Guerilla Actions in Irak

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...xportaltop.html

Hi Imperialist,

That's better. The Telegraph has reliable links in the MOD.

I presume that as it was conducted for the British MOD it refers to Southern Iraq only?

The picture from these returns is a bit internally contradictory but confirms that Iraqis are generally hostile to a foreign occupation of their country. No surprise there.

On the other hand it does not test their confidence in any of the internal Iraqi alternatives.

Nor does it explain their apparent confidence in voting in higher percentages than the US public does in US elections in a constitutional referendum which only occurred because of the foreign occupation.

Basically, the Iraqis are a proud people currently lacking the social cohesion and mutually agreed capability to order their own national affairs in a civil manner without outside support, but they are nevertheless resentful of such outside support because its presence exposes their society's own limitations.

I'll buy the Sunday Telegraph today to see if it contains any more details.

Cheers,

Sid.

Source

Hi Imperialist,

2,000 is an eye-grabbing headline figure without any particular significance of itself, not least because some 400 of the deaths were not combat related.

The figures to follow are the monthly rates of loss, which indicate whether the insurgency is getting more serious or not.

Cheers,

Sid.

I fail to see your reasons for dismissing this figure as insignificant of itself.

The story of Army Sgt. Catalin Dima (KIA) and his widow, Florika, on CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10...d.ap/index.html

Gen. Dénes

REGAL UNIFORMA COLECTOR has also posted some details about Catalin Dima.

Hi Imperialist,

If one can explain why the 2,000 figure is substantively different from the 1,999 figure or a 2,001 figure then one may regard it as significant in its own right. However, I don't think it is.

Firstly, there is no precise agreement on how many have actually died in Iraq as a result of the Iraq war. At least 400 deaths have been non-combat related, many of which would have occurred even on peacetime postings. Thus there is no way of precising when the 2,000th war-related fatality will occur.

Secondly, the 2,000 figure is only psychologically significant because of the decimal system we use. Had we used a numbering system to the base of, say, eight, or binary, it would not even have psychological impact.

In a material sense such numbers make little difference to a military the size of the US and they have never been so concentrated in particular units that they have had to be withdrawn from combat.

The important point about any number of casualties, be it 1,999, 2,000 or 2,001 is that there is no end in sight.

The only way to get some idea of whether an end is foreseeable is to project trends, which is why I suggested that monthly loss rates are a much better marker to follow.

The 2,000 figure is, as I said, an eye-grabbing headline figure without any particular significance of itself.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Imperialist,

The following includes daily attacks by quarter:

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/global...0Insurgency.pdf

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Imperialist,

The following has the monthly US casualty figures:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Cheers,

Sid.

Yes, I have known that site for 5 months already. Used it for a research. But thanks for the link anyways.

take care

This globalguerillas site I didnt know. Pretty interesting. Thanks for the link Sid.

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on October 27, 2005 04:30 pm

Some scenes from Iraq (looks like Somalia rather):

Link

This post has been edited by Imperialist on October 28, 2005 08:14 pm

Have a ride with an Abrams MBT in Irak:

http://media.putfile.com/Abrams-Ride

Ambush in Irak:

http://times.discovery.com/convergence/off...deogallery.html

(the 5th clip from the left)