Facts that made no sense about the war in Iraq?

Question

There have been a little over 3700 U.S. troops killed in Iraq and another 27,500 or so wounded.
According to figures released in June 2007 by the military, the estimated insurgency strength is 70,000. There have been roughly 55,000 insurgents killed in Iraq by U.S. forces. There are no figures on wounded insurgents, but if the ratio is the same as U.S. forces there must have been over 400,000 insurgents wounded.
Something isn't right about these numbers. How could a force of only 70,000 insurgents give 160,000 of the finest equiped soldiers such a hard time? Where are these wounded insurgents getting medical treatment?
Any force that can still be present on the battlefield after suffering 55,000 killed, must be larger than 70,000 men. As Hamlet might say, something is rotten in Iraq. What is up with these numbers?

Answer 1

That's an interesting perspective. I think that the numbers may not be far off.

The insurgents in Iraq have a distinct advantage over the 'occupying force': asymmetrical warfare (guerilla tactics). They know their surrounding, and they can hide among their population, and they can 'pop up' from unexpected places. That is the reason that a 70k or so poorly equipped, poorly trained insurgents are able to mess with a larger, stronger, and better equipped, and super-power force. Besides, the morale is also the issue - the locals usually resent the occupying force because they are usually in the face and usually treat the locals badly. So, the insurgents will get sympathy from the local population and may be able to hide and get information from them.

The US had encountered this asymmetric warfare before, in Vietnam, and have suffered much from it. The results speak for themselves.

Answer 2

Much like the war in Vietnam we are fighting more than just the Iraqi soldiers. Terrorist factions are the major cause of death to both civilians and US troops. This is a new war, unlike any one that has ever been fought before. Even with our new technical advances they beat us by using completely unfair practices such as suicide bombings and the killings of their citizens. We must remember that what sets this apart from Vietnam is the fact that not only are we not welcomed there, but we are fighting in a new environment.
This is no longer a war for "democracy". It is now simply a religious war and a war over oil. We do have resources in our own country that could help us wean our dependency for foreign oil. But until we start studying and using those sources the fight will go on. The religious war has been going on since biblical times. Never believe the figures that you read in the paper or see on TV as you must always remember that those sources are out for only one thing - the almighty dollar bill. They broadcast propoganda base stories on what they believe we want to hear. War is always wrong. The life of ANY person lost to war or strife is wrong. Iraq does not want our Democratic society and we cannot push it upon them. The biggest thing that needs to be done is for more people to go to their councilmen, their congressmen, their senators and even the President and let them know we want out. That is the only way we can get the ball rolling and really let them know we are serious. Standing around in groups and talking about it just wastes time. Also, another sad number is the not shown number of our soldiers who have commited suicide over in Iraq or after returning home. It is still a death related to the war. There is nothing good about a war that is making no progress. God Bless all of our American Troops!!!!! This is definatley a ***** star question - kudos to you!!!

Answer 3

This is much different war than we are use to fighting. Don't get hung up on statistics. These people are not stupid. Hell, I think they are smarter than us at fighting this type of war. They have had a lot of experience in the fight with the Soviets and look what they did to them. A guerrilla war is a difficult war to fight for both sides. Look how long Israel has been fighting. We used guerrilla war during the Revolution at times and look what happened to the British. When the NVA faced us openly on the battlefield they were slammed heavily. So they went back to guerrilla actions and looked what happened in Vietnam. Of course, politics has become part of warfare now, also.

Answer 4

I think probably the U.S. troops are more accurate with their weapons which would mean you would have more insurgents killed rather than having them simply injured. The insurgent method of fighting is to set traps and hope their target get killed, which is much less successful in killing troops. If you think about it like this those numbers become more reasonable.

Answer 5

You're operating under the assumption that jihadists care about their wounded or that they care about living to fight another day. They don't. They also have no medical facilities. And our armament and firepower is significantly more deadly than theirs.

Plus our soldiers, since they operate openly as soldiers, wear protective gear that saves them from fatal wounds. The jihadists hide in the population, and thus cannot wear protective gear.

Add to that the jihadist suicidal martyrdom tendencies, and you get death-to-casualty ratios like the Japanese did in WW2.

Lastly, no medical evacuation, no medical surgery units, etc like the US military has.

So, no, they wouldn't necessarily have anywhere close to the same ratio as the US experiences.

As for the difficulty, the fact is that they're not wearing uniforms or occupying specific territory or stationed at specific posts. They are hiding in the population, and cannot be distinguished from the population in general.

In such asymetric warfare like the counter-insurgency we are in, it is very hard to dig them out and eliminate them.

Answer 6

Even if your numbers are correct -- which I doubt since you give no sources for the quotes and admit to the conjecture of the rest -- I can't believe that you consider roughly 5% a "hard time". It is an infinitely better survival rate than all previous wars fought by the US.

Answer 7

It's not the insurgents, it's the rules of engagement that's giving our troops such a hard time over there. It's hard to fight when you have one hand tied behind your back and you have to be swung at first before you can swing back.

Answer 8

damn thats a good question ! but you did say it yourself they have the best equipment and men maybe the ratio of wounded is quite different - there is definitely a different story but we will never know it until the troops get back - I asked in the military area of Y/a how many served in this Iraq war and only 5 vets responded - and the families always tell different stories from the press as well - but if I was over there I would be telling my wife everything was fine and great to make sure she didnt worry-but on the otherhand if everything was fine I would say it was fine -who knows at this point? again good question

Answer 9

You answered your own question do the math on the ratio of 55,000 insurgents kia vs. 3700. Also in our 3700 not all were killed in enemy action...many of those deaths are attributed to accidents in the war zone.

Answer 10

Actually the amount of citizens in Iraq are the ones being killed as the fighting continues between the Sunni and Shiite.
all the US has to do is supply Guns and Ammo and stand back and let them kill each other which I think is the idea behind all the help they are giving. When the civil war is over they can buy gas from the winner.
Something tells me all of Iraq is the loser.