BF2S Forums Military Question

I would imagine it's because the US troops over there sit in extremely heavily armoured vehicles and bases impervious to the weaponry used by the Iraqis. On a troop to local populace basis I believe the US are spread relatively thinly.

NeXuS4909 wrote:

If only 4100 of our troops have died in Iraq, how come people are saying are forces are spread thin? We have to have ALOT more troops than that. I don't believe supplies and vehicles would be a problem either.

Anyone care to elaborate?

Don't ask Obama, he doesn't know -he skipped the briefings (he asked for). http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanm … efing.html

For starters, soldiers need a break for the action, the longer and more often the better. The constant need for deployment of troops since the invasion of Afghanistan means there is litle untapped reserve of troops. It's typically something like a year in the field followed by a year of rest and re-training. This means that the number of soldiers involved in the Iraq war is roughly twice the number in Iraq, the other half are in the US recovering before their next deployment. That gives roughly 300,000 troops in the Iraq active/resting cycle. Add Afghanistan and other deployment areas and you can see what a strain it puts on the military strength.

The 4100 does not account for the wounded that either need lengthy rehabillitation or can no longer fight, those that quit as a result of active service due to not wanting to do it again and those that develop psychological issues such as ptsd and effectively rule themselves out of further front line duty.

If only 4100 of our troops have died in Iraq, how come people are saying are forces are spread thin? We have to have ALOT more troops than that. I don't believe supplies and vehicles would be a problem either.

Invading a country and keeping it under control are two different things
150,000 soldiers are not enough to keep order in a country of 25m, if those 25m don't want them there.
150,000 soldiers are not enough to control the 300,000 members of the disbanded Iraqi army.

Bush screwed the pre-war phase, Rumsfeld and Bremer screwed up the post-war phase.

NeXuS4909 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Don't think If only 4100 of our troops have died in Iraq was the best way to start this thread, that's 4100 to many tbh ...

Well compared to the other hell holes our toops have been in its considerably less.


WW2 - 416,800
Korea - 36,516 + 8,000 MIA
Vietnam - 58,217

So on and so on

This is 4100 real people we're talking about. Not chips on a roulette table.

Braddock wrote:

NeXuS4909 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Don't think If only 4100 of our troops have died in Iraq was the best way to start this thread, that's 4100 to many tbh ...

Well compared to the other hell holes our toops have been in its considerably less.


WW2 - 416,800
Korea - 36,516 + 8,000 MIA
Vietnam - 58,217

So on and so on

This is 4100 real people we're talking about. Not chips on a roulette table.

I quit tbh. No one gets what im trying to say.

Braddock wrote:

NeXuS4909 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Don't think If only 4100 of our troops have died in Iraq was the best way to start this thread, that's 4100 to many tbh ...

Well compared to the other hell holes our toops have been in its considerably less.


WW2 - 416,800
Korea - 36,516 + 8,000 MIA
Vietnam - 58,217

So on and so on

This is 4100 real people we're talking about. Not chips on a roulette table.

So what does that mean? In 30 years from now the 4100 real people will magically turn into chips on a roulette table?

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

This is 4100 real people we're talking about. Not chips on a roulette table.

So what does that mean? In 30 years from now the 4100 real people will magically turn into chips on a roulette table?

My point is, as God Save The Queen pointed out, people are discussing this figure as if it's some sort of statistic of minor importance. These are real American people with families who are now without brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers. That's before we even start talking about the maimed and injured soldiers. How many American deaths would be tolerable in your view on foreign policy?

And besides, it has already been pointed out why US forces are spread too thin. You can invade and destroy a country pretty much from the air but to actually put people on the ground and try and maintain control in a country is another story entirely...especially if the inhabitants of that country simply do not want to be controlled by you.

NeXuS4909 wrote:

Well i understand where you guys are coming from but were missing the point of what i asked!

I'm curious on how 5x as many people died in other wars but our forces are spread thin. That's what im asking. I've had family members serve in iraq to. I know how it is to worry whether or not they will come home.

People are spread around the globe, the best of our fighting divisions are often kept in overseas bases, our force structure is supposed to support 1 major conflict and 2 minor ones, problem is the numbers arent adding up. People probably never realized that officers in the Pentagon dont count as infantry.


_{This is all speculation, Im just talking out of my ass and making guesses so I am sorry if I am wrong.}

Last edited by Commie Killer (2008-06-25 07:29:09)

NeXuS4909 wrote:

Well i understand where you guys are coming from but were missing the point of what i asked!

I'm curious on how 5x as many people died in other wars but our forces are spread thin. That's what im asking. I've had family members serve in iraq to. I know how it is to worry whether or not they will come home.

I answered already. Technological advances made by the Americans in the interim which make it much much tougher for soldiers to get killed. I would also imagine that fighting in an Iraqi city is markedly less dangerous than fighting in the deepest Vietnamese jungles.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-25 07:52:12)

NeXuS4909 wrote:

Well i understand where you guys are coming from but were missing the point of what i asked!

I'm curious on how 5x as many people died in other wars but our forces are spread thin. That's what im asking. I've had family members serve in iraq to. I know how it is to worry whether or not they will come home.

I think we need to clear up the definition of "spread thin". Being spread thin doesn't mean we've lost so many soldiers that there aren't enough to do the job. It's more like a concentration per area. As Dilbert said, we have roughly 150,000 soldiers policing a population of 25 million. It's not 150,000 soldiers fighting an armed force of 200,000 Viet Cong.

Maybe this will help: Say in WWII, we had 500K men out there advancing on Berlin. Once they liberated a territory, the locals resumed control and we maybe left a station here and there for supplies or whatever, then we moved on closer to the goal.

Well there are no "lines" in Iraq. The entire country is a battlefield and there's no where to fall back to. This also explains why it's so much more traumatic for the troops over there now than it was in WWII. Then there was intermittent battle with heavy casualties. Now, they have lighter casualties, but they're basically in combat mode 24/7 with no breaks.

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

I thought urban was the most dangerous of all scenarios due to so many places being available for ambushes and so on, and a lack of truly effective camouflage, plus civilians. Not saying a dense jungle wouldn't be difficult to fight in like.

It's easier to lay siege to a city or part of a city - to blockade it - and reduce the enemy to the point of breaking than it is to blockade or lay siege to sprawling jungle.

True, but in a jungle you can basically decimate an area contianing enemies without the risk of civilian casualties.