[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones]

For the record, total war does work. Ghengis Khan, Alexander. Hell, look at our more recent history: Native Americans were butchered left and right and moved off of their land. Why did they stop fighting us? Anybody remember? It wasn’t because we were nice to them. That came later.[/quote]You are really digging into the past for those references. I mean really, Indians vs. Americans???Conventional warfare used to work, it does not any more. Guerrilla warfare is too effective today to justify conventional warfare. The strongest army in the world can’t beat an entrenched guerrilla army. This is how Afghanistan beat RussiaThis is how Vietnam beat USAThis is why Israel can barely control the Palestinian region. Or, if you want to go back, this is how Americans won the RevolutionHow the IRA beat the crap out of the British.Interestingly, in every one of my examples, the losing military used excessive violence to try to control an entrenched population. It just won’t work. People today are too smart and weapons are too easy to acquire. They know they don’t just need to give up. I also believe this because if my country were occupied, I would never give up no matter how much violence was used. I’m guessing you would give up - this is why you believe this would be effective.

I’m a Terminator.[/quote]



Sweet!

[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones]



[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag.



This statement is incredibly flawed. Over 800,000 troops rotated through Iraq between 2004-2007.



That’s a little over 1%.   [/quote]Let’s say 2,000,000 troops rotated through but the daily average was always 250,000; would the death rate change? Would Iraq be more or less safe? No the dangers and risks would be the same. That’s what I’m saying - it should be based on the average number of troops there. The number of troops that rotate through is arbitrary. But, beyond this, the reality is the death rate and risk really come down to how aggressive a strategy is employed. The aggression was toned down in 2008 because it was an election year. Do you think a military strategy should change based on the election cycle in the US? [/quote]



So what you are saying is that if one person gets killed, it should be based on the number of troops that are THERE at THAT TIME?



That makes no sense. The rate does indeed change if you account for the number of troops cycling through.



As for your last question. No, never. However, aggression was toned down prior to 2008.



As for OpTempo. My old unit is back over RIGHT NOW. They are running missions as often as we did in '04. More, in fact. Out of 5000 troops (1000 combat arms) in that Brigade, less than 10 have been killed. They are due to come home in 20 days. At this point, they should be doing “right-seat rides” which are basically area familiarization and not combat missions, but they are not. However, although nobody is dying they are constantly arresting and having to release people. And then arresting them the next week or a month later on a raid.



Three men who died over the summer died, because they released someone. This is Obama’s war now. That didn’t happen when I was there. Do you think we should keep releasing terrorists over and over because we are closing Gitmo and have no place to put them? So they can return to the battlefield and kill?    



As for why deaths are down: The reason they aren’t getting killed is because they are battle-hardened and experienced. They are well-trained because they train hard. [/quote]

So let’s just shorten tours of duty by half.
If you previously went for 12 months, you now go for 6.
If you previously went for 6 months, you now go for 3.

Rotate twice as many soldiers through and now Iraq is now twice as safe!!!
This is what you are saying, right?

Nope. It’s not gonna make it safer. Although fresher troops are usually more cautious. You might be on to something.



But it doesn’t make it any more dangerous if you double them either.

I’m saying the risk is dependent on the average number of troops in Iraq (250,000)
You are saying the risk is dependent on the total number who get rotated through (800,000)

So, now I’m saying, rotate 1,600,000 through (keeping an average of 250,000 on the ground) and it will be twice as safe and you are saying this is wrong also. Now I’m confused.

[quote=Still@jones] I’m saying the risk is dependent on the average number of troops in Iraq (250,000)You are saying the risk is dependent on the total number who get rotated through (800,000)So, now I’m saying, rotate 1,600,000 through (keeping an average of 250,000 on the ground) and it will be twice as safe and you are saying this is wrong also. Now I’m confused.

[/quote]



I’m saying that the safety doesn’t change. What I’m telling you is simply that preparation for war is more risky than war. That’s it. And that holds up to the analysis.

[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] I’m saying the risk is dependent on the average number of troops in Iraq (250,000)You are saying the risk is dependent on the total number who get rotated through (800,000)So, now I’m saying, rotate 1,600,000 through (keeping an average of 250,000 on the ground) and it will be twice as safe and you are saying this is wrong also. Now I’m confused.

[/quote]



I’m saying that the safety doesn’t change. What I’m telling you is simply that preparation for war is more risky than war. That’s it. And that holds up to the analysis.[/quote]
I will agree with you on this:
Spending 3.5 years preparing for war is more dangerous than 12 months in a war zone.
Maybe this is the point they were trying to make.

[quote=Still@jones]

[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] I’m saying the risk is dependent on the average number of troops in Iraq (250,000)You are saying the risk is dependent on the total number who get rotated through (800,000)So, now I’m saying, rotate 1,600,000 through (keeping an average of 250,000 on the ground) and it will be twice as safe and you are saying this is wrong also. Now I’m confused.

[/quote]



I’m saying that the safety doesn’t change. What I’m telling you is simply that preparation for war is more risky than war. That’s it. And that holds up to the analysis.[/quote]I will agree with you on this:Spending 3.5 years preparing for war is more dangerous than 12 months in a war zone. Maybe this is the point they were trying to make. [/quote]



No. One year of training is more dangerous than one year in a war zone. Haven’t you been listening?

[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones]

[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] I’m saying the risk is dependent on the average number of troops in Iraq (250,000)You are saying the risk is dependent on the total number who get rotated through (800,000)So, now I’m saying, rotate 1,600,000 through (keeping an average of 250,000 on the ground) and it will be twice as safe and you are saying this is wrong also. Now I’m confused.

[/quote]



I’m saying that the safety doesn’t change. What I’m telling you is simply that preparation for war is more risky than war. That’s it. And that holds up to the analysis.[/quote]I will agree with you on this:Spending 3.5 years preparing for war is more dangerous than 12 months in a war zone. Maybe this is the point they were trying to make. [/quote]



No. One year of training is more dangerous than one year in a war zone. Haven’t you been listening?[/quote]
I’m listening…I’m just saying the facts you’ve provided do not support this.
Maybe this can’t be resolved on this forum.

Here you go:



From Steven Levitt:



From 2002 to 2008, the United States was fighting bloody wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; among active military personnel, there were an average 1,643 fatalities per year. But over the same stretch of time in the early 1980’s, with the United States fighting no major wars, there were more than 2,100 military deaths per year. How can this possibly be?

For one, the military used to be much larger: 2.1 million on active duty in 1988 versus 1.4 million in 2008. But even the rate of death in 2008 was lower than in certain peacetime years. Some of this improvement is likely due to better medical care. But a surprising fact is that the accidental death rate for soliders in the early 1980’s was higher than the death rate by hostile fire for every year the United States has been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems that practicing to fight a war can be just about as dangerous as really fighting one.

And, to further put things in perspective, think about this: since 1982, some 42,000 active U.S. military personnel have been killed - roughly the same number of Americans who die in traffic accidents in a single year.



Levitt is a professor of Economics at Chicago University and won the John Bates Clark medal. The research for THIS particular study came from Dr. Ian Ayres.



Unfortunately, my subscription does not allow me to provide links. However, you can look up the research on your own. I could also input the data into JMP and show you, but I’m not exactly sure how to post that. You could, of course do the calculations on your own.



In the eighties, we didn’t fight too many wars. As for the eight years preceding Bush’s terms, there was an RIF and drawdown in training. Something else that would add to less deaths.

JMP? I’ve been running it in excel. (and probably spending more time than I should)

I really don’t think we will resolve this on this forum. I understand the point Mr. Levitt is making, but I do not agree with the “safer at war” argument.

I’m just working off of Page 8 of the congressional research service bulletin you posted and estimates of the number of troops in Iraq and every way I look at it, a tour in Iraq greatly increases the chances of a soldier dying. 

I was in the country.  It is interesting that people in the cities often don’t “get it” when it comes to having to do what is necessary.  People that work hard understand sacrifice.  People in cities do not, for the most part.

Look at the pundits, they live in cities and don’t know sh!t. 

We’ll see. I see young people wanting less dependence on big government and big business. If I was young, I’d take a farm with a fishing pond and a big screen over the city any day.

[quote=Moraen]I was in the country.  It is interesting that people in the cities often don’t “get it” when it comes to having to do what is necessary.  People that work hard understand sacrifice.  People in cities do not, for the most part.

Look at the pundits, they live in cities and don’t know sh!t. 

Oh, so city people aren't more intelligent than country people? Let's send BM to work on a farm for a year. Chinese Cultural Revolution style.

[quote=Moraen]I was in the country. It is interesting that people in the cities often don’t “get it” when it comes to having to do what is necessary. People that work hard understand sacrifice. People in cities do not, for the most part.Look at the pundits, they live in cities and don’t know sh!t.

I’ve read your free market rant. You don’t even like engineers - the backbone of innovation.

That’s the problem with you big government, high tax people (and yes, Bush was a big government guy, something I am against). You think that just because something IS done means it HAS to be done.



I never said I didn’t like engineers. I posted a link to an article that shows that there are twice as many terrorists that are engineers than the next highest field: Islamic studies.



I also posed it as a question for debate.



If government would stay out of people’s lives, with exception of protection and building roads, the country would be a lot more successful. Innovation drives success. That includes engineers.



Actually, you should be the one who doesn’t like engineers.



Engineers are seven times more likely to be right-wing and fundamentally religious than ANY other profession. Think about that.

[quote=Billy Mays]I’ve read your free market rant. You don’t even like engineers - the backbone of innovation.

Milyunair - No one wants to live on a farm anymore - except the amish. It’s a crap life. If we had a cultural revolution here, I would kill myself.