Nothing new Mojo. (But it serves as a reminder of the mathematical illiteracy the war planners.) Mathematician John Allen Paulos warned from the day 1 of the invasion that troop deployment levels were too low to be consistent with Lanchester's Law.
Lanchester's Law: Too Few American Soldiers?
By John Allen Paulos
March 30, 2003
It's only when we get down to the level of individual soldiers with rifles in house-to-house fighting that the balance becomes unclear.
It's here that Lanchester's Law suggests that American soldiers' smaller degree of superiority may not always make up for a potential Iraqi numerical advantage (unless weapons more destructive than rifles are unleashed); it takes a big qualitative advantage to overcome a small quantitative one.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology...id=97277&
page=1
K, in NY city in the 1980s there use to be 10 to 12 violent deaths a day. This was reduced to an average of 1 violent death a day in large part by increasing the ratio of law enforcement personnel to the population.
Similarly, the drop in violence in Iraq was achieved by sharply increasing the ratio of IA + IP to the Iraqi population. There use to be 1200 to 1800 attacks a week in late 2006. Over the last 6 months attacks have been about 70 to 105 a week. Recently it has been about 70 a week.
Fortunately, Iraq has the revenue to pay for its own security forces.
In Afghanistan, there are no current plans to increase the size of the ANA and ANP to anywhere near as large as they need to be, nor has the international community offered Afghans the money to pay for it.
There should have been a surge of economic aid the minute Baghdad was secured. Iraqi's had every right to expect substantial and immediate relief. We had at least 6 months of calm before the storm. That was plenty of time to provide a generator for every home. The electric grid couldn't handle demand in 2003,and we knew it would take years to repair. We could have made sure every home had enough to eat,instead of continuing the meager food ration system. Instead,we let Al Sadr feed,and recruit,hungry Iraqi's. We watched Al Qaida hire desperate young men for a couple hundred a month. Young men we could have hired to clean streets,if nothing else. If Iraqi's had seen us making a serious humanitarian effort earlier,we wouldn't have needed a surge of troops later.
Mojo,
I just don't think a 25% increase in troop numbers in 2003 could have made a difference in Iraq. It wasn't in Sadr's interest for it to. The Sunni Arabs (as a whole) didn't see it as in their interests. There still would have been Najaf 2004. There still would have been Fallujah.
The Surge worked in 2007 because the Anbaris finally got on board the new Iraq. I suppose an early Surge might have slowed the build-up of the insurgency if we'd had enough troops in Iraq to clean up all the weapons dumps. But it would have increased the number of US casualties as well. It might have forced an earlier US pullout.
We also might have kept all the Ba3thists in place in the police force and let them retain control of the military and forced AWOL Kurds and Shi'a back to their ranks. But that the Kurdish and Shi'a leadership avowed that that would have lead to secession.
Sometimes, an ideal outcome is just not possible. 4000 KIAs to democratize Iraq is a phenomenal success. Powell will just have to be happy with that.
CMAR II, I disagree with you regarding Muqtada. Muqtada and Chalabi were closely aligned in early 2003. They took out Ayatollah Khoei, may peace be upon him, on 4.9.03. It was Muqtada's boys cheering when Saddam's statue came down in the video shown around the world. Garner and some of the neocons were pro Sadrist/Chalabi in early 2003. When Garner was fired, the anti Chalabi/Sadr Bremmer came in. He, together with the anti Chalabi UN, State Department, Brits, and Arab League moved against the Chalabi/Sadr combo. Sadr was denied a seat on the Iraqi Governing council to weaken his ally Chalabi. Perhaps Dawa and SCIRI/BAdr were also a party to sidelining Chalabi/Sadr.
We Americans picked a fight with Chalabi and the Sadrists, not the other way around. Chalabi/Sadr wanted to rule Iraq in April 2003. We got in their way.
I agree with Maury's comments above. Congress should have appropriated $100 billion in Iraqi grants before the war started.
CMAR II, the IA and IP were badly under resourced until 2006, when Maliki and the Iraqi parliament finally approved financing for them. If we had started a massive train/equip program for the IA and IP in April, 2003, it would have made a huge difference in saving Iraqi and American lives. Keep in mind that most Iraqis greeted foreign troops in April, 2003. US troops would have had a positive environment to facilitate economic reconstruction in most of Iraq in 2003.
CMAR II, you are right that in Salahadin, Al Anbar, and some Baghdad neighborhoods, it would have been very bad no matter what. What we should have done is prioritized economic development in the safe parts of Iraq. We did the opposite.
CMAR II, do you know how many troops were in Kuwait & Iraq in 1991?
The Surge wasn't just about increasing U.S. troop levels, it was about beginning the first real counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. That's what needed to happen when the insurgency took off, but never happened. There were individual units that got it, but the majority of U.S. forces until 2007 were about arresting as many Sunnis as possible, carrying out search and destroy missions and then leaving areas, etc. It was also the stated policy of Rumsfeld to withdraw as quickly as possible until the day he was removed. The Surge was also successful because of Sadr's cease-fire, the Anbar awakening, the Sons of Iraq which signaled that most of the Sunnis had turned against the Islamists, and the emergence of the Iraqi forces.
The U.S. definitely needed more troops on the ground during and after the invasion, but if the tactics weren't right, it still might not have mattered unless they went in with the original invasion plan of 500,000. That might have been able to fill the power vacuum that occurred immediately after the invasion whether the U.S. had the right strategy or not.
Mr. K nonchalantly discusses troop numbers, without regard for whom those brain-dead degenerates would've wound up killing.
Gang-raping children and setting them on fire is an established Crusader practice,
is it really such a good idea to advocate more of that?
in NY city in the 1980s there use to be 10 to 12 violent deaths a day.
Yes, I was just in Zurich and 100 people died in a market bombing. There is nothing unusual going on in Iraq
"If you're playing football, favor the other leg."
Mojo, at the peak in late February 1991, there were about 543,000 US troops plus about 300,000 allies in KSA and Kuwait. 45,000 were Egyptian, 45,000 were British, close to 20,000 were French, Syria had a 300 T 72 Tank armored division with about 18,000 troops. KSA, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, were all fully engaged. At least 5,000 Bangladeshis and 5,000 Pakistanis. Many Canadians, Aussies, Italians, and others. Argentina also contributed. Germany and many other NATO countries sent troops north to Turkey, but not to KSA.
Motown, the real surge on 2007 was the surge in the IA and IP. Two years ago, General James Jones publicly stated that the ISOF were as good or better than any other special forces in the middle east (including Israel, Turkey and Jordan.) Two years ago, Commanding Col. Stephen M. Twitty, 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division Col. (who took command of all US forces in Ninevah in Dec'06) declared that the 2nd and 3rd IADs were as good or better than any army divisions he had worked with (from any army.) Two years ago the Marines boasted that the 1st and 7th IADs were the two best divisions in the IA. Similarly the advisers for 8th and 4th IADs raved about their divisions.
All of this happened 2 years ago. This was critical to the victory of 2007.
And if all they were doing was arresting Sunnis and doing search and destroy missions, that would have turned the fight in Iraq? The new tactics are what worked for the U.S. and Iraqi forces, along with all the changes in domestic politics mentioned above.
Motown, Iraqis wouldn't risk their lives until they knew the GoI and IA would win and would protect them and their families. {MNF-I didn't factor since Iraqis didn't believe that they would stay in Iraq permanently to protect them.} When the IA proved that it fought well, and when the locals were sure the IA and GoI would win long term, they choose to openly support the GoI and ISF.
Keep in mind Motown, that Iraqi sunni Arabs were and remain over represented in the IA relative to their share of the Iraqi population (especially with respect to officer corps.)
This sort of shit is why Anand is the biggest moron in the blogosphere, bar none:
[anand] "We Americans picked a fight with Chalabi and the Sadrists, not the other way around. Chalabi/Sadr wanted to rule Iraq in April 2003. We got in their way."
The facts:
April 2003
With the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the hunt for an Iraqi national capable of leading the country into the post-Saddam era has shifted up a gear. This places the spotlight very much on men like Ahmed Chalabi, the controversial head of the London-based Iraqi National Congress (INC). The airlifting of Mr Chalabi into the southern Iraqi town of Nasiriya by the Americans, just a few days before US troops moved into Baghdad, reinforced suspicions that the US regards him as one of its main allies within the Iraqi opposition.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
2939585.stm
July 2003:
QUESTION: There's a story that you took over the intelligence, in The New York Times today.
CHALABI: Well, you shouldn't believe whatever, everything you read in the newspapers. The issue is this: We have, been working very hard to develop information about the whereabouts of Saddam and his sons, and the leading members of this regime, and we have developed a great deal of information, which we share with U.S., and we are working hard to finish this job by finding Saddam.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...7/22/
bn.24.html
October 2003
While no longer serving as president of the 25-member Governing Council, he is still the head of Iraq's delegation to the General Assembly.Thanking President Bush and the allied forces for ousting Mr. Hussein, he said, ''The Iraqis will never forget your sacrifices on their behalf.''He invited ''those in doubt of the intentions of the American and British governments'' to visit the mass graves and other evidence of the old government's brutality."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/0...f-rule-
for.html
Evidently Anand snorted too much curry, and this fried the circuits of his brain in the process.
He simply can no longer distinguish fact from fiction and lives in his own la-la world where things change as he wishes them to.
Somebody ought to zip him into a straitjacket for his own good, and ours, wallah.
The majority of the insurgency flipped to the American side despite the Iraqi security forces and government though.
Having proved its point that the country's oil wealth might temporarily be for rent – but not for sale – some officials said the oil ministry might be more flexible in the next round of bidding this year.
"We said to Shahristani, 'You should not be so strict – we need as much production as possible, and you are pushing them [companies] away,' " says one senior Iraqi official who asked to remain anonymous. "It has to go through a transparent bidding process, but I think they will be more flexible."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/07...06s19-
wogn.html
Your hewoes haven't given up Bruno....
"Three Shiite militia members said extremists hope that by targeting civilian populations in places like Sadr City, they will draw the Americans back into the fight."
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB...3304271591.html
Sounds like the Americans are back in action, then.
Hello ammu!!
i'm really so happy to be here again, after a long absence..
just liked to say hi 
Hi Sandybelle!
Hi Sandybelle! I hope you are doing better, and inshalla everything will be fine!
The majority of the insurgency flipped to the American side despite the Iraqi security forces and government though.
Yes, unbelievable. And they think they actually have a coherent story to offer, these Awakening types.
I saw this one Awakening guy in 2007, he finished his speech by saying: "Victory to the resistance!"
Surreal: 100,000 of them just joined the U.S. army, and he hails the resistance.
The only excuse I can find for them, is that this Awakening thing happened 4 years into the war, so maybe they were no longer capable of thinking clearly.
Whereas the Shiites betrayed on day 1
Motown, the Sawha wouldn't have been possible if the IA and Maliki didn't go along with it. Remember that Sunni Arabs have been and remain over represented in the IA relative to their share of all Iraqis.
Dolly, I am not sure if you are a spoof or not. If you are not a spoof, what would it take for you to agree to one person one vote democracy? Do you support Mutlaq?
No, I don't support anyone in the political process, and the Sunnis involved should be equally targeted.
The reason I'm especially angry with the Shia, is simply that they started first.
what would it take for you to agree to one person one vote democracy?
Well, do you see me being militant about elections in Chile? Belgium?
Why would I care if people vote.
Now it's too late, but what it would have taken for me in Iraq, was an end to the occupation.
The thing that makes Iraqi elections wrong, is that they were organized and sponsored by the murderous aggressor filth.
The elections were a way to legitimize the killing, rather than an honest and harmless attempt to figure out who's going to run public services
Iraqi elections are run by the UN. Why can't Iraqis select their own leaders? What alternative is there? Do you want to let the Arab League select dictators for Iraq? How about Khamenei? The United Nations? Who selects Iraq's leaders?
The Iraqi Army is a fact on the ground. They are a powerful force loyal to the chain of command. How would you convince them to follow anyone other than an elected GoI?
Do you think Joint Forces Chief of Staff General Zebari, Joint Forces Vice Chief of Staff Abadi, or Joint Forces Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and commanding general of the Iraqi Joint Forces Command (IGFC) Ali Gaidan should seize power directly via a military coup? It is either that or an elected GoI. I doubt they would let any foreign powers select a dictator for Iraq.
'Reputed Insurgent Leader to Iraqis: Join Us'
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: July 8, 2009
BAGHDAD — A reputed Sunni insurgent leader whom the Iraqi government claimed to have captured this year called Wednesday for Iraq’s Sunni Muslims to join the group’s fight against Shiites and American troops, according to an audiotaped statement released on the Internet.
The statement, which was attributed to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, reputed leader of the Islamic State of Iraq — a group linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq — said attacks on American forces should continue despite the withdrawal from Iraqi cities by United States combat troops last week.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/0...ref=global-
home
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Bombings in Iraq on Wednesday killed at least 19 people and wounded 58, mainly around Nineveh province, where political tensions have recently flared between Arabs and Kurds.
Most of the casualties were from two car bombs in Shiite areas near the northern city of Mosul -- the provincial capital -- that killed 15 civilians and wounded 40 late Wednesday, according to local security and Interior Ministry officials. The attacks happened within minutes of each other, officials told CNN.
All but one of the fatalities near Mosul were from a car bomb that exploded outside a mosque in the village of Sada wa Baaweeza, officials said. The village is mainly comprised of Shabak people, a minority group within Iraq.
The second car bomb hit al-Qubba, a predominantly Shiite Turkmen area in the northern outskirts of Mosul.
Two other people were killed in a bombing inside Mosul.
Earlier in the day, a suicide bomber attacked a wedding celebration south of Baghdad, killing at least two people and wounding 18, an Interior Ministry official told CNN.
The attack happened in the town of Mussayyab in Babil province, about 30 miles (50 km) south of Baghdad.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORL.../iraq.violence/
But Baghdadi is arrested. You don't believe Maliki or something?
The Iraqi Army is a fact on the ground.
My understanding is that the real Iraqi Army was disbanded, and a fake one was put together by the likes of jew L. Paul Bremer.
The job of the new IA is largely to kill its own citizens to advance American interests.
The pretext for the entire war was WMD, which everyone in the world knew was a lie.
So, much of the insurrection is actually fighting against this unjust occupation; rather than fighting against the idea of equality of citizens of Iraq.
Do you seriously believe the Sunnis would rather die to the tune of 20,000 than accept to be EQUAL? Equal!
You can't seriously believe that they value 'oppression of others' more than their own lives.
No, it looks to me they fight because they perceive themselves as wronged and victimized, rather than just 'reduced to equality' as everyone else in the world.
And by the way, they are correct to see themselves as wronged and victimized, because the war was launched on a fabricated excuse and it killed tens of thousands.
Who selects Iraq's leaders?
No one, until the occupation is resolved. You should have asked them to leave in 2003
The scum of the earth know only how to bomb Iraqi markets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pi...res/
8142447.stm
"Mojo, at the peak in late February 1991, there were about 543,000 US troops plus about 300,000 allies in KSA and Kuwait. "
Wow, that's more than 800k troops, more than 5 times the peak number of allied troops in Iraq since 2003. I guess I never thought about the number of non-American troops in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991.
The Future of Iraq, Part III
http://www.michaeltotten.com/arc...ture-of-i-
2.php
Dolly made an acute observation there: the supposed head of Al Qaeda, who was purported to be an actor, who was not an actor when the Americans supposedly captured him is now again mysteriously uncaptured and not an actor again.
Wow, Omar Al Baghdadi sounds about as slippery as Zarqawi. Why does the term "black flag" spring inexplicably to mind?
Either that, or the Amreeki need to coordinate their propaganda better.
Bruno Likee Mutlaq, Aflaq, and Omar Al Banghdadi. Brave lions in the IA no likee Bruno.
Anand likee bananas up the arse. Brave lions in IA no likee give Anand bananas up the arse. Anand much sad.
Anand's IQ must be like, 10. After he's drunk a bunch of water to float ALL the brain cells into a clump at the top of his under-developed cranium, that is. Otherwise they just drift aimlessly around, much like his thoughts.
I would contest your point that the Awakening, SOI wouldn't have happened without Maliki. He and the other Shiite leaders never wanted the SOI, and never did anything for them. They still consider the whole thing a U.S. creation and a U.S. problem that has little to nothing to do with Iraq. In fact the integration plan that the government finally agreed to was a way to ultimately disarm and disband the entire movement.
Commenting by HaloScan
