How many US troop deaths would have to occur to pull out of Iraq?

How about none and they all come home safe and sound to their famlies?????

Thats my vote.

+

 

Golf I caused 157 deaths.

The last three options are absolutely impossible to realize unless Iraq had nukes, which they would have used before last weekend.

I don't think this war will cost more than 400 death realistically, perhaps even lower than the last war. Combat deaths from enemy fire would be practically miniscure. Remember, we only lost 11 deaths due to Iraqi fire so far.

 

I don't know about as high as 10,000, but if the US troop deaths started hitting the "multiple-thousands", I do believe you would start to hear a dialogue from all ends of the political spectrum in the US questioning why we went into Iraq in the first place. Most definitely if there were multiple-thousands of deaths and no weapons of mass destruction had been found yet.

I believe this war hinges on 1)capturing/killing Saddam and 2)finding weapons of mass destruction. The longer neither of these things happen, the more potential there is for American citizens to begin questioning this war.

 

The number is probably far greater than anyone here would expect. I read an article (can't find it for a source now), but it indicated that our expected loss (from military projections) in Gulf War I was around 18,000 casualties and we went in anyway.

 

Is this right? They would have used them (nukes) w/in the first week? What makes ya think so? Cause they're so "outta control" ? I'm curious.

 

Why didn't Iraq use the WMDs it had during the Gulf War?

 

two reasons:

1) Nukes are more effective when American strength is still concentrated in Kuwait.

2) Using nukes anytime would bring the same effect: reprisal or deterence. Why not use it before you suffer huge losses through conventional means?

One less worry.

 

I think at some point you pull out and cut your losses. Every war cannot be won. But I hope we win this.

 

If I was Iraq, and I had a nuke, I would not use it to begin the war. That gains you nothing. You probably wipe out most of the American Military in Kuwait. But they would be replaced by great numbers of U.N. troops and American Civilians. Then Iraq would have no chance to win.

I would instead try to wear them down like he is trying to do. There is a good chance this could work if I put up a wall of resistence and plan well. It gives me a chance to save everything. If I felt like Baghdad was about to topple I would allow my troops to surrender and be moved to Kuwait. Let the Americans storm Baghdad, and then nuke the city. Killing most of the American troops and my civilians (which I cared nothing about anyway). The city becomes usless to anyone, the Americans are dead, and technically my troops are still alive. And they are likely to be released once everything dies down.

 

good point, hit us hard at first so we know they're not bs-ing, it makes sense

 

Because he knew that if he used them, the coalition would have continued all the way.

If he doesn't use them, he gets thrown out of Kuwait, but retains power.

 

I think we are definatly going to lose more than the 400 we lost the first time around once we get into Baghdad and the urban fighting starts. Several things like possible chemical weapon usage, asymetrical tactics because Iraq can not fight a straight up battle with the US and has to use trickery, and the Republican Guard is fighting for their lives an cannot surrender like they did in Gulf I. America would not be able to handle more than 1,000 casualties with the media coverage going on this time around and I don't think I could either.

 

I remember reading back during the Gulf War I time frame that historically whenever an army suffers a loss of about one third of its troups it will surrender. I do not see the Iraqi military killing that many US troups, by an order of magnitude.

A better question would be : How many US troups deaths will trigger the political death of GWB? Or how many weeks/months of armed conflict in Iraq will trigger the political death of GWB?

I don't think that this war will be the political death of GWB, but it will hurt him if the war drags on. Taking a non-short war in combination with a weak economy, GWB may need Walter Mondale to be the Dem presidential candidate in 2004.

 

Here is an interesting statistic and a rough estimate.

Around 1 out of 15 troops died in WWI, WWII, and in Vietnam.

1 out of 1500 troops died in Gulf War I.

With the media coverage of every soldiers death and capture America could never come anything close to 1/15 again unless we were attacked. If GW wants to survive politically this better be quick and with casuaties similar to GWI

 

Given that the US has ~200,000 troups in theater,

1/15 = 13,333 deaths

1/1500 = 133 deaths.

 

I think we all agree that we wish no American or Coalition soldier would die, but...

That evil bastards got to go...It can't be like Bush Sr. and stop at the footsteps of Baghdad...

 

What I heard was total BS. Here are the real stats of deaths to soldiers enlisted.

1/40 in WWI and WWII
1/150 in Vietnam
1/9385 in Gulf War I

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

 

I think it depends on how the lives are lost. If we have huge casualties inflicted by Saddam's military (say a wildly successful nuclear or chemical attack or something), that's just all the more reason to make sure you win. At this point, the US cannot afford to let Saddam win militarily. But, if the war becomes something like Vietnam where you have most of the civilian populace shooting at you, including women and children, I think it becomes clear that the Iraqi people don't want the liberation we've come to offer them. At that point, you don't allow causualties to gain a victory that will never really be safe or welcomed.