Posted on 08/14/2006 4:10:36 AM PDT by unionblue83
Roadside-bomb attacks are typically cited as evidence that the U.S. and its allies are loosing the war in Iraq. But a more in-depth look at the numbers suggests that the opposite may be the case.
Since January of 2006, there have been some 11,242 roadside bomb/improvised explosive device (IED) attacks in Iraq, a considerable uptick from the 10,953 for the 12 months of 2005. According to the Brookings Institution, IEDs account for 33 percent of all U.S. deaths. Through June, that means that of the 346 U.S. fatalities, 114 were related to roadside bombs. The Marine Corps reports that accidents after a roadside bomb or IED explodes account for about one-third of all its casualties.
Having just returned from North Carolina's Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base and reviewed the training the Marines go through, I can attest that these numbers are being taken very seriously. In response, the Marines have beefed up their driver’s training, building special Iraqi-like courses—lots of sand, with weak shoulders and narrow bridges—in an effort to reduce after-explosion casualties. Among other things, the Marines have slowed down their drivers, noting that at slightly slower speeds one is not substantially more likely to get shot or to detonate a device, but much more likely to keep a damaged vehicle under control.
Looking once more at the numbers, it appears that the adjustments are paying off: 114 deaths from 11,242 roadside bomb attacks means that it takes almost 100 such attacks to kill a single U.S. soldier—a vastly better average for our troops than, say, flying B-17s over Germany in World War II, or flying any aircraft in World War I, where 50 percent of all fliers were killed, half of them in training accidents before they ever fought in combat.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
ping.
The author contradicts himself in speaking of the insurgents "declining ability to produce and employ IED's" while at the same time noting a "considerable uptick" in IED attacks in 2006 compared to 2005. It seems to me that both things can't be true. Perhaps I'm missing something here.
You missed nothing, but, honestly, why did you expect clear thinking from an author who doesn't know the difference between "loosing" and "losing?"
My thoughts exactly.
I would certainly like his conclusions to be correct. But he gives me no reason to believe them.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
No, the point is they are having to launch more and more attacks for less and less results. It would be as if it took more shells fired to achieve still fewer hits.
I am that author, I do know the difference and it's called a sloppy edit, not unclear thinking.
The reason I give is that I happen to know how dangerous these are to make; and moreover, I also know that there are large numbers of people killed accidentally (is there any other way?) making them. The estimates are, in fact, estimates, but I think they are pretty close based on what I'm hearing from the front.
However, this is based on estimates from another (as yet, unpublished) piece of analysis that has been SUBSTANTIALLY confirmed by MULTIPLE sources.
So these estimates are pretty darn close.
Would he be on our side or the militant Muslim side?
Once you answer that then tell me if the problems in the middle east would be an order of magnitude worse.
I think we would have Iraq and Iran competing to supply the most support for terrorists in order to become the leader of the Muslim world.
Agreed. Saddam had already shown that he had no problem with lobbing SCUDs into Israel during the first Gulf War and Israel wasn't even an active player there. If anyone believes that he wouldn't have launched more advanced missles into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and other cities then they are fooling themselves. There is plenty of infighting among the various Muslim sects but I grow weary of hearing the old mantra that they won't work together against the US and the rest of the West. The Iranians aided, facilitated and possibly helped fund OBL with the 9-11 tragedy.
I didn't like the "guesses" mentioned int the article with the numbers either. Although I would say that your wording is a lot more honest than the lame stream media's - quoting some made-up number of of thin air and treating it like it was a proven fact.
I'd say it was a well-written article and this part was pretty clear thinking:
"There is an even more important lesson to be learned from statistics on IEDs. Enemy training, morale, munitions, and, above all, numbers have been declining. How long does it take to make an IED? Having never made one myself, I’m not sure. But I do know this for certain: It’s taking more and more time with each jihadist we kill or who blows himself up in the learning process. Not only is the numbers game working against the terrorists, but so is time. As more trained terrorists die, the learning curve—a lethal one, in this case—increases further."
I know you have word limits in articles. But that point is the lynchpin of your argument. It would be a MUCH stronger article if you gave some evidentiary support for the conclusion. The point is an important one. But the way it was presented, it sounds like you are just making it up. I'm glad you weren't because it's good news.
I was stationed at Camp Lejeune from 1974-1978. I was with the 2nd Amtrac Bn at Courthouse Bay. Is it still possible to get on the base and drive on the highway through Camp Lejeune after registering at the gate?
Would like to go back and see the place. How did you get to see the training? That would be cool...
We drove on in one gate, drove through the whole base, and exited briefly through another, then re-entered. So I guess the answer to your question is "yes."
We got to see the Osprey's up close, too.
Yeah, we see the "loosing" error frequently around here. Spell check won't catch that one.
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.