noncon's "Just who IS the Insurgency?" thread

[Kayak]

An attack can come from any direction at any time. That is the reality. A woman can be a suicide bomber as well as a man can. You cant physically distinguish who a shiite is from a sunni just by looking at them. Our people are only there for a tour, so its not like they know who would be out of place in a community and who wouldnt.

It seems from all reports that those troops and commanders who have been most sucessful are the ones who try to do this. Walk and talk, make friends and influence people.

Bottom line, you use the same security measures irregardless of being in the Sunni triangle or in a shiite area.

Providing security and stopping the insurgency are different then? Depends on what level one is opperating on, I know. But in the end they are the same. Can't have one without the other.

 

[Neomega]

A good example would be the fact you chose to show stats on "percentage of attacks aimed at...". If you had instead chosen to show number of civilians/local police/coalition troops killed by attacks you could paint a significantly different picture.

Different and misleading. Most insurgent attacks do not target civilians. A vast majority target coalition or Iraqi government forces. It's just they are in armored vehicles, sandbagged fortifications etc.

Whan an attack is carried out against civilians, it causes a much greater loss of life, because none of them have flak jackets, none of them are using casualty minimization tactics, and none of them have the ability to fight back or stop a suicide bomber before it gets to the heart of it's target.

This is an excellent piece of research, nonconformist, good work.


here is another snippet to answer the question:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit.../0510prison.htm

(Major General) Brandenburg shows that 96 percent of those in the detention camps are Iraqis and about 60 percent are either from Baghdad or Anbar provinces

 

[skadistic]

By "decapitated" I assume you meant killed.

Total non-coalition captured:
139

Total non-coalition killed:
32

Total captured:
205

Total killed:
55

By decapatation I ment beheaded.

One quarty roughly get killed by thier captures. Thats not very good odds and surely violates numerous articals in the Geniva convention.

 

[Neomega]

By decapatation I ment beheaded.

One quarty roughly get killed by thier captures. Thats not very good odds and surely violates numerous articals in the Geniva convention.

Surely it does, yet the foreigners, who are a small percentage, are painting a face on the entire insurgency? The numbers show clearly they are an extreme element of a non-uniform insurgency. (non-uniform does not mean "not uniformed")

Surely Abu Gharaib broke some rules too. Doesn't mean the entire US Amry is making naked human pyramids of people they capture, or condone it.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Different and misleading. Most insurgent attacks do not target civilians. A vast majority target coalition or Iraqi government forces. It's just they are in armored vehicles, sandbagged fortifications etc.

My point was that Noncon's suggested stats formed part of an editorial choice. If you say that my suggested alternative stat would be misleading, then fine - that actually supports the point I was trying to make. I wasn't trying to place more worth on my stat than on noncon's, but rather to point out that the choice of stats meant that Noncon was implicitly (and perhaps subconciously) directing us down a particular interpretation of the insurgency.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

The "who is an insurgent" may be an excellent question at the table over coffee/tea and crumpets, by people who think such things are vitally important - perhaps they are or are not. But to a simple soldier as myself it still boils down to this: An insurgent is the person trying to kill me so I cant come home to see my family ever again.

And I can accept that's your take on the insurgents. I still think it's unnecessary to call noncon's original question "silly", as you must surely appreciate that politicians and civilians want (and need) to understand the overall situation better.

 

[Neomega]

My point was that Noncon's suggested stats formed part of an editorial choice. If you say that my suggested alternative stat would be misleading, then fine - that actually supports the point I was trying to make. I wasn't trying to place more worth on my stat than on noncon's, but rather to point out that the choice of stats meant that Noncon was implicitly (and perhaps subconciously) directing us down a particular interpretation of the insurgency.

Yes, a fact based path, as opposed to a spin based path.



A path that used "numbers" and "statistics"

I am sorry, but your line of thinking is absurd. If noncon is trying to convince you the insurgency is by a vast majority Iraqi... Guess what? It is!

If he is trying ot convince you that most of them only attack coalition or government forces... Geuss what? they do!

If he is trying to convince you there is great symapthy for the insurgency, especially amongst sunnis... Guess what?

If he is trying to convince you most Iraqis disapprove of attacks on civilians......




Than you ask non-con what he wants you to think. If you are so good at weeding out the spin, why don't you figure it out yourself? I think Non-con stated clearly exactly what he is trying to get at.... a good look at who the insurgency is.

 

[kingjoshi]

Yes, a fact based path, as opposed to a spin based path.



A path that used "numbers" and "statistics"

"We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

 

[blackheart]

To me, being in the military as long as I have, it all boils down to one simple thought. The "who" in the insurgency, is the person putting out the IED or taking a sniper shot trying to kill me. Doesnt matter if he is a baathist, Sunni or Shiite - if he has taken arms up against me, then he is the enemy and the decision has come down to its either me or him.

The "who is an insurgent" may be an excellent question at the table over coffee/tea and crumpets, by people who think such things are vitally important - perhaps they are or are not. But to a simple soldier as myself it still boils down to this: An insurgent is the person trying to kill me so I cant come home to see my family ever again.

@ Kayak. Your average soldier over there wants one thing and one thing only. Get his job done and come home alive. It is not the average soldiers responsiblity to understand the political maneuverings of all the parties involved in Iraq. The average soldier is worried about walking his patrol, clearing a building that may have armed insurgents trying to kill him and trying to spot the armed insurgents before they spot you - all the while trying hard to not shoot a civilian by accident. The average soldier isnt worried about the latest poll numbers in Iraq - he is worried about keeping his weapon with him all the time and exactly how long it takes him to get to a bunker in case of a mortar attack.

Hope that sheds some light on the (intelligent) soldier thinking process.

"The more you read and learn, the less your adversary will know."
"Know thy enemy and know thyself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know thyself but not thy enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not thyself, wallow in defeat every time."

Both by Sun Tzu. I'm surprised you don't recognize the importance in situational awareness for soldiers, MobBoss. The US military doesn't train mindless grunts anymore, does it?

Yes you made the point that who the attacker is doesn't matter once he fires upon you, but most of the time soldiers spend are out on patrol, not under fire. So therefore soldiers need to be aware of their situation and the local populace, their feelings towards us, and their reactions to such events. It's an urban occupation environment, this isn't a war where there are clear-cut battles fought, it's one where our soldiers will go and patrol the streets, mingle with civilians, and become aware of their customs. So therefore saying that it isn't important for the soldiers to know what's going on is quite silly in itself.

 

[MobBoss]

"The more you read and learn, the less your adversary will know."
"Know thy enemy and know thyself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know thyself but not thy enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not thyself, wallow in defeat every time."

Both by Sun Tzu.

Sun Tzu's readings were for Generals and Leaders of men. Not for the common spearman such as myself.

I'm surprised you don't recognize the importance in situational awareness for soldiers, MobBoss. The US military doesn't train mindless grunts anymore, does it?

Once again, you confuse tactical situational awareness of the avg soldier with that of strategic situational awaress ala Sun Tzu. For a group of soldiers on patrol it matters not whether the guy shooting at you is sunni or shiite - they are simply the enemy. At the strategic level, of course it matters more which faction is in charge of which area and how they are dealt with is a totally different matter as opposed to your average soldier on patrol in the street.

Yes you made the point that who the attacker is doesn't matter once he fires upon you, but most of the time soldiers spend are out on patrol, not under fire. So therefore soldiers need to be aware of their situation and the local populace, their feelings towards us, and their reactions to such events.

And for what its worth they are briefed upon such points endlessly. However, issues such as tactical situational awareness are the same regardless of the local populace or their feelings.

It's an urban occupation environment, this isn't a war where there are clear-cut battles fought, it's one where our soldiers will go and patrol the streets, mingle with civilians, and become aware of their customs. So therefore saying that it isn't important for the soldiers to know what's going on is quite silly in itself.

Before you get on your high horse, I never said it didnt make sense for soldiers to know their local environment. However, to sit and ponder "Just WHO is the insurgency" is not something your patrol soldiers do on a regular basis. Those particular kind of ruminations are done by the higher HQs S-2 (intell) types.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Once again, you confuse tactical situational awareness of the avg soldier with that of strategic situational awaress ala Sun Tzu. For a group of soldiers on patrol it matters not whether the guy shooting at you is sunni or shiite - they are simply the enemy. At the strategic level, of course it matters more which faction is in charge of which area and how they are dealt with is a totally different matter as opposed to your average soldier on patrol in the street.

Of course the "OVERALL" awareness of the "mission" as well as knowing part of the larger "picture" dose affect moral and performance of troops.

Troops do form there own opionons from experiences on the ground.

 

[blackheart]

Sun Tzu's readings were for Generals and Leaders of men. Not for the common spearman such as myself.

Once again, you confuse tactical situational awareness of the avg soldier with that of strategic situational awaress ala Sun Tzu. For a group of soldiers on patrol it matters not whether the guy shooting at you is sunni or shiite - they are simply the enemy. At the strategic level, of course it matters more which faction is in charge of which area and how they are dealt with is a totally different matter as opposed to your average soldier on patrol in the street.

Before you get on your high horse, I never said it didnt make sense for soldiers to know their local environment. However, to sit and ponder "Just WHO is the insurgency" is not something your patrol soldiers do on a regular basis. Those particular kind of ruminations are done by the higher HQs S-2 (intell) types.

I agree that it doesn't matter who is shooting at you as long as they are shooting at you, but due to the situation in Iraq, footsoldiers on patrol can and do gather information about the feeling of the local populace.

Doing so would help the higher-ups in intel do their job properly and direct the course of war planning because it could change the military's stances on certain groups and strategies, like trying to play one group against another.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Yes, a fact based path, as opposed to a spin based path.

I don't accept per se that use of one statistic implies fact and another implies spin - it's how you use the statistics and the context in which you use them which either helps clarify or obfuscate.

I am sorry, but your line of thinking is absurd.

No, it's not. I don't seem able to clarify what I'm getting at sufficiently well for you to understand it, but that's a different problem.

 

[Neomega]

No, it's not. I don't seem able to clarify what I'm getting at sufficiently well for you to understand it, but that's a different problem.

Why don't you just come out and say what you are hinting at?

I say nonconformist is in a search for the truth, and a good idea of who the insurgency is, and what motivates them. You are insinuating he has some agenda. Why don't you just state this agenda you are accusing him of having, instead of dancing around and defending a non-point?

 

[Gelion]

During the time of war military often played the roles of diplomats presenting their nation through actions and good judgement. Reponsibility for such actions goes from top to bottom, but even the lowest rank should give some thought not just to performing his duties (killing enemy), but knowing the terrain he is working in to be able to judge correctly.

Mobboss showed the typical mindset of an American soldier and its training techniques: "shoot anything that tries to kill you. We will protect you from the consequences". That is why US soldier is a perfect killing machine. That is also why we get cases like Abu-graib and civilians getting shot without prior consideration. It is not the case everywhere, rather in a few places, but the mindset is there. One can see that from statements of common soldiers and people who command them.

 

[MobBoss]

During the time of war military often played the roles of diplomats presenting their nation through actions and good judgement. Reponsibility for such actions goes from top to bottom, but even the lowest rank should give some thought not just to performing his duties (killing enemy), but knowing the terrain he is working in to be able to judge correctly.

Terrain famliarization is a tad different than trying to figure out who is an insurgent and who isnt. BTW, a soldiers duties extend much farther than just simply "killing the enemy".

Mobboss showed the typical mindset of an American soldier and its training techniques: "shoot anything that tries to kill you. We will protect you from the consequences". That is why US soldier is a perfect killing machine.

I never said anything in regards that we would protect someone from the consequences. Hardly. If someone kills someone by accident or unjustly, there will certainly be consequences that must be faced.

Also, what is your alternative to the "shoot anything that tries to kill you" approach? The liberal "give them flowers and money while they try to kill you" approach? or the "hey I am here just to talk about your motivation, oh dont kill me, doh too late.." approach?

That is also why we get cases like Abu-graib and civilians getting shot without prior consideration.

Incorrect. You get situations like Abu-Graib because of a lack of soldier discipline and accountability. Civilians get shot mostly because they are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and get caught in an altercation between insurgents and US forces. Need I remind you, its not just US forces that shoot civilians, despite your attempt to make it sound that way.

It is not the case everywhere, rather in a few places, but the mindset is there. One can see that from statements of common soldiers and people who command them.

Sorry, but me shooting and returning fire on someone out to kill me is not a bad mindset. Far from it. Are you really suggesting that soliders not try to defend themselves and keep the enemy from killing them?

 

[Neomega]

During the time of war military often played the roles of diplomats presenting their nation through actions and good judgement. Reponsibility for such actions goes from top to bottom, but even the lowest rank should give some thought not just to performing his duties (killing enemy), but knowing the terrain he is working in to be able to judge correctly.

Mobboss showed the typical mindset of an American soldier and its training techniques: "shoot anything that tries to kill you. We will protect you from the consequences". That is why US soldier is a perfect killing machine. That is also why we get cases like Abu-graib and civilians getting shot without prior consideration. It is not the case everywhere, rather in a few places, but the mindset is there. One can see that from statements of common soldiers and people who command them.

Actually, Mob Boss has never been in this Iraq, he is just pretending like he was in Iraq. If he was anywhere, he was in the first clean war. This one is much dirtier.

I give the soldiers in Iraq more credit for wanting to be aware of their surroundings. You know, driving down the road, and trying to read what they are thinking, and how angry are they... angry enough not to warn you of the garbage can up ahead full of old artillery shells?

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, Mob Boss has never been in this Iraq, he is just pretending like he was in Iraq.

No, I am not pretending. I am saying exactly what my reactions would be if someone opened fire up on me and/or how does your average soldier tell exactly who is or is not an insurgent.

This one is much dirtier.

No argument there.

I give the soldiers in Iraq more credit for wanting to be aware of their surroundings. You know, driving down the road, and trying to read what they are thinking, and how angry are they... angry enough not to warn you of the garbage can up ahead full of old artillery shells?

Solders are directed and trained to avoid such obvious places to hide IEDs. Nice try though.

 

[Neomega]

No, I am not pretending. I am saying exactly what my reactions would be if someone opened fire up on me and/or how does your average soldier tell exactly who is or is not an insurgent.

For your information, most American casualties are not from small arms fire. A vast majority of them are from IED's... most of the time nobody is shooting.

http://icasualties.org/oif/Stats.aspx

Solders are directed and trained to avoid such obvious places to hide IEDs. Nice try though.

For your information, most American casualties are not from small arms fire. A vast majority of them are from IED's... most of the time nobody is shooting.

from
http://icasualties.org/oif/Stats.aspx

Keep in mind these are fatalities, the IED causes many serious casualties as well.

Filter By: Coalition Country:


Cause of Death Detail Total Percentage
Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack 832 31.6%
Hostile - hostile fire 378 14.4%
Non-hostile - vehicle accident 211 8%
Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire 153 5.8%
Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb 101 3.8%
Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack 89 3.4%
Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack 78 3%
Non-hostile - helicopter crash 78 3%
Hostile - helicopter crash 61 2.3%
Hostile - hostile fire - ambush 60 2.3%
Hostile - hostile fire - suicide car bomb 50 1.9%
Non-hostile - weapon discharge 48 1.8%
Non-hostile - unspecified cause 33 1.3%
Hostile - hostile fire - sniper fire 33 1.3%
Hostile - vehicle accident 30 1.1%
Hostile - hostile fire - suicide bomber 27 1%
Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack) 26 1%
Hostile - hostile fire - rocket attack 23 0.9%
Non-hostile - weapon discharge (accid.) 22 0.8%
Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, rpg 20 0.8%
Hostile - hostile fire - grenade 19 0.7%
Non-hostile - unspecified injury 19 0.7%
Non-hostile - vehicle accident (drowning) 18 0.7%
Non-hostile - illness 16 0.6%
Non-hostile - drowning 15 0.6%
Hostile - friendly fire 15 0.6%
Non-hostile - ordnance accident 14 0.5%
Non-hostile - illness - heart attack 11 0.4%
Hostile - hostile fire - explosion 11 0.4%
Hostile - transport plane crash 10 0.4%
Hostile - hostile fire - bomb 9 0.3%
Non-hostile - electrocution 8 0.3%
Non-hostile - homicide 7 0.3%
Hostile - hostile fire - mine 7 0.3%
Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, IED 7 0.3%
Non-hostile - illness - sudden collapse 5 0.2%
Non-hostile - accidental fall 4 0.2%
Non-hostile - airplane crash 4 0.2%
Non-hostile - weapon malfunction 4 0.2%
Non-hostile - illness - died in sleep 3 0.1%
Non-hostile - illness - heat related 3 0.1%
Non-hostile - not reported 3 0.1%
Non-hostile - suicide 3 0.1%
Non-hostile - unspecified accident 3 0.1%
Hostile - hostile fire - suicide boat bomb 3 0.1%
Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades 3 0.1%
Hostile - friendly fire - jet crash 3 0.1%
Hostile - drowning 3 0.1%
Hostile - hostile fire - mine (anti-tank) 2 0.1%
Non-hostile 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - accident 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - accident (?) 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - natural causes 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - illness - heart attack? 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - illness - heat related? 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - illness - heatstroke 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - illness - pneumonia? 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - jet crash 2 0.1%
Hostile - jet crash 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - building fire 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - weapon discharge (suicide) 2 0.1%
Non-hostile - vehicle accident 1 0%
Hostile - unspecified injury 1 0%
Non-hostile - fall from helicopter 1 0%
Non-hostile - fire 1 0%
Non-hostile - illness - acute leukemia 1 0%
Non-hostile - illness - acute pancreatitis 1 0%
Non-hostile - illness - brain aneurysm 1 0%
Non-hostile - illness - breathing difficulties 1 0%
Non-hostile - lost at sea 1 0%
Non-hostile - maintenance accident 1 0%
Non-hostile - illness - seizure 1 0%
Non-hostile - illness - heart failure 1 0%
Non-hostile - ordnance accident? 1 0%
Non-hostile - possible suicide 1 0%
Hostile - hostile fire - truck bomb 1 0%
Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack (?) 1 0%
Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack 1 0%
Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb?/RP grenade? 1 0%
Hostile - fall from helicopter 1 0%
Hostile - friendly fire - cluster bomblet 1 0%
Total 2629



to see a comparison of ied vs small arms fire, click on "view totals by" and choose "cause of death detail", then click apply filter.

I actually find it hilarious you have pegged yourself into the position that soldiers should stay ignorant, when you know, and I know for a fact, that is not what the brass wants.

 

[Gelion]

Terrain famliarization is a tad different than trying to figure out who is an insurgent and who isnt. BTW, a soldiers duties extend much farther than just simply "killing the enemy".

I am aware of the difficulty of the soldiers tasks both on patrol and inside the well fortified military bases. It is not he question here.
You might want to read up some history. Many times in history actions of the soldiers determined big political issues. Questions like "who shoots first" and "what does the officer in charge stand for" are quite important both in politics and "on the ground". Respect towards local population, some form of contact are cruscial. If that is done and done right one of the locals might save a few soldiers. It was happening and it will. Diplomacy is not only for diplomats.

I never said anything in regards that we would protect someone from the consequences. Hardly. If someone kills someone by accident or unjustly, there will certainly be consequences that must be faced.

No you did not. However a lot of the cases against US military fall apart or the guilty get less punishment than they should have. I had enough information to form my opinion on this and only more information contradicting that could change my opinion. You dont have to like it and I dont have to spend time explaining each and every case I knew.

Also, what is your alternative to the "shoot anything that tries to kill you" approach? The liberal "give them flowers and money while they try to kill you" approach? or the "hey I am here just to talk about your motivation, oh dont kill me, doh too late.." approach?

That is a pacifist approach. Battle is a battle and one must fight when attacked. As an example of my point I could say that if say.... a US soldeir saved a son of the local tribes leader in a fight rather than shoot him as the one who fought aganist US army (Hypothetically he was recognised and consciously captured rather than shot "like all enemies") the tribes leader will become a very good friend of the US Army. Is my point clearer now?

Incorrect. You get situations like Abu-Graib because of a lack of soldier discipline and accountability. Civilians get shot mostly because they are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and get caught in an altercation between insurgents and US forces. Need I remind you, its not just US forces that shoot civilians, despite your attempt to make it sound that way.

Partially correct. Discipline plays a role, but mindset shapes actions. If you belive you can do whatever you like and shoot without responsibility you get to have a different relationship with the world.
Totally agree that civilians mostly get shot by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sorry, but me shooting and returning fire on someone out to kill me is not a bad mindset. Far from it. Are you really suggesting that soliders not try to defend themselves and keep the enemy from killing them?

No I am not sggesting that and I think I already answered this point. The main idea is that a soldier is not only a killing machine. I still think we debate of different levels of understanding.