Posted on 03/25/2008 12:48:56 AM PDT by Exton1
19,000 insurgents killed in Iraq since '03 By Jim Michaels - September 2007 ?
More than 19,000 militants have been killed in fighting with coalition forces since the insurgency began more than four years ago, according to military statistics released for the first time.
The statistics show that 4,882 militants were killed in clashes with coalition forces this year, a 25% increase over all of last year.
The increase in enemy deaths this year reflects more aggressive tactics adopted by American forces and an additional 30,000 U.S. troops ordered by the White House this year.
U.S. and Iraqi forces launched several large offensives aimed at crippling al-Qaeda since the arrival of more troops starting in February. The U.S. military says, however, there has been an increase in suicide attacks in recent days.
The size of the insurgency in Iraq has been difficult to measure and is fluid, making it hard to determine what impact the deaths have had on the insurgency in Iraq.
Last year, Gen. John Abizaid, then commander of military forces in the region, estimated the Sunni insurgency to be 10,000 to 20,000 fighters. He said the Shiite militia members were in the "low thousands." The U.S. military hasn't publicly provided any recent estimates.
There are 25,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq, according to the military. The numbers of enemy killed and detained would exceed the estimate given last year of the size of the insurgency.
Since the insurgency began after Baghdad fell in spring 2003, 19,429 militants have been killed in clashes with coalition forces, statistics show. The numbers do not include enemy killed during the invasion.
The statistics, provided at USA TODAY's request, were retrieved from a coalition database that tracks "significant acts." Militants are identified in the database because they are linked to "hostile action," said Capt. Michael Greenberger, a Freedom of Information Act officer in Baghdad. There is no way to independently verify the data.
"The information in the database is only as good as the information entered into it by operators on the ground at the time," Greenberger said. "Follow-up information to make corrections is done whenever possible."
The U.S. military rarely discusses the numbers of enemy dead, fearful of raising parallels with the Vietnam War when the U.S. military's reliance on "body counts" led to allegations of inflated figures because of political pressure to show results.
Today, U.S. commanders consider the number of enemy deaths a poor measure of progress in an insurgency and say there is no pressure to exaggerate. "The big difference is the command climate in Vietnam encouraged inflation," said T.X. Hammes, a retired Marine colonel and insurgency expert. "The general command climate (in Iraq) is: 'Don't exaggerate.' "
The military's new counterinsurgency manual emphasizes political and economic solutions to eliminate the conditions that breed militants. Those actions are considered more decisive than combat.
"You can't kill them all," Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of the American division responsible for northern Iraq, said in a recent interview.
The insurgency has been a mixture of Sunni groups, such as al-Qaeda, and Shiite militia extremists.
The enemy casualty numbers also reinforce the one-sided nature of battles on occasions when militants attempted to directly confront American forces.
The deadliest month for militants was August 2004 when thousands of militia fighters loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr clashed with American forces in Najaf in southern Iraq. That month, 1,623 militants were killed. The U.S. military lost 53 troops in fighting during the same time.
bttt
Not included of course the 15,000 + killed soldiers, guards, militiamen and thugs from Saddam’s forces in the three weeks of 2003. Also not included the thousands of Sunni and Shia militants and terrorists killed by each other 2004-2006.
OH NO! Are you sure they weren’t part of a wedding party,
All things considered - a poor kill ration between theirs and ours...
I had hoped it wouldn’t be this bad.....
This is less than 4:1, post invasion - which is lousy.
Not true. This is the first time we've had to deal with this type of operation in a LOOOONG time. Also, TTPs for one geoloc are not the same as others. There can be similarities, but not the same. Insurgent behavior also varies from geoloc to geoloc. We are now starting to get inside their heads. That’s what's making the difference these days.
See my book (paperback ed has the #s), "America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror."
See post 7. Numbers are way, way off.
See post 7.
See #7.
Q: What do you call 19,000 dead insurgents?
A good start!
#7 is correct. Numbers are way, way higher.
Your numbers seem reasonable. My guess would be a kill ratio of at least 10 to 1.
Even then, this doesn't at all take into account all those bomb makers who blew themselves up without us knowing about it, all the guys vaporized in air strikes who didn't leave a body, and all the guys like the one on the youtube video who fired a malfunctioning mortar round and just disappeared when it misfired!
I think I know the answer, LS, but do your numbers include:
1. Ex-Jihadists in Somalia, Ethiopia, etc?
2. Ex-Jihadists inside Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, etc?
3. Ex-Jihadist-on-Ex-Jihadist casualties?
4. Vigilante justice creating ex-Jihadists within Iraq?
5. Ex-Jihadists in such “remote” places as the Phillipines?
This is a global war, and I believe that even your very carefully drawn numbers understate the extraordinary progress that has been made.
Add to this the remarkable advances on many other fronts, including shutting down bank accounts, cutting off communications, restricting travel/movement, sowing dissension within the ranks, and so forth. I’m also certain that we are yanking their chains in ways that saps like me just can’t even imagine. At this point, the jihadist’s life must be full not only of abject misery but also perpetual panic, incoherence, confusion, and all manner of other adjectives.
It must be the case — it must — that we are just beating the crap out of these losers.
Decades from now, when definitive histories of this era are finally written, I believe that fighting the war in Iraq has been like shooting fish in a barrel; and that the sort of shock and awe that defined the original invasion in fact carried through and became standard operating procedure.
I would be interested, LS, in even a wild conjecture on your part for a “global” set of numbers of jihadists killed, wounded, captured, etc.
And then I would remind you and others that it was actually not that long ago that a million or more men in Iraq and Iran killed each other in a decade-long war. Most of those men would be in their 30s, 40s, and 50s now, had they survived. But they are extinguished, as are another million or two men and women killed subsequently by the brutal regimes in those two countries.
There is a reason why Islam accommodates polygamy. There is a dire shortage of males in many regions throughout the Middle East.
It is simply breathtaking to contemplate the extent to which the Arab world is hell-bent on its own destruction.
19,000 insurgents killed in Iraq since 2003! 19,000! The level of cluelessness is so pathetic it is laughable.
Globally, I think you can double the high-end estimates, maybe 400,000 killed, 1-2 million disabled, demoralized, quit in disgust, or captured.
Our forces have the ability and destructive resources to inflict at least a 1000:1 or better kill ratio on our enemy..
It disturbs me greatly that we aren't.
Our enemy should know and expect a VERY destructive scenario when they challenge us on the battlefield - anywhere on this planet...
We should NOT be sending our young warriors to the enemy's neighborhood to fight a war by THEIR rules or complying with THEIR tactics.... That plays into their strengths.
We're the 800 pound gorilla...
We should demonstrate that occasionally..
True, but in any guerrilla war, those numbers don’t hold up. I read once that it cost $1 million per every Indian killed in the Plains Wars. (However, it’s also a myth that every other wagon train was attacked: one study put the total number of settlers-—not counting soldiers like Fetterman or Custer-—killed at about 600, for the entire 1800s).
"Getting into the heads" of an enemy who represents the militant faction of a "cult" containing over 1 BILLION followers -- only works if one removes enough heads to conduct a very widespread "analysis"...
History has proved - especially with the Islamist - that they, their families, their cities, their nations must pay a very substantial cost to sway them from their centuries old march against the non Muslim world...
Their "heads" have already been occupied -- there is no room for reason...
I'm convinced only catastrophic consequences will force them to put down their swords and start covering their heads..
To hell with getting "inside their heads" --- Take their heads...They above all others on the planet UNDERSTAND that, don't they?
Gorilla war? — We should not be fighting a gorilla war!
We KNOW who is pushing, supporting, financing, training, arming, housing, protecting, nurturing and applauding the enemy.....
We should be going after THEM — not simply the filthy little goat humping or boy raping Jihadist with an RPG..
In that path lies defeat. There are too many of them - and as you infer, it would bankrupt us to try. THAT is precisely part of their strategy....getting us to fight THEIR war.
Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan — THEY are the ultimate enemy...
Facing them down or bringing them down can not be avoided in the long haul -— in my humble opinion....
The numbers also do not reflect the number of enemy vaporized or blown into thousands of little pieces, either.
I think you misunderstood what I meat by “getting inside their heads”. I was referring to our ability to understand their thinking, and thereby getting inside of their decision cycle (still working on that).
Thank you...... I DID misunderstand.
I’m no longer interested in “winning the hearts and minds”...
Those folks “hearts and minds” are already possessed..
Been there done that - the American people no longer have the patience for that approach..
I’ll be perfectly satisfied with simply wrecking their asses.
Neither do I have the patience for that. I want to be able to schwack ‘em in the most efficient/effective way possible.
“Globally, I think you can double the high-end estimates, maybe 400,000 killed, 1-2 million disabled, demoralized, quit in disgust, or captured.”
That’s a lot of casualties inflicted. I have done some very back-of-the-envelope calculations of my own, and your strike me as quite plausible. We’ve lost 3,000 Americans in 9/11 and another 4,000 soldiers since then. I believe that your numbers put our American losses in somewhat better perspective.
I’ll also repeat that the damages we have inflicted go far, far beyond the numbers killed, disabled, ... etc. The financial damage must be in the hundreds of billions (and perhaps trillions); the psychic damage of a similar magnitude; and so forth.
I could pepper you with many more questions ... for example, 1.) Are you aware during the course of human history of many other military conflicts that have been as lopsided as this one? 2.) Seeing as how all resources are ultimately finite, do you have any sense of when these jihadists are finally bankrupted?
I’ll attempt brief answers to my own questions and then wait for your greater expertise. On #1, I know of none. On #2, I have no idea, but I do think that Rumsfeld et al used numbers such as yours and never felt that the war was going poorly. What more could the US ask than to have the terror masters ship young radicals to Iraq so that they could be relatively easily expunged, and in fairly large numbers? It’s a bit of a cynical view, because it suggests that the Administration was more intent on just mowing down terrorists than in nation-building. But it is one of the few hypotheses that is actually consistent with all of the facts and behaviors exhibited. And under the circumstances it may be quite a defensible strategy.
If, in 2000---whether by choice or necessity---someone had told you that Bush would completely neutralize as a threat three countries, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, I don't think one sane person would have said, by 2007, "That's not enough."
You do what you can do.
If you read Reagan's diaries, he was COMPLETELY aware of the Muslim threat, esp. Saddam ("a no good nut," Reagan called him). But he couldn't even begin to deal with that until the USSR was off the table. So all in good time. Rome fought THREE wars against the Carthagenians before they achieved complete victory.
Didn’t I mention that in my follow-up post?
I did. See #15.
Historically, put it this way: NO ENEMY has ever lost this % of its fighting force and won. Even if there were 2 million "jihadists" (many of questionable dedication) at the beginning of this war, you can figure we have killed, captured, wounded, or caused to desert perhaps as many as 1/3 of them already. And I'm certainly not counting those, such as some of the Afghan tribes, who aren't in it for the "Islam" or the ideology, but simply for tribes-manship, and who switch sides at the drop of a goat.
Our success in Iraq at (here's that phrase) winning the hearts and minds has shown that if you stay with it, you not only reduce the need for your own military presence, but you INCREASE the lethality against your enemy by bringing more "hands to the tiller," or, in this case, rifle.
As for the issue of resources, we are dealing with some of the wealthiest people in the world---the jihadist version of George Soros (I know, not much difference). Worse, the terrorists' needs are pretty low-budget (box cutters, RPGs, and so on.)
I do think we have destroyed the infrastructure of their funding and their ability to move money necessary for obtaining WMDs. All this success is pretty evident in that they haven't been able to launch one single successful attack on our homeland since 9/11.
Historically, these wars take a LOT of time: about 12 years for our troops (oddly enough, the same overall share of troops served in the Philippines as a percent of our total ground forces as are represented in Iraq!); 10 years for the Brits in a very Brit-friendly Malaya; and the French actually had won Algeria at the end of 8 years, but screwed the pooch politically by letting it be known that they weren't going to recognize a "French Algeria" as a part of France.
I'm of the view that Rummy was a damn genius; that he absolutely reconstituted the U.S. military away from heavy, Cold War forces and to current, anti-terror, hit-and-move forces. I think like many brilliant thinkers, he didn't see the change in tactics in Iraq quickly---but that's the thing about war, only the "armchair generals" know what "needs to be done." Put another way, if someone else had been SecDef, we wouldn't have had near the number of HUMVEE/IED casualties later, but we would have suffered a helluva lot more casualties earlier as our forces would not have been able to move as fast as they did, thus exposing them to fire over longer periods of time.
Observing our current crop of Congress Critters and the feckless imbeciles most of them represent — the thought of relying upon them or their predominantly bastard offspring doesn't exactly fill me with confidence...
I'm an old man....too impatient to play the dancing mongoose with the Islamic Cobra..
I'd like to see to the safety of my grandchildren and their grandchildren in my lifetime - or at least before the ever increasing idiot/surrender class in America becomes a veto proof majority....
Reagan made a huge difference and "won" the Cold War, but it also required decades of the west getting richer while the Soviets went without; and the west spending only 5% of GNP vs. their 50%, which caused their economy to break. Reagan put the last few straws on the camel's back and deserves credit, but if he had started the Cold War from scratch in 1980, no way would it have ended so soon.
To an extent, in our system, it's irrelevant what the "people" want to do IF---but only if---there are courageous leaders who will pay a political price to win. LBJ likely would have won reelection if he had stayed in 1968, for example, but people like Lincoln were perfectly prepared to be voted out based on their view that the war had to be fought. So, I think if we just get ONE MORE president who understands the threat, it's possible this whole mess will be over by the time he leaves office.
For ex., if Iran suddenly collapses internally, and becomes truly democratic, I could envision enough pressure suddenly on Syria to likewise pull a Libya; for Saudi Arabia to crack down on the Wahabbis, and so on.
Thanks. I missed that.
I hope you’re right..... especially about Iran and the effect her becoming a partner in peace would have on the entire region and militant Islamists.
I’ve known and worked with MANY Persians in the U.K., Europe and here in the U.S... I’ve never met man or woman I didn’t respect or trust - and come to like a great deal.
If folks of their character and strength were to control Iran - the entire world would be better off....
At the moment — that appears to be a “bridge too far”..
I fear I’m too old to see that become a reality..
So it bears mentioning that an Iranian revolution is at best a 40-60 proposition.
“Way low. My numbers, based on Iraqi morgue stats, and including Afghanistan, put the LOWEST-bound figure at 40,000 killed, 220,000 wounded, 25,000 captured, and as many as 10,000 permanently deserted.”
Yea, but 80,000 more new terrorists are joining up, 12,000 captured get released and rejoined the terrorist groups.
Of course, we saw the same thing in the Philippines from 1899-1910 (those were mostly Muslim extremists, too). These wars TAKE A WHILE, but they ARE WON. There is simply no indication anywhere that "average" Muslims put up with this crap, or enjoy having their marketplaces blown up. Thousands marched in protest in Lebanon when a bombing occurred; hundreds of thousands in Iraq after one bombing; and the Iraqi army continues to get lots of recruits.
Have you read Bill Whittle’s piece about Forty Second Boyd and OODA? Brilliant and worth many readings.
Mookty Sadr had better be careful, although I think he’ll be forced to either the Iranians or the IG in a matter of weeks. Or dead. Today’s Sadr City is last spring’s Baquobah.
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/
“Conventional wisdom called for massive force applied to key areas of the enemy front line. But Boyd had read of Patton and Guderian, of armored thrusts that moved so quickly that counterattacks converged on a vacuum. Boyd saw how speed and agility might sow so much confusion in the enemy – who had, after all, a very sclerotic command structure – that they would be swinging at shadows. Boyd summoned Sun Tzu and his idea of water flowing downhill, forces taking the paths of least resistance, hitting the enemy not where he was strongest, or even where he was weakest, but rather hitting him where he least expected it.
“Surprise would substitute for firepower, and speed and the enemy’s confusion would be the defense. They would get inside Saddam’s decision loop. Each cycle would find him more out of touch, more reacting to obsolete intelligence, more demoralized, more desperate.
“Surprise would substitute for firepower, and speed and the enemy’s confusion would be the defense. They would get inside Saddam’s decision loop. Each cycle would find him more out of touch, more reacting to obsolete intelligence, more demoralized, more desperate.”
Bingo. We succeeded in this at the beginning, but as soon as we lost the initiative e.g. failed to start spending $, rebuilding and geting the Iraqis on our side, we completely blew it and the Vacuum we created was filled by “undesireable elements”. Only now are we regaining the initiative and again getting inside their decision cycle or “OODA loop”.
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.