Iraq War performance

[First Crusader]

What do you think of the Coalition's performance in Iraq?

This thread has nothing to do with the morality of the war. Just the cold, plain facts about how the armies of all factions have performed in it.

I'll post some links on this later.

[Peachy Carnehan]

Well, considering that the death rate in Iraq is actually lower than the accidental death rate for the armed forces from 1983 to 1996, I'd say the performace is not terribly bad.

[Erik]

Well, considering that the death rate in Iraq is actually lower than the accidental death rate for the armed forces from 1983 to 1996, I'd say the performace is not terribly bad.

I don't see how this is a measure of success, but it's just false.

The Iraq war is just over 2.5 years old and costed just over 2000 US lives. (almost 800 a year)
The accident rates you quote talk about 6,790 deaths in 9 years (754 a year).
And not only are the accident rates lower, they apply to a much larger group of people (all US soldiers vs only the ones staged in Iraq).

But this is all irellevant because it's not just about how many of your men were killed, it is about achieving objectives at reasonable costs.

[Erik]

The coalitions performance was very bad IMO.
Controlling a country like Iraq isn't easy, but they made some very big mistakes.

Popular support is the most important factor to be successfull in a war like this.
If the Iraqi people in general like you it's much easier to control th ecountry.
If the Iraqi people hate you you have to resort to more difficult techniques like intimidation and brute force.

Before the war popular support for the coalition was relatively high in Iraq.
But during the initial invation they made several big mistakes that quickly turned this around.
And I am not just talking about the total abolishment of police and low level officials that causing plundering an dlawlessness.
But also about the way the US paraded it's national pride (putting an American flag over Saddams face for example).
And how careless they were with the Iraqi cultural heritage at the same time. (destroying the ancient streets of Babylon by parading tanks over it, for example).
This portrayed the image that the US doesn't care about Iraq and only wants to spread their own dominance.
Regardless if this image is true or not, it was the main reason why Iraqi people turned against them.

The reason for their poor performance I think was the lack of preperation.
US soldiers were never instructed in respecting Iraqi culture and they violated it on a regular basis (raiding Iraqi homes, including womans quaters, with dogs for example).
And of course the initial force was nothing nearly big enough to control such a large country if you plan to abolish the police.
They didn't even have a plan for creating a new Iraqi government, causing huge delays that made the occupation a lot more painfull for the Iraqi people.

Bottom line: I think the US is great at technological warfare against superpowers but when it comes to low level, guerilla type of conflicts they performce very poorly.
Other coalition members like great Brittain did much better at "winning over the people", but the US influence was big enough to discredit the coalition as a whole.

[danzig]

Bottom line: I think the US is great at technological warfare against superpowers but when it comes to low level, guerilla type of conflicts they performce very poorly.
Other coalition members like great Brittain did much better at "winning over the people", but the US influence was big enough to discredit the coalition as a whole.

Sorry but that is just flat out wrong. Central Iraq was always going to be the toughest part of Iraq given that it was the heart of Saddam's power and a large portion of the Sunni population. Look at Northern Iraq which the US controls as well it is as peaceful as Southern Iraq minus the border problems because of the Kurds...so you cant say the US did a poor job based on that.

ABH is right, the coalition troops are doing awesome in Iraq, especially if you compare it to the death rates in World War 1 (about 60-80 thousand a year for the Americans) World War Two around 44 thousand a year for the Americans, Vietnam around 5000 a year. We even had higher causaulty rates in the Revolutionary War when we only had four million people in the entire country.

That is the luxury of hindsight a bit, if 50 years from now Iraq is a stable, democratic country 2000 or so deaths will look like an amazing accomplishment. Bush is right in that regard that history will judge him but until then perceptions and media coverage is king...if this was WW2 the allies would have been hard pressed to recover from Market Garden and the media coverage of that failure.

[imb39]

They made some fundamental errors just after toppling Sadam. In the end the people who paid are the Iraqi people. Given this, the coalition are performing very well on the ground an d, to be honest, we should be proud of them. The politicians have been the true weak link in the war machine - but that's true most of the time.

In terms of the War on Terror, this has been a monumental own goal. Al Quaeda must have had a very drunken(!) party when it started - what a fantastic recruiting tool. Bloody stupid decision which defies all logic.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

Other coalition members like great Brittain did much better at "winning over the people", but the US influence was big enough to discredit the coalition as a whole.

The British were responsible for mostly Shia dominated areas. There is no basis for such a claim, and it seems more like European/British arrogance then reality when this claim is made.

Bottom line: I think the US is great at technological warfare against superpowers but when it comes to low level, guerilla type of conflicts they performce very poorly.

And who exactly has set the standard for this type of warfare? As far as I can tell, America is the only nation to even have been involved in large scale conflicts such as these. However, we can take a look at how the Russians have done in Afghanistan, as well as today in Chechnya. America has by far set the standard here.

US soldiers were never instructed in respecting Iraqi culture and they violated it on a regular basis (raiding Iraqi homes, including womans quaters, with dogs for example).

How is this violating Iraqi culture in particular? Honestly, how are we expected to fight a war against small forces such as those in Iraq without raiding peoples homes, and doing it without their prior knowledge? This is no different then the tactics used by police to catch criminals. And, I would seriously questioned how much resentment this has actually raised towards American soldiers. There is absolutely no solid way for you to call this a mistake.

And of course the initial force was nothing nearly big enough to control such a large country if you plan to abolish the police.

There is no way the police forces could have ever remained in tact the way they were, and there was going to be "lawlessness" for at least a few weeks after the invasion. The forces could, and should have been assimilated properly instead of being completely disbanded, but that's a bit different then what you seem to be getting at.

But also about the way the US paraded it's national pride (putting an American flag over Saddams face for example).

I love how you try and point out one small incident that may or may not have actually taken place or been carried out by American soldiers and then try and apply it to the entire situation in Iraq. I also like how you pretend to know how the Iraqi people actually feel about the American forces. The only few polls that have come out of Iraq on the subject have not shown any large amounts of anger towards the occupational forces, but did in fact show that the people of Iraq were at least hopeful for the future and thankful for the new government.

And how careless they were with the Iraqi cultural heritage at the same time. (destroying the ancient streets of Babylon by parading tanks over it, for example).

I have never heard of tanks being rolled across the ancient streets of Babylon, and I would also doubt that to the average Iraqi this matters, either way.

Before the war popular support for the coalition was relatively high in Iraq.

You have no basis for such a claim.

I see a lot of accusations being made that are just unrealistic, and completely ignore the true realities of conducting a massive invasion of a nation. There is no case in military history that has gone as smoothly as some people seem to think Iraq should have gone. At the same time, there has never been so much coverage of an invasion as there was of Iraq, meaning that we get to see every little mistake put under a microscope to sway an ignorant public that things are going poorly.

If you set impossible standards, then sure, we did awful in Iraq...

[Erik]

How is this violating Iraqi culture in particular? Honestly, how are we expected to fight a war against small forces such as those in Iraq without raiding peoples homes, and doing it without their prior knowledge? This is no different then the tactics used by police to catch criminals. And, I would seriously questioned how much resentment this has actually raised towards American soldiers. There is absolutely no solid way for you to call this a mistake.

It's not about raiding homes, it's about the dogs they used.
This is considered a huge insult, and a very dirty act in Iraqi culture.
They could have done the raids without letting dogs into womans quaters.

When the Dutch army was in Iraq they considered these kind of sensitivities and avoided them where they could, and if they realy HAD to do something like this they at least had the curtisy to explain it to the Iraqi people.

There is no way the police forces could have ever remained in tact the way they were, and there was going to be "lawlessness" for at least a few weeks after the invasion. The forces could, and should have been assimilated properly instead of being completely disbanded, but that's a bit different then what you seem to be getting at.

If there was no way to keep the police force intact, why didn't they make the initial invation force a lot bigger?
The fact the US almost trippled the troop count AFTER the occupation shows their lack of forward planning.

I love how you try and point out one small incident that may or may not have actually taken place or been carried out by American soldiers and then try and apply it to the entire situation in Iraq.

Glad you enjoyed it :wink:

I am pretty sure the things I mentioned happend because I have seen vidio footage of it. (unless it's al made up somewhere in a Hollywood studio of course).
They were EXAMPLES of how US troops disrespected Iraqi feeling and culture, so now I can't give examples?
And there were numerous more examples like this, it was the general image the US armies own television crews spread over the world.

I also like how you pretend to know how the Iraqi people actually feel about the American forces.

That's because I listened to experts on Iraqi culture, they explained it to me.
But I guess FOX never explaines these kinds of things.

The only few polls that have come out of Iraq on the subject have not shown any large amounts of anger towards the occupational forces, but did in fact show that the people of Iraq were at least hopeful for the future and thankful for the new government.

All polls showed the popularity of the coalition forced dropped very rapidly during the first weeks of occupation, and they never recovered.

I have never heard of tanks being rolled across the ancient streets of Babylon, and I would also doubt that to the average Iraqi this matters, either way.

http://www.buzztracker.org/2005/01/16/cache/439171.html
The Iraqi people are very proud of their countries rich history (as they should), of course they care about these kinds of things.
They aren't uncivilized barbarians you know.

If you set impossible standards, then sure, we did awful in Iraq...

The war on Iraq was impossible, I admit.
And THATS's why I was against it in the first place.
But just because the US created an impossible task doesn't mean they are doing a good job.
They performed horribly bad, while they could have performed just very bad if they were better prepared.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Revolutionary War: defensive war, ie civilians, more people involved, more equal sides.

Wouldn't the fact that there were untrained Civilians on our side, more people involved support his case???

Also sides were not equal at all. Colonial America=2 million people of which over 20,000 joined Loyalist Military Units the 2 million also counts Canada. Britain-11 million people

[danzig]

It's not about raiding homes, it's about the dogs they used.
This is considered a huge insult, and a very dirty act in Iraqi culture.
They could have done the raids without letting dogs into womans quaters.

When the Dutch army was in Iraq they considered these kind of sensitivities and avoided them where they could, and if they realy HAD to do something like this they at least had the curtisy to explain it to the Iraqi people.

Again you are dealing with a different part of the country, what works in Northern and Southern Iraq doesnt work in Central Iraq where the Sunni triangle is. I understand your point and all but it simply doesnt apply here, Sunnis/Saddam loyalist and then later the Islamic extremist simply arent going to care. Im curious why are you missing all the 'good will' stories about US troops and their attempts to reach out to the Iraq people and instead focusing on the negative ones. US troops work/worked extrensively with towns who were open to cooperating and working with US troops but there is just no way any western troops not American, not British etc that were going to walk into Fallujah without guns drawn.

Why is it that in an argument a liberal can't avoid taking a shot at Fox news at least once?

Its the old you must be a sheep following this vast right wing borg like collective of which Fox is a mouth piece of crap. A common 'insult' from people who cant expend the brain power to come up with something intelligent.

[Farnan]

Off-topic: Wow, first time I have seen ABH in the political forum, good showing.

ABH is right, the coalition troops are doing awesome in Iraq, especially if you compare it to the death rates in World War 1 (about 60-80 thousand a year for the Americans) World War Two around 44 thousand a year for the Americans, Vietnam around 5000 a year. We even had higher causaulty rates in the Revolutionary War when we only had four million people in the entire country.

[Tom Paine]

WW1: Gas, trench warfare, attrition; roughly equal sides. Iraq: light guerrilla; extremely unequal sides (Americans favoured).

WW2: See WW1, plus operation across a wider front.

Revolutionary War: defensive war, ie civilians, more people involved, more equal sides.

[imb39]

Britain does have an excellent record with dealing with locals - however, we do have it much easier than the Americans. I'd hate to think how many casualties we'd have if we were policing the Sunni triangle.

[danzig]

Britain does have an excellent record with dealing with locals - however, we do have it much easier than the Americans. I'd hate to think how many casualties we'd have if we were policing the Sunni triangle.

Yeah because good will only goes so far and falls on deaf ears of those who wont accept it I mean there is no reasoning or talking to the Islamic fanatic elements of the insurgency so the Brits way wouldnt have worked. I know Ive seen some reporters saying how the Brits won the trust of Shias by doing more foot patrols without heavy armor so they were seen as people and non hostile but really that would have been suicide and forced quick reversal of those tactics in central Baghdad.

[imb39]

Totally agree that the British approach has limitations - the Sunni Triangle is one of those limitations. I, personally, take my hat off to the American soldier. I have nothing but respect for both American and British soldiers. However, my ire is directed at the politicians who put them in an extremely dangerous position unnecessarily.

[Tom Paine]

Totally agree that the British approach has limitations - the Sunni Triangle is one of those limitations. I, personally, take my hat off to the American soldier. I have nothing but respect for both American and British soldiers. However, my ire is directed at the politicians who put them in an extremely dangerous position unnecessarily.

I respect the American soldier but not the general who somewhat screwed up tactics as well. Seriously, shock and awe, right? Not "Shock, Awe, and lose the people's already tenuous support"!

[danzig]

I respect the American soldier but not the general who somewhat screwed up tactics as well. Seriously, shock and awe, right? Not "Shock, Awe, and lose the people's already tenuous support"!

Its a war what exactly did you expect? The primary goal was to remove Saddam from power and his military and like it or not 'shock and awe' works in destroying the enemies will and ability to fight.. Obviously every attempt was made to avoid mistakes and hits on civilizan targets that would do as you say but it is war and mishaps do happen. Btw shock and awe (its less cool name being Rapid Dominance) is an actual military doctrine and was actually 'thought up' under the Clinton presidency as part of post Cold War military doctrine. It works and is really not much more but an extension of blitzkrieg, it wasnt the problem with Iraq the problem in Iraq was poor planning for AFTER it was successful.

Main problem with shock and awe was media misreading it as lots and lots of big explosions, that isnt really the goal.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

I respect the American soldier but not the general who somewhat screwed up tactics as well. Seriously, shock and awe, right? Not "Shock, Awe, and lose the people's already tenuous support"!

I don't think many people actually know just what "Shock and Awe" actually was. Looking beyond the name, it uses far less force than then Powell doctrines. It's about mobility, and reducing the dependency on air raids. It's also really the basis for the future of the American military.

I would really like to know what you are refering to, as these vague statements are hard to address and serve little purpose in a good discussion.

[Tom Paine]

I meant more the post-primary stages implications and tactics rather than the primary invasion. You know, dropping them into anarchy...

[imb39]

The generals have to operate within restriction laid down by politicians. If they set unrealistic targets or provide inadequate resources - it ain't the generals' fault.