement in other disasters (Iran, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, etc.).

So again, nation building is difficult, long range concept. The problem is that the Bush Admin embarked on two massive attempts, concurrently, with on the shortest term plans possible (i.e. defeat current country, occupy it, then figure out how to fix it). The sad thing is that all the knowledge needed to do a 1000% better job is out there, but it is not being used because it would mean admitting there currently is no plan and never was one. And that just ain't going to happen. At least I don't see it happening now and now is already 3 years overdue.

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

I was leaving roadside injuries out of the equation to be fair, because if you include it in cop deaths probably goes through the roof. I would assume the top cause of preventable on-the-job police deaths is road accidents. This is of course not factoring in heart disease and similar pressure-related causes of death, which may or may not have something to do with the fact the victim was a cop.

But in general I think you are quite right. That's what I'm trying to point out: the Iraq war isn't so much a war as a giant attempt to police the Mother of Bad Neighborhoods.

The U.S. military makes all this noise about "new paradigm of war" and "thinking outside the box", but for two years now they have been hitting Iraq with a conventional war hammer, in the assumption the problem is a conventional battlefield nail.

This policy is so wrong-headed, I am still a bit astounded professional U.S. officers sign up to the policy. There is all this hooey about "the men are the officers' first priority", but somehow I think I would respect a U.S. officer more if he said: "This conflict is just going to get some of my men maimed and killed for nothing. I resign my commission."

Kind of the same gripe I have against v. Paulus at Stalingrad, when you come to think of it. An officer is expected to think critically, and his responsibility to his men goes beyond following orders from higher command. When the orders are unreasonable and destructive of his men, for no viable goal, the true professional officer is morally obliged to quit. Gudarian and Manstein did, and their reputation hasn't exactly suffered over the years.

So one kind of wonders why it is the U.S. officer corps is so gung ho, or at least, why so few are resigning commissions in protest. Careerism? Ignorance of Middle Eastern history? A belief that somehow "the men" will be better protected if the officer bites down on his moral objections, and goes to "war" with his men in spite of the uselessness of the war?

And here's a really loaded question for you: "How long do you think U.S. public support for the war in Iraq would have lasted, if U.S. public education treated history and foreign affairs with the same respect as, say, in Scandinavia?"

[Drusus]

Seems I am talking about different thing... Some quotes follows:

Posted by Nidan1 No reporting about how the sacrifices of American troops would mean safer neighborhoods in the rest of Iraq, or how Americans were forced to step up because the Iraqis were not capable of dealing with Fallujah on their own.

Posted by BigDuke6 Second, since when is an American soldier just doing his job news? We have cops and firefighters, heck, doctors in ER wards treading AIDS-infected drug addicts, who have jobs a good deal dangerous than the overwhelming bulk of U.S. troops in Iraq. Do those civilians get written up as heroes? Do they do less for the U.S. society? Why are they less important than U.S. troops under on average a smaller personal risk in Iraq, for a much shorter period of time?

So, I though about the frontline troops job. The ones patrolling. Their job is really dangerous. Propably something like maximum of 50% are in this kind of job. And of them only a portion are in battlefield conditions. If we take your figure of 20% and 30 killed in bombings, we end up with 30000 and 30 in a month, meaning over 1% killed in a year. Now you were talking about the overwhelming bulk of U.S. forces. And true, they propably are relatively safe. But to talk about sacrifices of American troops, it would seem strange Nidan1 meant the cook on a carrier.

We have one another problem, that is how we define the dangerousness of a job. Is it the total time you are in that job or per time period? If you end up in Iraq you have a risk of one in 200 to be killed and 3 in 200 of being wounded during a year. If you are in the rear then almoust no risk. And if you are in the front troops you have a much bigger risk. I am not so good with this language, so I am not exactly sure what this means: "...U.S. troops under on average a smaller personal risk in Iraq, for a much shorter period of time?". It seems that you are suggesting that U.S. troops are under a smaller personal risk per time period. But I think it is safe to say that is wrong.

Last thing. From the Iraq Coalition Casualties page:

Total Fatalities since May 1, 2003: 2059

Hostile Fatalities Since May 1, 2003: 1665/1547

(There are three figures, Total, Hostile and Hostile U.S. fatalities. Before the '/' is hostile fatalities and the last one is hostile U.S. fatalities. I don't know if the Total is referring to U.S. or overall fatalities.)

So, the majority of deaths seem to be from hostility towards U.S. troops, not car accidents.

[juan_gigante]

If I recall my statistics correctly, then BigDuke is right. Crab fisherman in the Bering Sea is far and away the most deadly job in the United States.

A quick Google gives a little info:

Originally written by the Coast Guard:

In 1996, fishermen death rates were 16 times higher than protective service occupations such as firefighter, police officer and detective and almost eight times higher than that of people who operated motor vehicles for a living.

BigDuke6, you make a really good point with this:

Originally posted by BigDuke6

the Iraq war isn't so much a war as a giant attempt to police the Mother of Bad Neighborhoods

Very true. The logical next step might be to say that many of our problems stem from having our soldiers be trained to be soldiers, not trained to be policemen. The next question to ask is, should we train some or all of our soldiers to be policemen? Is the world we now live in one where the every soldier must be capable of not only destroying an enemy force, but of acting as a peacekeeper/policeman? Should there be some soldier units and some police/peacekeeper units? A line of thought I think is worthy of exploration.

[Kellysheroes]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It may be a deocratic government, but, it won't be like ours.

Freudian

slip? </font>

[Folbec]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Germany, Japan, Italy....I think they were done alright by, no?

Significantly different ballpark though. In the cases of Germany and Italy, those were Western countries who had a cultural heritage that overlapped ours to a very large degree going back for generations. </font>

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

If I recall my statistics correctly, then BigDuke is right. Crab fisherman in the Bering Sea is far and away the most deadly job in the United States.

A quick Google gives a little info:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally written by the Coast Guard:

In 1996, fishermen death rates were 16 times higher than protective service occupations such as firefighter, police officer and detective and almost eight times higher than that of people who operated motor vehicles for a living.

BigDuke6, you make a really good point with this:

Originally posted by BigDuke6

the Iraq war isn't so much a war as a giant attempt to police the Mother of Bad Neighborhoods

Very true. The logical next step might be to say that many of our problems stem from having our soldiers be trained to be soldiers, not trained to be policemen. The next question to ask is, should we train some or all of our soldiers to be policemen? Is the world we now live in one where the every soldier must be capable of not only destroying an enemy force, but of acting as a peacekeeper/policeman? Should there be some soldier units and some police/peacekeeper units? A line of thought I think is worthy of exploration. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

The logical next step might be to say that many of our problems stem from having our soldiers be trained to be soldiers, not trained to be policemen. The next question to ask is, should we train some or all of our soldiers to be policemen? Is the world we now live in one where the every soldier must be capable of not only destroying an enemy force, but of acting as a peacekeeper/policeman? Should there be some soldier units and some police/peacekeeper units? A line of thought I think is worthy of exploration.

This idea has been kicked around in informed circles for at least 20 years that I am aware of. I think it is not only a good, but an obvious idea. Unfortunately, it is one that has been consistently rejected by policy makers both in and out of uniform. For some reason I have not taken the time to try to fathom, Congress is not eager to earmark funds for such a force. So, since it would have to come out of existing defense budgets, and since existing services and programs within those services fight tooth and nail to hang on to their budgets, nothing ever gets done. To a large extent, it's a bureaucratic problem.

Frankly, this is a role I don't see the US and the US services embracing any time soon. And I don't think we'd be especially good at it if we did take it on, at least not right away. This is the kind of job that other national services are more experienced with and better set up to perform. But in order to get them seriously involved, the political climate has got to change. My country has got to recognize that it has to give up the 600lb. gorilla act and learn how to function in a cooperative enterprise with other UN members. And of course, the US is not the only nation that needs to absorb this lesson.

Michael

[MikeyD]

The U.S. did train a substantial proportion of its forces for police duties. Unfortunately they're almost all National Guard units performing their 2 weekends a month! The current pressures to perform multiple 1 year (plus stop-loss) overseas rotations into hot war zones have strained the whole National Guard concept - and Rumsfeldt's concept that "People are fungible" - to the breaking point.

[FAI]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

The U.S. did train a substantial proportion of its forces for police duties. Unfortunately they're almost all National Guard units performing their 2 weekends a month!

There are many nations that specifically raised para-military / police-infantry forces for that purpose. Basically police officers in light infantry formations and equipment. Or light infantry with additional police training. They're not meant to pacify occupied territory though, more likely to bring order to restive or rebellious areas.

[Colin]

Well, if you have a legitimate war you don't have to worry about raising a second policing force. It's called your UN allies. If the UN wasn't so impotent they would have recognized that Bush would go in anyway and tell them that the US could do the heavy lifting but it would have to be UN troops on the ground for the restructuring. It should have been the UN's job to stop Bush, and I do really blame them not the US.

No one thought 'hey these guys have never liked the US, let alone having their troops in the streets, maybe we shouldn't have these guys in the country or a lot of people could die!'. No one has the answer here.

[Peter Cairns]

Colin,

So basically what your saying is that if your ally is going to start what you think is a stupid and needless war and you can't talk them out of it, you should volunteer to fight the stupid needless war for them.

Just as a matter of interest, if you were walking down the street with your mate on a Friday night and he said " I am going to cross the street amd start a fight with those Hells Angels over there just for the hell of it", and you thought he was serious, you would say " Hell no, you stay here pal, and I'll go over and do it for you".

Peter.

[Speedy]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Colin,

Just as a matter of interest, if you were walking down the street with your mate on a Friday night and he said " I am going to cross the street amd start a fight with those Hells Angels over there just for the hell of it", and you thought he was serious, you would say " Hell no, you stay here pal, and I'll go over and do it for you".

Peter.

Cool, Hey Colin do you want to go out on the piss Friday night?

[juan_gigante]

No, you'll buy a drink, but he'll go ahead and drink it for you, being a good ally and all.

[Splinty]

I have to ask, how many of you have actually been to Iraq? I'm betting none. Ask any of us who have been there and we'll tell you things are 100% better than they were when we got there.

We ARE opening schools, hospitals, helping the poor, etc. All of this is part and parcel of nation-building in a very harsh and chaotic environment. We (to include the Iraqis) stand for something, that is bringing freedom to a people who have been oppressed for decades at least. The insugency stands for nothing except death and chaos, and in the long run they WILL lose or become impotent which amounts to the same thing. One other thing for all you morons who think we should cut our losses and leave now. If we pull out, all those Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines will have died, been maimed, injured or just spent a hard tour in a very dangerous place, will have done it for NOTHING! And I for one find that to be completly unacceptable. All this talk of failure is nothing but the yammerings of fearful, ignorant, fools being led around by the nose by politicians looking to gain votes in the upcoming congressional elections ( or discredit the U.S.) and it makes me nauseous to hear otherwise intellegent and educated people sucked into the hype.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Ask any of us who have been there and we'll tell you things are 100% better than they were when we got there.

Okay, you've got my curiosity up, Splinty. In what capacity were you in Iraq, and for what dates?

Michael

[Drusus]

Well, I must say that at the moment I think that withdrawing from Iraq is a bad thing. It would be bad for Iraqi people, it would be bad for Middle East and it would be bad for the rest of the world. If the country is left now I think there would be a civil war breaking out. There are more good reasons not to leave the country: Iraq Strategy (whitehouse.gov). BTW I think this quote tells that the U.S. are going to leave bases there: "While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize."

While it may be true that you are trying to build a free country and help people, the thing that matters is that atleast at the moment Sunnis aren't so sure that they are going to end up in a free society and in a better country for them. Why don't they believe in that the things you are doing are for their good? Well, lying about the reasons to go to war (at least from their point of view) doesn't help. Being careful not to mention oil as the reason for anything doesn't help. The thing that U.S. funded security contractors have been reported to shoot people randomly doesn't help. The thing that the Iraq security forces have been reported to use torture doesn't help. Paying papers to include news written by U.S. Army might lead somebody to think that there is a possibility that the society isn't going to be so free after all. The insurgents aren't fighting for destruction but they are fighting for their rights, their future. If you want to see their point of view just check out the pictures of this alJazeera article. Tells everything with two pictures, no need to read the article... aljazeera.com.

I don't know what the situation in Iraq is, but the important point is that as long as the Sunnis are thinking that what you do is not good for them, they are going to fight. And in solving that situation it doesn't help either that you are picturing them as just trying to destroy things. This is not the goal of the Sunni insurgents.

What I am afraid is that the pressure to leave Iraq is going to make the Bush administration to take the easy way, that is building up a Shiite based force and then leave the country in their control. This would lead in possibly worse atrocities than what Saddam did. At the moment there isn't really good choices for the U.S. administration. But the Bush government has nobody to blame but themselves.

[Peter Cairns]

Michael,

Actually I don't think you should criticise Splinty for his 100% comment, after all he could well be right, if you rated the situation as 1 out of a hundred when you got their and now it's 2, well thats a 100% improvement isnt it.

Peter.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Splinty:

If we pull out, all those Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines will have died, been maimed, injured or just spent a hard tour in a very dangerous place, will have done it for NOTHING!

I have never understood this line of thinking. The only reason to stay rather than pull out should be whether or not you think the job can be completed successfully. If your assessment is that it can't, then staying will just cost more lives needlessly.

If you think there really is light at the end of the tunnel, then send more troops and get the job done as quickly as possible. If however, it looks like a hopeless cause, the best way you can honour the memory of those who have fallen is to save the lives of their comrades by bringing them all home.

[Peter Cairns]

Cpl Steiner,

I am with you 100% on this one.

The notion that you should keep sending men uselessly over the top in memory of those that you sent uselessly over the top in the last big push should have been left where it belongs in WW1.

Splinty reminds me of the anonomus quote from WW2,

" Having lost sight of our objectives we must redouble or efforts".

The tail shouldn't be allowed to wag the dog, forces are their to carry out political objectives not to dictate them.

Once you allow the fact that you have paid a high price to start to influence and change your original objectives you end up fighting a different war from the one you started.

probably the best example I can think of this is the way in which the right in france tried to get rid of DeGaul, because he was thinking of pulling out of Algeria.

Politically the price was to high but the army wanted to fight on because they had paid a high price.

Result France came close to having a military government.....

Peter.