The Most Responsible Iraq War Policy

[mRx 16]

Posted on politicallore.com

Submitted by john_anderson_ii

The Scenario:

A supply convoy is traversing the open country between Al Najaf and Baghdad. An IED goes off next to a support HUMMWV. The blast kills the vehicle operator and the “A” driver, and seriously wounds the gunner and radio operator. The HUMMWV is crippled. A gunner in another support vehicle spots several insurgents within range to have detonated the device. The vehicle closes to investigate and a firefight ensues. In the end, the American forces take no more casualties, kill four insurgents, and wound two.

The Aftermath:

I’d like to mention that I will be talking about the dollar signs attached to the lives of our troops. During the initial invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) I served as an Intelligence/Operations Analyst for the 6th Engineer Support Battalion. It was my job to examine the area of operations through the eyes of an emotionless calculator. If you feel this type of discussion might offend you, please read no more.

Who won the exchange described above? If you said the Americans did, because they dished out more than they took, you are wrong. The Americans lost big in this exchange. The HUMMWV, armor, radio, and machine gun cost close to $100,000. The driver and “A” driver cost another $200,000 in accumulated training and family death benefits. I can’t even begin to guess the cost of the two wounded. Disability for the rest of their lives, plus training a radio operator? This encounter easily cost the United States upwards of half a million dollars not counting medical care for the wounded insurgents. On the insurgency side they have a whopping five or ten thousand dollars invested in the people and equipment. They don’t provide much training or family death benefits, nor do they invest a whole lot into their equipment.

The convoy was disrupted by the insurgents, so the insurgents accomplished their mission. The convoy may have been protected, so our primary goal was accomplished, but the disruption and casualties cost confidence in the route. Which means more patrols, more reconnaissance, and ultimately more cost. The result is a very expensive stalemate.

In the above scenario, we spent upwards of $500,000 to the insurgent’s $10,000 or $50:$1. Now remember that more often than not, no insurgents are engaged after IED disruptions like this, because they are nowhere in the immediate area to be found. That means the normal economic impact on the insurgents is the cost of the IED and no more. In some cases, it could cost only $500 for some fertilizer and a blasting cap. In that case we are trading at $1000:$1

The cost of “Victory”:

Victory is achieved by removing the enemies will or means to wage war. As the Soviets found out, bankruptcy and economic collapse can destroy a people’s means to wage war. Can Al Qaeda’s financial backers match the coffers of the U.S. when we are trading somewhere between $50:$1 and $1000:$1 for each encounter? We don’t really know because we’re not entirely sure of the depth of their funding. I certainly don’t want to find out though, if we guess wrong we put the U.S. into a recession.

How about our will to wage war as a people? How long is the American society willing to pay these kind of prices for a stalemate? How long is the American worker willing to continue investing a portion of his labor, just to see it used so irresponsibly. When an investor’s money isn’t showing returns, it is understandable and expected that the investor’s confidence will begin to wane. We, as a Nation, are loosing our will to fight because the price of a stalemate is too high.

“Right” or “Wrong”:

By refusing to change policies and tactics, our politicians are leaving our troops in a no-win situation. The same politicians and pundits who claim to be so supportive and so patriotic, would rather leave our troops to suffer military defeat, and our people to suffer economic defeat, than admit that they were wrong and try something new. If they would swallow their pride, think things over, and plot a new course, perhaps we could have our victory without sacrificing either our troops or our middle class. Our troops are now in a position where they can not win militarily without loosing economically, and it’s wrong to keep them in that position.

What is the most responsible Iraq war policy? :

If you answered “Stay The Course!” please move along now. You are living in a fairy tale world where truth and justice always prevail over the scarcity of resources. The most responsible policy I’ve heard has been Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) “Just Come Home” policy. It’s not the end-all-be-all answer to our problems, but it’s a step in the responsible direction.

I would like “Just Come Home” to have a few amendments though. Mainly a promise to regroup and re-engage Al Qaeda in a smarter and more responsible manner. We must physically and financially outmaneuver our enemies. That means we attack their funding, and turn the tables so that an attack costs Al Qaeda more to execute than it costs us to defend. We should be shaking the confidence of those who invest in Al Qaeda. Track down their financiers, hire government sanctioned hit men, and remove Al Qaeda’s financial backing from play. Maybe others would think twice before deciding to invest in the enemies of the United States. I don’t think we can remove our enemies’ will to fight by locking horns in a stalemate and outspending them. However, if we are smarter and more responsible in our approach, we can remove their means to fight and we will have victory

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Who won the exchange described above? If you said the Americans did, because they dished out more than they took, you are wrong. The Americans lost big in this exchange. The HUMMWV, armor, radio, and machine gun cost close to $100,000. The driver and “A” driver cost another $200,000 in accumulated training and family death benefits. I can’t even begin to guess the cost of the two wounded. Disability for the rest of their lives, plus training a radio operator? This encounter easily cost the United States upwards of half a million dollars not counting medical care for the wounded insurgents. On the insurgency side they have a whopping five or ten thousand dollars invested in the people and equipment. They don’t provide much training or family death benefits, nor do they invest a whole lot into their equipment.

No surprise to me. Much the same story as Vietnam if I understand correctly. Low-tech enemy, hit and fade tactics and a few $ worth of improvised explosives = massive damage and an open-ended bill.

[alienlovechild 75]

Old argument. It used to referred to as it takes 50 cents to kill an American soldier and $5,000 to kill each VC or NVA enemy. This guy's train of thought hasn't advanced much since then.

I've heard it cost the 9/11 attackers about $100K to make $150 Billion dollars worth of damage to the economy.

Mainly a promise to regroup and re-engage Al Qaeda in a smarter and more responsible manner. We must physically and financially outmaneuver our enemies. That means we attack their funding, and turn the tables so that an attack costs Al Qaeda more to execute than it costs us to defend. We should be shaking the confidence of those who invest in Al Qaeda.

This guy has never heard of sabotage and industrial espionage. There are people winning to blow a cheap a few bucks to stick it to U.S. economic assets.

Track down their financiers, hire government sanctioned hit men, and remove Al Qaeda’s financial backing from play.

Sounds good. Let's have our killers take out their bookies, couriers, guards, computer operators, . . .of course the enemy will picking off our killers, too.

Maybe others would think twice before deciding to invest in the enemies of the United States.

That assumes the international sanctions work and they don't. Why would other countries worry about the U.S. if there's little possibility we'd do something cheap like bomb all their electrical plants and refineries for example? There's no central government in Afghanistan and they don't have a out of "investors". Oh the Saudis, I'm sure that unless we start killing princes, elements in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere will pony up a few bucks to launch a few attacks.

[Ban Hammer 13,645]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_ODIN

[nowhereman 1]

After everyone cuts through the rhetoric the bottom line is that it takes a holistic approach to combat terrorism. That includes diplomacy, cutting off their finances & supply chains, information operations and if necessary military action. This is called the DIME approach (Diplomacy, Information Operations, Military & Economic means). A major criticism of the Bush doctrine is that it essentially ignored everything but military action.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

After everyone cuts through the rhetoric the bottom line is that it takes a holistic approach to combat terrorism. That includes diplomacy, cutting off their finances & supply chains, information operations and if necessary military action. This is called the DIME approach (Diplomacy, Information Operations, Military & Economic means). A major criticism of the Bush doctrine is that it essentially ignored everything but military action.

Because shooting is fun