Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "However, to hear Carl tell it, the insurgency would have the backing of 97.5% of the Iraqis ..."
I never said this. The support for the insurgency is not as important as the support for the government. The problem in Iraq is the apathy of the majority.
Re: "... and was impossible to put down without killing 5% of the Iraqis = 1.2 million men ..."
The 5% figure is about right. Notice that we haven't achieved it, and guess what, the fighting continues. And by the way, 5% of the Iraqi population is not "1.2 million men". It's 1.2 million men, women and children. And do note that I repeatedly stated that we would never do that.
Re: "... and this is why we lost Vietnam and the French lost Algeria ..."
Yeah, it boils down to the simple fact that Vietnam and Iraq are of little importance to the US, compared to the cost in blood and treasure necessary to pacify them.
Re: "... and everybody always loses to insurgents ..."
No, there are plenty of exceptions, but to find them, you have to deal with "macabre numerical games". When the insurgents are a small minority, they can be suppressed with far less casualties than 5%. The basic reason is that they quickly realize that their position is hopeless and they give it up. At the low end, insurgencies shade into stuff like the David Koresh shoot-out.
By contrast, in Iraq, the fighting has gone on for most of 2 years and while our estimates of the insurgent forces continue to rise, our own forces have hardly changed. If we (or Bush) really cared about Iraq, we'd have already started a draft and would have increased the troop count up to Vietnam levels.
-- Carl |
