1. #1
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default Seldom seen military stats

    Subject: statistics -- not generally published Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:27:39 -0400

    War Casualty Stats

    You will be surprised

    Why has the media not complained before the Iraq war? These are some rather eye-opening facts.

    As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:

    Annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2004:

    1980 .......... 2,392
    1981 .......... 2,380
    1982 .......... 2,318
    1983 .......... 2,465
    1984 .......... 1,999
    1985 .......... 2,252
    1986 .......... 1,984
    1987 .......... 1,983
    1988 .......... 1,819
    1989 .......... 1,636
    1990 .......... 1,508
    1991 .......... 1,787
    1992 .......... 1,293
    1993 .......... 1,213
    1994 .......... 1,075
    1995 .......... 1,040
    1996 ............ 974
    1997 ........... 817
    1998 ............ 826
    1999 ............ 795
    2000 ........... 774
    2001 ............ 890
    2002 .......... 1007
    2003 ......... 1,410 ----- 534*
    2004 . .........1,887 ----- 900*
    2005 ............ 919*
    2006 ........... 920*

    * Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom fatalities only

    Does this really mean that the loss from the two current conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton's presidency? Were we at war?

    Now, are you confused when you look at these figures?

    Especially look at 1980, during the reign of President "Nobel Peace Prize, Jimmy Carter" himself, there were 2,392 US military fatalities.

    What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts that support their agenda driven reporting.

    Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities.

    Wrong again - The latest census shows the following:

    European descent (white) . 69.12%
    Hispanic ....................... 12.5%
    African American ............ 12.3%
    Asian .............................. 3.7%
    Native American ............... 1.0%
    Other ............................... 2.6%
    Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
    European descent (white) .. 74.31%
    Hispanic .......................... 10.74%
    African American ..... ..........9.67%
    Asian ................................ 1.81%
    Native American ... ............. 1.09%
    Other ................................. 2.33%

    These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at:

    Stats page
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Raughammer1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    667

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Subject: statistics -- not generally published Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:27:39 -0400

    War Casualty Stats

    These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at:

    Stats page

    I am firewalled, so i cant see it, but can anyone else substantiate this posts claims?

    Thanks for your help.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    I am firewalled, so i cant see it, but can anyone else substantiate this posts claims?
    It's bogus right wing bullcrap, as usual...don't waste your time. It's just more smoke and mirrors and a truly pathetic attempt by the righties to somehow justify a stupid, unnecessary invasion that's caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people by attempting to compare the number of military dead under the Bush administration to those of Clinton and Carter. It is unworthy of discussion because the only people it means anything to are the Freepers and the lowlife members of other delusional rightwing hack sites. Anyone with any sense could debunk it in minutes...but I'm not wasting mine.
    Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it!
    Damn, you guys are pathetic.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    JHR1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    1,917

    Default

    I also found it here....

    http://www.history.navy.mil/library/...20casualty.htm


    But, I dont know

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,251

    Default

    Is there a point to this? The reason one might not read about most of the deaths that occurred in 1980 might be because they were accident related.

    The same with most of the raw data in this report.

    Looking behind the numbers detail only one military death due to hostile action during the Clinton presidency.

    What's the over/under on freepers spinning that fact into a negative?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    So are you saying that it is okay for for thousands of soldiers to die because of accidents during the Clinton Presidency, but it is not okay for soldiers to die during a War?

    If I go by your reasoning that would be like saying that we can kill all the Firefighters we want during a training burn, but we better not have any LODD during a real assignment.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    BFDNJFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    1,508

    Default

    So I guess in SC's frame of thinking the over 700 casualties in Iraq due to accidental and non hostile don't count also? hmmmmm
    ******=================
    ******================
    ******=================
    ******================
    =======================
    =======================
    =======================

    ------GOD BLESS AMERICA ! ------

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    Raughammer1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    667

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    It's bogus right wing bullcrap, as usual...don't waste your time. It's just more smoke and mirrors and..(blah, blah, blah, blah...)
    (ah geeez, :roll eyes:

    Can anyone offer an intelligent reply, one that might include a way those of who are firewalled and cannot access other web sites than this one, can see what the real deal is?

    I appreciate your assistance...

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    Raughammer1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    667

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by JHR1985 View Post
    I also found it here....

    http://www.history.navy.mil/library/...20casualty.htm

    But, I dont know
    Thanks man,...wish i could see the info.
    But i do appreciate your efforts.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,251

    Default

    Are all of you for real? What is the point of this stat in the first place?

    I knew it would be spun that I am insensitive to the deaths of others.

    Let's take these one at a time:

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn
    So are you saying that it is okay for for thousands of soldiers to die because of accidents during the Clinton Presidency, but it is not okay for soldiers to die during a War?

    If I go by your reasoning that would be like saying that we can kill all the Firefighters we want during a training burn, but we better not have any LODD during a real assignment.
    Didn't say that at all. You did. I would seriously consider your thought process on deductive reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by BFDNJFF
    So I guess in SC's frame of thinking the over 700 casualties in Iraq due to accidental and non hostile don't count also? hmmmmm
    Keep guessing. You might figure something out that is useful.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Is there a point to this? The reason one might not read about most of the deaths that occurred in 1980 might be because they were accident related.

    The same with most of the raw data in this report.

    Looking behind the numbers detail only one military death due to hostile action during the Clinton presidency.

    What's the over/under on freepers spinning that fact into a negative?
    So you don't think one bit that this sounds like you don't care about accidental deaths.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    BFDNJFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    1,508

    Default

    and you say we are the ones who spin.
    ******=================
    ******================
    ******=================
    ******================
    =======================
    =======================
    =======================

    ------GOD BLESS AMERICA ! ------

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    BFDNJFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    1,508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    So you don't think one bit that this sounds like you don't care about accidental deaths.


    You gotta understand with his type they will say anything just to suit there cause. When they know they are wrong they get all angry and try and spin it around.
    ******=================
    ******================
    ******=================
    ******================
    =======================
    =======================
    =======================

    ------GOD BLESS AMERICA ! ------

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Oh I know, he has posted more than anybody else in my "Are you tired of the left and right" thread, but has yet to answer the original question about what HE thinks about HIS party.....

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    So you don't think one bit that this sounds like you don't care about accidental deaths.
    Is your thong in a twist?

    If you believe that is what I meant I'm not going to change your minds.

    No one has answered my question on what is the purpose of this question. When I get an answer I might reply.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    The purpose of this question is this:

    Why is the media giving us up-to-the-minute Military Death stats in Iraq, but has never cared about up-to-the-minute Military Death stats until we went to War. Especially taking into account that the number of Military (War & Non-War) deaths has not changed.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    You have to take statistics with a grain of salt boys and girls.

    Recall that under President Clinton, the Kobar Towers were bombed in Saudi Arabia (I forget the year.)

    Under Carter, the Eagle 1 raid in Iran occurred killing several.

    Under Clinton in 1993 the fights in Mogadishu occurred (recall we were there from late 1991 to 1993.

    Recall that under Reagan we lost 2 aircrews while bombing Tripoli, Libya.

    Recall that under Bush we had hostile incursions into Panama and Iraq.


    Throughout much of this, we had The Cold War with a high number of training accidents.

    Rarely does a Carrier Battle Group go to sea and not lose at least one sailor to training accidents or incidents - especially on a flight deck.

    Military aircraft crash all the time in training.

    A Marine Lt. Colonel was killed by scumbags when he was kidnapped whil assigned to the U.N. in the early 1990s.

    Do these stats include suicides? Do they include young Servicemen out drinking and getting into car wrecks?


    The information posted only states that these people dies while on active duty. No cause is listed.

    How freaking stupid are you just start blaiming an increase in deaths on who was POTUS at the time?

    Suppose we ought to blame Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon for all the deaths that occurred during the Cold War and WWII as well.

    Freaking get real.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    BFDNJFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    1,508

    Default

    Do these stats include suicides? Do they include young Servicemen out drinking and getting into car wrecks?

    we all agree with this. the Iraq casualties include accidents also
    ******=================
    ******================
    ******=================
    ******================
    =======================
    =======================
    =======================

    ------GOD BLESS AMERICA ! ------

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Outside Philadelphia
    Posts
    519

    Default

    One must also take into account the quantity of military members from 1980 (Cold War era) and now. There was A LOT MORE military around than there is now!!

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    BFDNJFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    1,508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JTFIRE80 View Post
    One must also take into account the quantity of military members from 1980 (Cold War era) and now. There was A LOT MORE military around than there is now!!

    a dead soldier is still a dead soldier.
    ******=================
    ******================
    ******=================
    ******================
    =======================
    =======================
    =======================

    ------GOD BLESS AMERICA ! ------

  21. #21
    MembersZone Subscriber
    RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    It's bogus right wing bullcrap, as usual...don't waste your time. It's just more smoke and mirrors and a truly pathetic attempt by the righties to somehow justify a stupid, unnecessary invasion that's caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people by attempting to compare the number of military dead under the Bush administration to those of Clinton and Carter. It is unworthy of discussion because the only people it means anything to are the Freepers and the lowlife members of other delusional rightwing hack sites. Anyone with any sense could debunk it in minutes...but I'm not wasting mine.
    Clinton did it! Clinton did it! Clinton did it!
    Damn, you guys are pathetic.

    Or all the bs crying and whining we read from rags like the NYT comparing this War to Vietnam. Words and quotes like Quagmire and "We are loosing" or its "time to give up", "cut and run" or surrrender are truly unjustified. Who gives a flying flip about who was President. Take a look at the numbers and tell me how one can equate them to Vietnam? You can't even compare one year to how many they murdered on one day.
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoughRider View Post
    Or all the bs crying and whining we read from rags like the NYT comparing this War to Vietnam.
    Since you brought up the NYT. This was an interesting Op Ed from several NCO's. I doubt we'll get this perspective from Petraeus next month.

    Link


    August 19, 2007

    Op-Ed Contributors
    The War as We Saw It
    By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY
    Baghdad

    VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

    The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

    A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

    As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

    Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

    However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

    In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

    Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

    Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

    The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

    Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

    Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

    At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

    In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

    In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

    Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

    We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

    Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #23
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Is there a point to this? The reason one might not read about most of the deaths that occurred in 1980 might be because they were accident related.

    The same with most of the raw data in this report.

    Looking behind the numbers detail only one military death due to hostile action during the Clinton presidency.

    What's the over/under on freepers spinning that fact into a negative?
    I saw that data that shows only 1 hostile death under Clinton, however the report list 29 deaths in Somalia 1992-1994 as terrorist. For some reason they don't think the deaths from terrorist are hostile.

    Also to note, the Armed services were severely cutback under Clinton I believe it was almost a 30% reduction, which accounts for a large reduction in his spending, check that, had he not done that there would have been a larger increase in spending. There were also two Base Realignment and Cutbacks (BRAC) under Clinton. So yes, the number of deaths from accidents should go down as there are fewer troops and less training.

    The point of this report is that many people have asked for this data and it is supplied by DoD. So contrary to what far left friend the nozzlehead claims, this is good and valid data. Also remember, this report does not include the number of civilians also killed do to hostile action or terrorism.

    Now we all know that the man stream press is very liberal and thus their reporting has a liberal slant. Remember when George W beat Al Gore and they all wore black arm bands? I seriously think the press has been on an 8 year campaign to discredit this president, and they have been very successful. This is why they are quick to give us a day by day death count. If the press were truly unbiased they would also give us the complete score, that is, how many of the enemy have been taken out by the US. Wouldn't it be nice to know how many terrorist are no longer walking the streets?

  24. #24
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Nice post SC. However, in every battle and every job there are those pessimist. Some will always see no way to win, we call them nay-sayers. There are also those with overly optimistic views. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. Also remember that these NCOs from the 82nd Airborne (why would they jump out of a perfectly good airplane?) are on the front line in a place they don't want to be. So obviously, their views are going to be tainted towards get me out of this sandbox! I spent 2 1/2 years in Germany, and I was always saying we had no business being there. And probably if Uncle Sam had given me a stateside duty appointment I might have stayed in. As it was, I couldn't wait until the day I could come back to America to live with my people.

  25. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber
    RoughRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oyster Bay, NY
    Posts
    798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Since you brought up the NYT. This was an interesting Op Ed from several NCO's. I doubt we'll get this perspective from Petraeus next month.

    Link


    August 19, 2007

    Op-Ed Contributors
    The War as We Saw It
    By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY
    Baghdad

    VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

    The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

    A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

    As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

    Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

    However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

    In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

    Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

    Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

    The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

    Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

    Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

    At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

    In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

    In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

    Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

    We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

    Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

    Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

    "several NCO's" ?? How many do we have there?

    It's a NYT Op - ED but I'll read what they have to say.. I'm growing weary of the lies from our press, media and politicians for political reasons. This is not RISK or STRATEGO (angst not directed at you ). Finding the TRUTH from our Politicians like here on Wall Street is a full time job. We shouldnt have to read between the lines or discern fact from fantasy.
    Last edited by RoughRider; 08-22-2007 at 11:02 AM.
    Fortune does not change men; it unmasks them.

    The grass ain't greener, the wine ain't sweeter!! Either side of the hill.


    IACOJ PROUD

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Did you respond to WTC???
    By E40FDNYL35 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 04-21-2011, 07:28 PM
  2. Contract Fire Protection Information
    By galebagram2u in forum Americans Overseas
    Replies: 544
    Last Post: 05-11-2010, 07:19 AM
  3. Military experience
    By BCLepore in forum Federal & Military Firehouse Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-10-2007, 06:39 PM
  4. All You Military Brats Out There!
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum Emergency (& Non) Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-07-2006, 11:44 PM
  5. John Kerry the Guy
    By StoveBolt in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 11-09-2004, 06:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register