Congratulations whole sale slaughter has reduced the killing in Iraq. However Afghanistan casualties are at their high since the invasion. No don't whole sale slaughter can stop the killing there as well. Great news if human life is reduced to nothing more than a figure in the papers and rampant imperialism becomes our creed.
On Sep 10, 7:28 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > jgg, > > Great, terriffic. So let's pack our shit and git. The expensively and > completely trained Iraqi Army can certainly handle any mopping up > actions. Time to go. > > On Sep 9, 2:52 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > should not be taken for granted... In part the low rate is very rare > > in the history of warfare... > > >http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20080909.aspx > > > >>> The war in Afghanistan has been notable for how low the casualty rate > > >>> has been for troops killed in combat. We'll use a standard measure of > > >>> combat losses, the number of troops in a combat division (12-20,000 > > >>> troops) who are killed each day the division is in combat. Since late > > >>> 2001, there have been .12 American combat deaths per division day in > > >>> Afghanistan. During the Vietnam war, the average division lost 3.2 > > >>> troops a day, which was similar to the losses suffered in Korea > > >>> (1950-53). In Iraq, the losses have been .44 deaths per division per > > >>> day. By comparison, during World War II the daily losses per American > > >>> averaged (over 400-500 combat days) about twenty soldiers per day. On > > >>> the Russian front, German and Russian divisions lost several times > > >>> that, and often over a hundred a day for weeks on end. > > > For short campaigns, which Iraq and Afghanistan are not, the losses > > were similar. That's why the concept of "days in combat" is used. > > During World War II, and before and since, divisions would often be > > out of the combat zone for days, or weeks, before going back into > > action. Thus the spectacular six week German conquest of France in > > 1940, saw their combat divisions taking 30 dead (on average) per day. > > But during another spectacular military victory, the 1967 Six Day War, > > Israeli dead were 22 per division per day, and that actually went down > > to 18 a day during the less spectacular 1973 war. > > > By contrast, the three week invasion of Iraq in 2003 saw U.S. troops > > suffering 1.6 dead per day per division. During the 2006 Israeli war > > in Lebanon, Israel lost 8 soldiers per division per day. > > > With the dramatic drop in casualties, came another big shift. In World > > War II, one in three casualties was killed. In Iraq and Afghanistan, > > only 12 percent of the casualties were fatal. This does not change the > > dramatic difference between combat losses then and now. In World War > > II, U.S. divisions suffered about 60 dead and wounded per combat day, > > while in Afghanistan there has been one (1) per combat day, and in > > Iraq, 3.5. So by any measure, U.S. troops have learned how to avoid > > getting hit. U.S. commanders see the reasons as better equipment, > > tactics, weapons, leadership and training than in the past. With an > > all-volunteer force, the troops are smarter and more physically fit as > > well. Many of the life-saving innovations U.S. troops have come up > > with in the past seven years have not gotten much publicity. Good news > > doesn't sell, but in this case, it has definitely saved lives. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
