To: NickSE who wrote (103785 ) 7/2/2003 3:07:39 PM From: Bilow Read Replies (2) | Respond to Hi Ghostrider; Re: "Bremer requests more troops ... "shocked Everyone knows, Saddam included, that his forces are no match for ours. That's why he's so willing to destroy those missiles. The dangerous part of Iraq is their civilians, not their military. The problem weapons, as far as a US occupation goes, are rifles, grenades and pistols. #reply-18657990We have enough to conquer Baghdad, but as far as keeping Iraq under military control in the face of a hostile civilian population, we are woefully undermanned . Here's proof, from the military itself:Iraq has a population of 24 million. Using the 20 per 1000 ratio that Britain used in bringing Northern Ireland under control, the US will need an occupation force of 480,000. Oh, and those are Army forces, you don't get to count the Air Force or Navy, and in the event of ongoing terrorism (i.e. the Israeli experience) they could get stuck there for years. And only then, after tens of thousands of body bags, we retreat with our tails between our legs, having relearned the lesson that our fathers learned in Korea and Vietnam -- don't get involved in land wars in Asia unless you can get some other party to supply the cannon fodder.A war with Iraq would be very short and very few Iraqis would be killed. That situation tends to leave the defeated population uncowed, and willing to continue the fight. This fact is a universal tendency of humankind, but if you believe that the Arabs are "special", you can look to the history that Israel has had with them to verify the fact that defeating them militarily will not subdue them. History shows that the resistance to Israeli forces has increased with time, rather than decline as the Japanese example would suggest .A good example of the tendency of nations who have suffered a bloodless defeat (i.e. defeated by strategy rather than worn down by attrition) to continue fighting is the French in 1870 and 1940. In both cases the Germans defeated them militarily, but with quick battles with relatively light casualties. In both wars the Germans ended up having their troops sniped at by French partisans. And again in both times, the Germans were able to maintain order only by using reprisals far more bloody than anything the Israelis (or we) can get away with. The Israelis can't repeat the German excesses because modern world opinion would be too much against it. We are similarly restricted in how we can respond to partisan activity, and for the same reason it is not possible for us to garrison even a mildly unruly population with less than the 20:1000 ratio. Iraqis are one of the most gun happy populations on the planet. Invading and occupying the place would be like the Russians trying to invade and occupy Texas or Idaho. Except that unlike the Commies, in Iraq we would have to follow the Geneva Convention. Among a population that doesn't like us, that is a recipe for a disaster.
