Carl, original point of discussion was force-ratio factors for peacekeeping operations. Japan loved their Emporer and the troops were ready to fight to the death on the mainland, and they significantly outnumbered the invasion forces we were considering putting against them. That was, in fact, why it was prudent to use atomic weapons, in the first place. Peacekeeping thereafter, did not require a 20:1000 force ratio to achieve the peace and reconstruction. It, in fact, required a mere fraction of that. You suggested 480K per 24 million. Japan was ... for argument's sake and generously for your side, 120k for 75 million.
To say that the Iraqi situation doesn't apply to Japan simply because Japan was "so severely defeated" doesn't work. We severely annihilated a couple of tertiary cities back then. Japan, itself, wasn't severely defeated. Just ask the Japanese generals. <g> The surrender was more so a political acquiescence rather than military.
The Iraqis are not going to require anything close to the 20:1000 ratio. Maybe 5.7:1000 at the highest, similar to the Punjab exercise you've mentioned (which even is quite high according to Quinliven). Given the sentiment of Iraqi citizenry, perhaps only half that. Northern Ireland and Malay are completely extraordinary incidents (of extreme insurgency) which do not apply to this situation. Since Northern Irelan and Malay are the only real points with a 20:1000 force ration, and they don't count in these circumstances, we should to get over that 20:1000 number. Ain't gonna happen. My Vegas bookie is currently giving you 2.8 with a 1.5 spread. |
