US death toll twice that of the "Iraqi army"

[TC]

The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday.

The Associated Press count of U.S. military deaths for the month was 81, including a soldier who died from non-combat causes Friday. Figures compiled from officials in the Iraqi ministries of Defense, Health and Interior showed the Iraqi military toll was 44.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_...arch_casualties (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_march_casualties)

So, are "Iraqi army" soldiers just more effective than American soldiers or can they just run away from the Resistance faster?

[RNK]

It also mentions Iraqi police (many who serve in paramilitary units) with 120 or something casualties.

I'd say it's probably a combination of the fact that the Police are actually on the front lines, and also the Iraqis are probably more accustomed to militia tactics than the Americans.

[PRC-UTE]

part of it would be reluctance to fight... many would have been themselves fighting the US/UK occupiers until recently. Many more have relatives still fighting. I think many collect their pay and basically refuse to fight.

It's also been widely reported that discipline is non-existent; soldiers don't sign up for tours but can leave at any time they like for instance.

[Severian]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 02, 2007 02:29 pm
part of it would be reluctance to fight... many would have been themselves fighting the US/UK occupiers until recently. Many more have relatives still fighting. I think many collect their pay and basically refuse to fight.

It's also been widely reported that discipline is non-existent; soldiers don't sign up for tours but can leave at any time they like for instance.
Right. It's certainly not that the Iraqi army is more effective.

Come on people. It's marginally effective and unmotivated, contrasted to one of the most conventionally effective fighting forces on the planet. It's the height of wishful thinking to pretend U.S. soldiers don't know how to fight. Their limitations are more....political.

Probably the Iraqi army is not sent in for offensive operations so much, but just guard places. U.S. forces would be sent wherever it's hottest.


It also mentions Iraqi police (many who serve in paramilitary units) with 120 or something casualties.

I'd say it's probably a combination of the fact that the Police are actually on the front lines,

Right, both in the sense the paramilitary units would do more fighting, and the regular cops would be out on the streets in small groups - more vulnerable targets.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Probably the Iraqi army is not sent in for offensive operations so much, but just guard places. U.S. forces would be sent wherever it's hottest.

Goodie good! :D

The harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all!

[Enragé]

perhaps the resistance is more eager to shoot yanks than iraqis?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:53 am
perhaps the resistance is more eager to shoot yanks than iraqis?
That'd be a strange conclusion to draw from casualty figures, since the resistance has been killing more Iraqi civilians than anyone else.

[Tower of Bebel]

The US does not use Iraqi forces that often. Mostly US soldiers have to do the job a,d the Iraqi forces get the more quiet zones. Still that does not means the Iraqis are safe. Especially civilians are far from safe!

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Severian+April 07, 2007 07:00 am--> (Severian @ April 07, 2007 07:00 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 05:53 am
perhaps the resistance is more eager to shoot yanks than iraqis?
That'd be a strange conclusion to draw from casualty figures, since the resistance has been killing more Iraqi civilians than anyone else. [/b]
ah yeh, true

[Janus]

I agree with Sev., US army forces are mainly used for offensive maneuvers while the Iraqi army is more of a sideline force used for guarding and sweeping maneuvers. Thus, the Iraqi army is usually exposed to less resistance whereas the US soldiers are more likely to be caught up in heavy operations and combat. It might take a while before the 2 roles switch as the US must place more faith and trust on the ability of the Iraqi army at some point.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:07 pm
I agree with Sev., US army forces are mainly used for offensive maneuvers while the Iraqi army is more of a sideline force used for guarding and sweeping maneuvers. Thus, the Iraqi army is usually exposed to less resistance whereas the US soldiers are more likely to be caught up in heavy operations and combat. It might take a while before the 2 roles switch as the US must place more faith and trust on the ability of the Iraqi army at some point.
thats exactly what i got from reading "my war" by colby buzzell about his experience in iraq.

[Question everything]

I think it is because most of them think the Militias are better than the Americans

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

In Vietnam it was the draftees getting high who fucked over the whole US war effort, and I'm anticipating Iraqi army incidents like this:

Originally posted by PRC UTE
part of it would be reluctance to fight... many would have been themselves fighting the US/UK occupiers until recently. Many more have relatives still fighting. I think many collect their pay and basically refuse to fight.

It's also been widely reported that discipline is non-existent; soldiers don't sign up for tours but can leave at any time they like for instance.

will do the same in Iraq.

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

Not only is it contributed that there are a larger number of US troops doing more offensive manuevers and going into the more dangerous area. But the Iraqi "insurgents" (for lack of better word and for simple communication) aren't stupid, I think they know that if they primarily target US forces, the public opinion will continue to switch. The public will become even more in oposition to the conflict and urge the withdrawl of troops. It will be Vietnam part deux, the more American troops that die, and the more its publicized, the more the US citizens will turn against the war, in turn holding more anti-war rallies and the like. It will thus cause the majority of Congress to receive more letters urging withdrawl, and one will act, all will vote and the troops will be pulled from Iraq.

[Question everything]

I think that there is probably a large percent of Iraqi security forces who accually are fighting for "insurgents".

[Xilo]

Problably many of the Iraqi soldiers are passing intelegence onto the insurgents for their lives. The mitildas can now know where the US Soldiers are operating and where the Iraqi Soldiers are operating.

[Guerrilla22]

The Iraqi army hasn't been involved nearly as long as the US army has. Also maybe the US just doesn't trust the Iraqis. You know, they wouldn't want to mess things up.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:47 pm
Problably many of the Iraqi soldiers are passing intelegence onto the insurgents for their lives. The mitildas can now know where the US Soldiers are operating and where the Iraqi Soldiers are operating.
Nah, haven't you anything from around there? Gouvernment officals have thier own militias, I have no doubt "Insurgents" would join the ranks of the security force for free Food weapons and training why wouldn't they?