U.S. General: Insurgents Planning 'All-Out Assault' on Baghdad

AP ^ | July 21 2006 | Robert H. Reid

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Roach motel scenario....very good.

[WOSG]

LS, on my blog (formerly known as "Liberating Iraq") I too said some time ago (Spring of 2005) that on a strategic level, the terrorists had lost. the strategic elements were the will of US (confirmed by Bush's reelection), the political alignment of Iraqis (who are now strongly supporting democratic Government and are more anti-terrorist as time goes by), and the security capabilities of the Iraqis vs terrorists (Govt gets stronger, terrorists get weaker). There have been some flies in the ointment on that view, principly the level of sectarianism (in part incited by Al Qaeda violence), but it has borne out mostly.

However, it has not been a popular view. The continued violence looks like 'quagmire' to many, when in fact violence is all the terrorists offer now. Levels of violence are such that it looks like the terrorists are as strong as ever, missing the other side of the question which is who the targets are and who is on their side now in Iraq. 2 years ago, this was an insurgency that was pretending to be a 'popular uprising' and so didnt go after civilians. After getting their butts kicked by US forces, they then went after Iraqi components of the security forces; now, they are often defeated by them too, and so go after purely civilian targets in a campaign of pure terrorism. Civilian deaths are higher than ever, but is a sign of the weakness of the insurgency, not its strength, because each abominable makes their unrealistic vision for Iraq more hated by Iraqis.

One wonders how today's MSM would report on Okinawa or the Ardennes - proof that our enemies in WWII were invincible?

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com

[stockstrader]

Why in the world are they being called 'insurgents'. They are NOT insurgents, they are TERRORISTS!!!

I can understand why the MSM wants to call them insurgents--as the term insurgent implies a touch of legitimacy. It also implies a mostly indigenous makeup. Many of the terrorists (by some estimates--most of them) are from other countries,,,Syria, Iran, etc.

By calling them 'insurgents'--instead of what they are, terrorists--the MSM is attempting to disassociate what is happening in Iraq from the overall WOT. Again, I understand the MSM's logic (since they are doing the best to undermine our efforts)--but why does the military (and even many in the President's administration) continue to call them 'insurgents' instead of terrorists?

The President and everyone supporting our efforts should call them what they are--TERRORISTS!! By doing so, we would highlight, and reinforce, the fact that what we are doing in Iraq--is essential to the big picture, worldwide WOT.

[Marine_Uncle]

At this point I hesitate to even consider what options may be in the making or already in place from the Iraqi Gov/US standpoint.
To many players on the opposite side. And with some being totally ideologically/politically/culturally driven different then others, it is just a guess as to what this means. That is. How many different groups even are willing and or capable of working together under one cammand.
Scanty reporting leads to guessing.
One thing I will comment on. If we start to hear the old talk about terrorist storming in from Syria/Jordanian border, I am going to wonder just what the heck has been going on to close the borders.

[LS]

You correctly analyzed that. The greatest single missing element of ALL modern reporting, including, really, Vietnam, is the OTHER guy's losses. They are no longer concerned with what the enemy loses, as though jihadists are infinite. They weren't. Neither were the kamikazes. There is a finite limit to ANY group of fighting men or women, and by my calculations, we've killed over 20,000 of these snakes, and if you throw in wounded (who subsequently either died or never recovered enough to fight) and deserters, I figures we've eliminated about 40,000-50,000 so far. They are flat running out of bodies.

[Southack]

"an average of 34 attacks a day involving U.S. and Iraqi forces in and around the capital since Friday -- up sharply from the daily average of 24 registered between June 14 and July 13"

Back around June 14 we were losing 2 U.S. soldiers per day...now it is about 1 per day.

A move from 24 to 34 skirmishes/attacks per day is not precipitous, especially when they are becoming less lethal to us.

If anything, it points to extreme desperation by our enemies, as well as very green recruits being used by our enemies. It takes those two things in combination to yield the math equation of "more attacks = less lethal" results.

Such "lashing out" is common, and to be expected, when an enemy suffers major setbacks (e.g. killing Zarqawi on June 7) or is desperate to draw attention/resources away from another front (e.g. Israel/Hezbollah), much less both.

[Southack]

"There is a finite limit to ANY group of fighting men or women, and by my calculations, we've killed over 20,000 of these snakes"

Of the bodies that have made it to Iraqi morgues (by no means all kills) since March of 2003, some 36,000 have been insurgents, another 14,000 civilian non-combatants.

If you apply the ratio of U.S. wounded versus killed (8 to 1) to the Insurgency, that would equate to 36,000 dead insurgents and another 289,700 wounded/diseased insurgents...presuming that they have our level of medical care.

So from morgue counts alone, forgetting bombed bodies left in the desert, the Insurgency has suffered more than 300,000 casualties. And doubling that figure would more likely come closer to the reality.

[jmc1969]

What I am afraid of isn't attacks against coalition and Iraqi forces.

The only thing I am afraid of is the strategy of destabilizing Iraq by sectarian killings employed by Iran and al-Qaeda.

The Sunni and Shia communities want an end to the violence, but al-Qaeda and Iran know if Iraqis fear for their lives in order to protect their communities they will join up with militias like the Madhi Army or on the Sunni side al-Qaeda.

[Busywhiskers]

>TET offensive 1968?

I was thinking the same thing.

Wonder who of our enemies wants the "insurgents" out of the picture.

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.

How many PAVN and VC casualties were there during Tet '68 again?

Michael Frazier

[oceanview]

good point - we know they are "streaming in"? shoot them.

[LZ_Bayonet]

"Seems like a pretty risky move."

The American media is on the side of the terrorists (aka: they hate Bush above all else), and they are losing. So, this is a logical move.

For related info, see:
www.iraqthemodel.com

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"Why is it always 1968 for these people?"

Because 1968 was just so darned much fun?

Michael Frazier

[Marine_Uncle]

I have to continue to agree with your assements. And at the same time, I share the same concerns which I am sure you do regarding what jmc1969 points out from the stability angle.
Few at this site would question the ability of the US forces and now the Iraqi forces from taking out targets as they become known.
The problem continues to be with this new government's ability to enforce a long term security program on the Baghdad population and neighboring hot spots.
And the Mahdi army and Badr militia are still in tack and apparently healthy.
It may sound silly. But I wonder how the seasonal change shall effect the over all equation. That is. Will we see a lot more terrorist activities, revenge killings, clashes between Sunni and Shia tribal turf wars, once the temperatures cool down. Or will we see a continued improvement in this governments ability to direct the Iraqi security forces to elimiate ala babba and make a final decision on the fate of the large militias.
When one is faced with say 130 degree heat blasting their face every time one leaves a sheltered building, they may not be so hasty in wanting to ride around killing people.

[mad_as_he$$]

Mnay of the AC-130's have been out the Iraq fight for R&R and in Afghanistan. I hope they return to Iraq and put the spotlight on the Rats. Then of course there is always the 160th SOAR "The Nightstalkers" - their motto is "Death Waits in the Darkness".

NSDQ - good hunting guys.

[Southack]

Attacks are up in Baghdad, but the lethality of those attacks has dropped both per incident as well as overall.

What makes an enemy lash out with more attacks, even when those attacks cause less damage than their previous tactic of using fewer attacks?

Desperation.

[daviscupper]

Reminds me of the TET offensive. The NLF, viet cong, were decimated but Walter reported it as a victory and told the country we should leave. Maybe the insurgents are hopeful they will get sympathetic coverage from the MSM.

However, this time the MSM does not have the monopoly on news it once had.

[Marine_Uncle]

" What makes an enemy lash out with more attacks, even when those attacks cause less damage than their previous tactic of using fewer attacks? Desperation."
Agree. Plus as you are quite aware, decimated ranks, and the inability to pull off surprise suicide attacks, due to vastly improved HUMIT on the Iraq/US side, and less bomb factories and bomb builders available due to being captured/killed.

[mo]

Lessee....Old Ronery lighting his firecrackers, the Hezzzies in a tizzy...and now Bagdad..methinks the Iranian nutjob in Tehran has things about finally tuned. Hopefully his last memories will be that of incoming!!!!!

[Southack]

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 18 — An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month, the United Nations reported Tuesday..."

"The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent Web site that uses news reports to do its tallies, reported that at least 738 [civilian non-combatants] died in June, and another 969 the previous month."

3000 bodies in the morgues in Iraq in June (i.e. 100 per day), 738 of those 3000 were civilian non-combatants, per the UN and NY Times here (though you have to filter out an enormous amount of rubbish and propaganda to get to the last quote above): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

738 civilians/30 days in June=24.6 civilians killed per day in Iraq.

100 killed per day - 24.6 civilians per day = 75.4 insurgents.

All of which were combined, ostensibly because the insurgents in Iraq wear no uniforms.

Using that ratio above applied to the total number of bodies in Iraq morgues since March of 2003 comes out to 36,000 dead insurgents and 14,000+ dead civilian non-combatants.

These figures come from the new Iraq governments reports on the bodies accumulated by Iraq's morgues. These are not estimates (though I do extrapolate to get the total over the conflict from the actual per month figures reported because for some reason left-wing newsies seem reluctant to paint this picture), as released by the UN and reported in the NY Times (see URL above), LA Times, and WaPost.

The U.S. is experiencing 8 wounded for each American killed. Applying that ratio to the insurgency yields 36,000 insurgent bodies in morgues plus 288,000 wounded/diseased insurgents.

But...keep in mind that perhaps as many as double the above have been killed/wounded out in the desert, never to see a Baghdad morgue.

So the most conservative casualty figure for the Insurgency would be 324,000 since March of 2003...and could easily top 600,000 when one figures in desert action.

Iraq is a roach motel. Insurgents check in, then check out via the morgue or hospital. Rinse and repeat.

Fight them over there rather than here.

Do this for long enough and their warrior culture will be just as wiped out as what happened to France after the French suffered 64% national casualties during WW1 from 1914 to November of 1918.

You are talking about changing an entire culture.