Call me skeptical...

[sleigh]

Call me skeptical, but the BBC is reporting that US & Iraqi troops have clashed with a militant group near Najaf, and while two US and three Iraqi soldiers have been killed, they have managed to kill (according to Iraqi sources) "hundreds" of the insurgents. Yet provincial governor Asaad Abu Gilel is quoted in the article as saying these insurgents "are well-equipped and they even have anti-aircraft missiles."

Huh. A well-equipped militant group of several hundred, and we managed to kill hundreds of them while losing only five of our own? Hey, this surge thing must be really working...

Comments

[ellameena.livejournal.com]

Actual aircraft trump anti-aircraft missiles any day. This is about the same ratio of casualties as usual. As long as we have air superiority, they are always going to take very heavy casualties and ours will be light.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I agree in principle that when it's air power against ground forces, the great bulk of the casualties are going to be on the ground. But the BBC article (and CNN's coverage as well) implied that this was heavily a ground battle -- with some air support, yes, but still mostly ground. If later reports contradict that, well, then maybe the 60 - 1 ratio's about right.

It does, however, bring back memories of the 70's, where if one went by the casulaty figures that were being released, it would seem that the entire population of North Vietnam had been wiped out a few times over. I had to wonder if the Iraqi government (which released the figures, not the US authorities) wasn't trying to pump up the performance of the Iraqi troops past the point of credulity.