Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

i'm goijng to make a bold prediction.

US Casualties will continue to increase in Iraq.

Iraqi casualties will continue to increase.

Posted by anonymous at March 9, 2007 02:33 PM

US Casualties will continue to increase in Iraq.

Ah. Instead of going down, you mean? As soldiers come back from the dead?

That is bold. Color me impressed. I wouldn't display my intellectual abilities (so to speak) quite so openly.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 9, 2007 02:41 PM

I'm going to make a less bold prediction. Anonymous Moron will continue to flaunt his low IQ here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 9, 2007 02:50 PM

Simberg

I know you like showing off for your crowd of somewhat
socially retarded readers here, but, at the end of the day,
there are 160,000 plus soldiers fighting and dying in
a pointless effort.

You've crowed dozens of times about how X means
the corner is turned, and yet, the casualty rate continues
to increase.

Most people are smart enough to realize that when you
have turned several corners and you don't find
the scenery changing it may well mean that you are
in a labyrinth.

It's sad that you are so addicted to your ideology that
you can't admit that.

Posted by anonymous at March 9, 2007 06:38 PM

Carl excluded the stay flat case.

So, what anonymous is saying is that there will be at least one more American and one more Iraqi killed in Iraq. Even as a left leaner, I have to say that I am observing a formidable mind at work.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 9, 2007 07:33 PM

I didn't see any mention of this being a turned corner, and in point of fact I would suggest that this is merely another step forward in a long, long fight. What I did see mentioned, however, is that this can hardly be seen as bad news (for ourselves or the Iraqis), and that would seem to be incontestably true, unless of course you are rooting for the other side...

Rand, I know you have given some good reasons against doing something about this pest, but I really wish you would reconsider. I have no problem with reasoned debate with a variety of perspectives participating (in fact it is one of the things I value about this blog), but does this mean that every infantile ranting must be endured?

Posted by Scott at March 9, 2007 10:26 PM

Bad news? Why of course its bad news, for the leadership of the Democratic Party, for most of the mainstream media, for the "anti war" crowd, for the readers and posters at Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, for (clearly) Anonymous, and, most certainly, for the enemy that they all support.

Posted by Michael at March 10, 2007 10:18 AM

I know you like showing off for your crowd of somewhat socially retarded readers here, but, at the end of the day, there are 160,000 plus soldiers fighting and dying in a pointless effort.

First off, Mr. anonymous, let me say as member of the somewhat socially retarded readers here, that it's so typical of people who are not conservative or libertarian to deteriorate to name calling. But don't let yourself be deluded into thinking that your little tirades move us away from our beliefs. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but how about you kiss my somewhat socially retarded and ideologically addicted @ss.

Why is it that your ideas or ideals so morally superior to anyone else's? Because you say so? Not much of an argument for anyone's side, but it's typically what I hear from the anti-war crowd. I do believe that war is not healthy for children and other living things, but either is religious or secular totalitarian government.

This to me, your daily blathering and name calling, is the difference in the two sides of all current political debates. Conservatives or libertarians believe in true free speech. Anyone counter to that kind of ideology thinks free speech is believing in their own sides ideas and anyone who is against those ideas should be called names, belittled, lied about, shouted down and silenced in the name of supposed hate speech and somewhat social retardation or their ideological addiction.

How about this, O Sage of the Left, for a change instead of being anti-our side, be pro-your side. I want you to give me just one true example of how the war is pointless. Not rhetoric, facts. Not anti-war double speak, facts. Not the DNC talking points, facts.

Give us your wisdom on how to exit, how to live in the world and how America can get back in the good graces of the world.

I await with breathless awe your response.

Posted by Steve at March 10, 2007 10:35 AM

Steve:

Why is the War Pointless?

Simple Data:

1) Casualties: The steady daily men/day getting killed or wounded
has been steadily growing. Where back in 03, it was
averaging 1-2/day, it's now averaging 3-4/day.
This same metric is showing up in the wounded rate.
The wounded were running 200/month now it's
running 600-700/month.

2) Size of Insurgent forces: DIA estimates of insurgents
in 2003, was less then 2000, now the estimate is anywhere
from 60-200 thousand insurgents.

A simple conclusion to draw is that the longer we stay
there, the more men will die and at a higher rate.
Another simple conclusion is that the longer we
stay in iraq, the more insurgents we create.

my data source is icasualties www.icasualties.org

Simberg talks all day about Moqtada this, Al Sharabi
that, but, the big picture is that our Strategy is a net negative.
I look at 4 years of data and I see now a battalion a month
getting chewed up. I can extrapolate that to get worse.

Steve, A very simple question is "Do you think our
casualty rate is getting worse?" If you say yes, then
we can go forward, if you say no, we can't have a
reasoned debate.

Now how to get out? I'm going to suggest an unpleasant
truth. If staying makes things worse, and if staying
is just increasing our casualty rate, then
leaving seems like the best of a bad set of options.

My belief that this is pointless is that the casualty rate
continues rising, despite every benchmark of progress.
Elections, more iraqi forces, Constitution, and the
daily rate rises.

So, Steve, Do you think the Daily rate of casualties is Rising?

Posted by anonymous at March 10, 2007 03:35 PM

Yes the casualty rate is higher now than a year or two or three ago. Casualty rates rise and fall in ALL combat situations. But when they rise, regardless of the rate, you don't throw in the towel and quit.

How much higher were casualty rates in Europe BEFORE D-Day, than after? We had air crews dying daily for 2 years before Jun 6, 1944. What about casualty rates in N. Africa as opposed to landing at Anzio? There were increases periodically depending on whether we were fighting German or Italian troops all up the Italian Peninsula. How high were casualty rates before the Bulge, than during or after? Or before we entered Germany as opposed to after?

How high were casualty rates in the South Pacific day to day, before after or during new assaults?

How high were casualty rates before the stand at the Chosin Reservoir in S, Korea than after? We still have periodic casualties there, do you propose a pull out there too?

How high were casualty rates in any given month in Viet Nam? I have part of the answer for that one. At their highest it was 280 per week in 1969. But those figures include the Tet Offensive. Following your thinking when casualties started to drip off why didn't we stay?

My point is that you don't decide simply because of slowly or quickly rising casualty numbers to leave the field.

You say the number of insurgents has gone up tenfold in 3 years from 2000 to 200,000 as reported by the DIA. But that our death rate has only doubled. Either we're getting BETTER at not getting killed or they're getting WORSE at killing us. Either way, it sounds like a better tactical arrangement for the coalition side. As time goes on we are killing and capturing more of them and more senior members of theirs. That's because as newer guys come up to take over they lose some knowledge as a group.

Listen I don't say the things I say lightly. My grandfather was in the Army between the great wars. My father was in the Air Force during the Korea War. I was a cold warrior in the late '70s and early '80s when Jimmy Carter was gutting the military, shorting our pay raises to 2% when inflation was at 12 to 14 %. I have two sons of an age to be in this fight. One is career Navy looking at 6 months boots on the ground doing support sometime in the next two years. He's already done two deployments stopping pirates, gun runners and oil smugglers since 9/11. He'd done 4 before that stationed out of Japan during the early '90s up to 9/11/ My other son has already been there in Iraq as a Combat Engineer. He is looking at being recalled by the Marine Corps to go back. He is a prime candidate. He is in the right window of time in his inactive reserve time and he's still working with his military training. He's a professional blaster.

Between them they have 5 sons. Here's their attitude about this war, and guess what its the same one handed down for the last 3 generations from father to son, just with different enemies.

We've all prayed, Please, God even if it takes my own life, don't let this fight fall to my sons!

So to round this up. Yes more men and women are dying, more will keep dying. But it's an all volunteer force, better trained than ever before, scoring higher in military entrance exams than ever before, with most enlisting and then asking to go and fight. You personally can crunch the numbers all you want, but wars aren't about crunching numbers for those of us that took that oath. Wars are about honoring our commitment to our word in that oath and protecting our country and protecting our families.

And as hard as it is sometimes to remember, it's even about protecting people who disagree with us on wars and whether they should be fought. Men and women like you.

Remember that ultimately we didn't start this little fracas. 19 well fed, well dressed, middle-class American men did not hijack 4 Iraqi planes and fly them into targets in Muslim countries. We didn't send car bombers to blow up two Iraqi or Iranian or even Saudi Arabian Embassies, we didn't try to blow up one of their Naval ships from Muslim countries and kill and maim 50 people. Those things were done too us, not by us.

Posted by Steve at March 10, 2007 04:55 PM

Steve-That is the single best post I've read this week. Excellent job, and thanks.

Posted by Stephen Kohls at March 10, 2007 06:00 PM

Steve

Air crew losses slowly decayed on a per-sortie basis over time.
That was an indication that tactics were improving, technology
was improving, Axis air and anti-air capability was decaying.
Of course it is a big question wether the strategic bombing campaign was effective. Tactical air superiority had real
improvements for the ground campaign, strategic air never
did much to affect Axis morale or production with a few exceptions.

Sure, US Casualties were rising as German lines shortened,
as they began fighting closer to home and the level of intensity
rose, but it was very clear we were making real progress.

Does it seem like progress to you to be fighting Ramadi 4,
Fallujah 3, Tal Afar 2 or Baghdad 2?

You've agreed our casualty rates are rising.

Now the next question?

Do you think we are making progress militarily?
Do you think refighting battles is a sign of progress?

Posted by anonymous at March 10, 2007 07:10 PM

Steve,

Thank you for your service.

Anonymous,

My impression is that we have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. My impression is also that we are learning from those mistakes, if not always as quickly as we should, and are making slow progress. My take on history is that we will either admit defeat and withdraw from Iraq or we will keep making mistakes until we win. If we withdraw before we win, it will be a great victory for our enemies and will weaken us greatly and for many years to come. So even though I am dismayed by our often-inept war leadership and by the drumbeat of American casualties, I cannot see how our withdrawal without first achieving victory could conceivably be preferable to muddling through.

Posted by Jonathan at March 10, 2007 07:37 PM

Its pretty obvious that this particular anon is working for the other side. He is our enemy and he is here to promulgate his sides propaganda. The insurgents do not have the firepower and the training to stand toe to toe with our military on the open battlefield. The tactics they wage clearly demonstrate that they are struggling and grasping for any means necessary. One of their weapons is an information campaign. They are simply using what little technology they do have to try and rot our will and determination from the inside out.

The insurgents/terrorists have no mechanisms in which to monitor their progress. They have no congress to develop standards of conduct and encourage maximum proficiency in operations the way that we do. They don't have a media that is cheering for the other side to win. They can bumble along and perform mistake after mistake and face little to no retribution and criticism for their numerous ill conceived notions. Hell, we caught one of their idiot operatives on a dry run trying to sneak into a airplane with a magnet and wires shoved up his ass. Where not dealing with geniuses here by any stretch. Which is by far the most troubling part because these idiots refuse to recognize that were trying to help their sorry asses. More so, they fail to realize that they have lost.

Posted by Josh Reiter at March 10, 2007 08:32 PM

Jonathan:

How would you assess progress, when we are fighting the
fourth battle of Ramadi?

Posted by anonymous at March 10, 2007 09:17 PM

Anon asked,
Do you think we are making progress militarily?

Not right now. But I know, from first hand accounts of guys we know who are there, that we are changing the minds of many Iraqis about the west and America. The majority of Iraqis are no happier about the fighting or insurgency than we are.

Do you think refighting battles is a sign of progress?

No I don't. But again thats the fault of the planners, not the fault of the chosen mission.

You asked jonathan how he would assess progress. Personally, I would assess progress this way.

We are showing people who were told we wanted to kill them and their children that it was a lie. It's working to the point where the average Achmed on the street trusts us around his kids. The people openly share what little food and drink they have with our troops. When hungry, scared people shake your hand, and give you gifts its not an act of hate or fear. We can't confuse the majority of average Iraqi citizens who want to be left alone to raise their families, with the few radical Islamofascists who want to kill anyone who will bow to their radical philosophy.

If we allow the radicals to take over Iraq, they will in short order set up schools to train young boys to hate and want to kill us. We can't allow that to happen.

Posted by Steve at March 10, 2007 09:55 PM

How would you assess progress, when we are fighting the fourth battle of Ramadi?

In the short run, I don't know. In the long run, by the robustness of the Iraqi democracy, and by the overthrow and/or sudden cooperativeness of the Syrian and Iranian regimes, and by democratization in those countries.

The problem with the whole "how do you measure progress" mindset is that it sets us up to fail. Whoops, we didn't meet our monthly goal, gotta withdraw now. I think we must win, and the way to win is to decide we are going to win and then to stick to the job until we do. Any hint of lack of resolve on our part infuses our enemies with new strength.

It sucks, but the alternative of premature withdrawal sucks much more.

Posted by Jonathan at March 11, 2007 07:45 AM

Steve:

You asked me why I think this war is pointless, One true
example.

I pointed out our Daily casualty rate is increasing,
Correlate that with the fact we are refighting
battles indicates at best we are in a stalemate.

I can point to 4 years of data, that show we are
going nowhere. You say we are going nowhere
militarily, Gen Petraseus says we are not going
to solve this with military force.

Why do i think this is pointless, we seem
to be in a hole and digging deeper.

Steve, Given my 2 facts presented, which you
agree with, can you see the basis for my opinion?

And if i describe some of the readers here as
socially retarded, just look at Josh Reiter.
Discussing an opinion makes me one of the
terrorists.

Steve you seem like an honorable man, but,
how can a democracy discuss anything when
the act of dissent is treated as treason?

You say you and your family have been
fighting for this society and it's constitution.
Do you believe we should cease all discussion
or dissent until the war in iraq is over?

Posted by anonymous at March 11, 2007 09:44 AM

Anonymous:

Why in the world should anyone have a debate with you over anything?

You show up on thread after thread, repeating the inane question "Why isn't Rand in Iraq?" as though it were a germane question.

Called to task, you actually come with something substantive, and NOW you demand that others treat you like a legitimate debating partner?

Sorry, that don't wash.

Act civilized for a while, and maybe you'll be treated like a civilized person. 'Til then, I'm inclined to see you as the spoiled obnoxious brat that you've been acting.

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 11, 2007 11:03 AM

anon,
I see the basis for your opinion, but I disagree with your outcome. Here is how your side of the argument looks to me,

2 + 2 = fish

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, because we obviously are not going to change the others ideas on this topic.

As to your name calling, you didn't qualify it with Josh Reiter's name nor anyone else's, you took a broad swipe at Rand's,

...crowd of somewhat socially retarded readers...

and when you made that statement Josh had not commented yet. So good try at a block, but it's no good.

I've never called anyone a terrorist for speaking their mind on getting out of the war. That's name calling and I think my previous comments can show what I think of name callers. You don't want to be called a terrorist but felt it was OK to do quite the same to someone else. Why? Again, why is tour opinion so morally superior?

You can counter this comment if you want, but I'm done. I don't yield the day or the opinion fight, but I won't waste any more pixels or key strokes on you. Most assuredly on this topic and most probably on any others.

You Sir, are a verbal bully who wants to say things not needed and in no way helpful IMHO. When you feel you're losing control of your point you drop back ten and resort to name calling. You will nit pick anyone who tries to have a reasoned discussion with you, I've seen it time and again.

I'm with Scott on this one, why Rand doesn't just bump you off of his blog is a wonder to me. Especially when you are rudest to him and it's his blog to start with. The best way to counter you would be to ignore you. With no one to argue with or no one commenting on your ideas you'll hopefully just fade into the woodwork.

Rant on.

Posted by Steve at March 11, 2007 02:51 PM

Steve

You asked for objective reasons why I thought the war is
pointless, i gave you 2 reasons.

Posted by anonymous at March 11, 2007 06:24 PM

I've made a comment similar to this before, but it's worth repeating.

Before we invaded Iraq, we were worried that Saddam was getting nukes, biological, or chemical weapons, and that he would use them or give them to terrorists. Although there has been no hard proof that he had such things, there has been abundant proof that he was ready to get them quickly after the US finally got tired of sitting on him--and make no mistake, if we hadn't taken him out, he would have had WMD at some point. Since we invaded Iraq, Saddam is gone and we have no current worries about a dictator in Iraq developing WMD and supplying them to terrorists. And as unstable as Iraq is right now, at least the Iraqis now have a chance for something better--I'd say that no one in their right mind would say that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was a bad thing in and of itself.

Before we invaded Iraq, we had had 9/11, the previous bombing of the WTC, and various attacks on US targets outside Iraq. Since we invaded Iraq, there have been no major successful terrorist attacks on US targets outside Iraq. That probably won't hold forever, but it's certainly been a success so far.

So at least two successful goals of the invasion so far have been (1) get rid of any threat of WMD from Saddam, and (2) bottle up the terrorist threat to US targets in Iraq.

I'm pretty sure I could come up with other successes--we got rid of the heinous "Oil for Food" program, we're capturing and killing enemy terrorists at a rate we weren't before, we're able to get out of Saudi Arabia and take away the "US invading the holiest land" propaganda, we're better positioned to deal with Iran militarily if necessary, and so on. But even if those first two points I mentioned were all, we have done much better by fighting than we ever did by not fighting.

Thank you, US soldiers, for your successful fight so far.

Posted by at March 12, 2007 02:23 PM

it was 7 years between WTC 1 and 9/11.

So, the period of time to declare success is at least 7 years.

The question should not be how many terrorists are we killing,
but are we creating them at a faster rate then we kill them?
It appears we are.

How are we positioned to deal with Iran?
Are you suggesting we invade Iran?
Are you suggesting we use Air Power?

Iran appears to have the ability to mess with our troops
at almost any temperature, and we don't have the ability
to respond. Any air strikes allows the Iranians to slide in
low intensity strikes.

Posted by anonymous at March 14, 2007 08:33 AM

I have spent about two years of my life in the hole that they call Iraq. I do not like to see my brothers in arms killed, but we all know what we signed up to do. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I do not believe that Americans have learned from mistakes made in Vietnam. Are all you bleeding heart liberals going to put us soldiers through the same discrace Vietnam vets were forced to endure in the 70's? Over 3,000 Americans were killed in a single attack in the name of Jihad. Since then we have been engaged in what has been dubbed the War on Terror. In this fight we have lost over 3,000 of my brothers and sisters in arms. I have personally lost several of my friends. Please don't let you're political opinions cause us to leave with a mission unaccomplished and our tails between our legs. Think back to 1968, the TET offensive. Do you not think that our friends in the middle-east read they're history? We have a liberal controlled congress and elections coming up next year. I predict that the cowards launch a major offensive next Spring to inflict even more U.S. casualties, because they know what will more than likley happen. They will then be able to wage Jihad on they're favorite targets once again, innocent civilians in the United States.
Yes mistakes have been made, but these people want nothing more but to kill us. Someone wrote that ae are creating more terrorists than we are killing. Where do you come up with such a notion? What did we do to deserve Kenya, the Cole, the WTC? Do you think if we leave Iraq that they'll leave us alone? Think about it. Please if you want to help this country read you"re history. I'm not talking about what the New York Times and CNN tell you, or what you received in public schools or from you're liberal college professors. Get you're info from numerous sources, analyze it, really think about it and then make a decession.

Posted by at March 14, 2007 06:23 PM

AL Qaeda is a problem,

Okay,

AQ is mostly saudis.

Name one Iraqi, involved in 9-11?

If we were bombing Saudi Arabia, i'd be okay with that.

Instead we have a president who swaps spit with the
Saudi King.

Simberg and the neocons had an agenda in iraq.

That agenda was hussein, nothing more, nothing less.
The rest of the agenda is syria and Iran.

Name one syrian involved in 9-11?
Name an Iranian?

Simberg wants war with Iran, let him have his war.
How many americans must die for Simberg's ideology?

Posted by anonymous at March 15, 2007 07:53 AM

Post a comment