Posted on 02/23/2006 12:06:07 AM PST by Wiz
February 22, 2006: The roadside bomb (or IED, improvised explosive device) has proved to be the most successful weapon of the terrorists in Iraq. As a result, IEDs tend to get reported as some kind of newish super weapon. However, IEDs have been around for several generations. The only reason they are getting so much ink in Iraq is because the terrorists are unable to inflict many casualties on American troops any other way. The Sunni Arab fighters in Iraq are, historically, a pretty inept and pathetic bunch. This can be seen in the amazingly low casualty rate of American troops. By comparison, an American soldier serving in Vietnam was over twice as likely to be killed or wounded.
IEDs were used in Vietnam, but caused (with mines and booby traps in general) only 13 percent of the casualties, compared to over 60 percent in Iraq. The reason for this is one that few journalists want to discuss openly. But historians can tell you; Arabs are lousy fighters. Hasn't always been this way, but for the last century or so, it has. This has more to do with poor leadership, and a culture that simply does not encourage those traits that are needed to produce a superior soldier. In a word, the North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong guerillas were better, and more deadly, fighters. Contributing factors include better training and equipment for American and Coalition troops. But most of the reason for the historically low casualty rates in Iraq have to do with Iraqis who don't know how to fight effectively.
(Excerpt) Read more at strategypage.com ...
ping
That's a pretty shitty title to read for those who lost loved ones to an IED.
They work, but not often.
But they definitely work.
With all the surplus munitions over there it can't cost them that much and their main targets are people in vehicles that they can hit with a remotely controlled explosion. It is less deadly than say a skilled sniper, but it is cheap and relatively safe for the bombers.
I'm sure the people killed by IEDs are unimpressed by the statistics.
2,300+ of our troops killed... most by IEDs, and they are ineffective... uh ok.
Well you managed to contradict yourself withing that single paragraph.
May not be a stunningly effective as a weapon against trained troops that are on the look out for them, but Abdula taking his kids to the market sure pays a high price.
Still, one can hardly call it a waste of money, when you scavange the explosives off of long forgotten battle fields and caches and use a garage door opener or cell phone to set it off. Your total costs are probably under $50. If you are lucky, you take out a soldier that cost the US half a million to train. If un-lucky, there are now more Iraqis that fear you. Cheap.
Frontline last night was on the various terrorist groups in Iraq. There was one photographer who was in Fallujah during the US assault, and witnessed the ineptitude of most of the Arab fighters there: dumb kids brainwashed into fighting but not actually taught how to fire a gun. The main point drawn from the show, however, was the interesting divide between the nationalist and religious resistance. It's apparently mostly the real hard-core religious nuts who are killing civilians (and using suicide bombs), while the nationalists focus on US and Iraqi troops with IEDs and mortar/sniper attacks.
Now you can understand how difficult it is to train the new Iraqi military and police units. They learned from those same methods and poor habits.
10% or less success rate, and some one claims it works. Ok, keep on supporting terrorists as you want to.
10% of success rate and some one a pro-terrorists claims it effective, supporting terrorists are making a success. Oh, ok...
I'm sure the people killed by IEDs are unimpressed by the pro-terrorists people here claiming terrorists are making success while only 10% or less doing damage.
So it doesn't hurt a bit ?
Seriously - the iraki sunny fighters are quite a laugh compared to the turkish or to the viet cong or to the marines etc etc.
But they live there and they get a constant supply of fresh idiots and stuff to tinker IEDs.
The question is - can we stop them to perform inefficient actions that add up to be efficient enough to win ?
Remember they don't have to defeat the USMC they just have to break the will of the american public to support this war.
I'm pretty impressed by some people supporting terrorists by claiming terrorists are making success with IEDs while ony 10% or less recognized doing damage, brainwashed by MSM. I guess some of the DUmmies are here on Free Republic today engaging in propaganda. Well, these people have no information about the background, and have never done such research.
What they are saying is that these "recognized" IED's are the ones that we find before driving by. This means our tactics are working.
What this doesn't say is that the IED's you DON'T see are killing as efficiently as ever! The IED's I've had go off against convoys did do some damage. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Did I ever say the service members were invincible to IED?
"Recognized" means those detonating too. Recognized means those found before, and those detonated together. Those not recognized are those not found, and did not detonate without doing damage.
You didn't specify strategic or tactical. Strategically, it doesn't work. We are not leaving.
But tactically, when they detonate, they work. There's got to be scores or hundreds of Allied forces wounded/killed by these things. On that level they work. If I lost a loved one to an IED and I saw you say such a thing in person, I'd punch you in the throat.
And your petty effort to say I support terrorists makes you look like a gutless pansy. Is that an accurate portrayal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.