Still think the "Surge" strategy in Iraq will work? Look at these graphs.

In response to President Bush's January 10th speech in support of a "surge" of troops to Iraq in order to put down the popular insurgency, I decided to compare some historical data with our past experiences during the Vietnam occupation, which was also an insurgent guerrilla war.

This research resulted in two visual-aides that have a lot to teach us about the effectiveness of a "surge" to pacify a country - something an earlier generation called "escalation".

The graph on the left is a comparison of US troop levels in Iraq before, and after, the President's proposed surge - with the relative populations of Iraq in 2006; and then compared with the number of troops stationed in South Vietnam in 1968 and it's population at the time.

During the Vietnam War the US had 537,377 troops stationed in South Vietnam; which had a population of 16 million people. This meant there was about one American soldier for every 29.77 South Vietnamese.

By comparison, in Iraq today we have approximately 133,000 soldiers for over 26,783,383 Iraqis, or, approximately one person in uniform for every 201. Even after the President's proposed "surge" of 21,000 new pairs of boots on the ground, these ratios will not appreciably change; the number only goes down to about one per 174 Iraqis.

And if these numbers don't illustrate the odds against a "surge" in troop strength defeating the rebellion in Iraq, here's another:

The chart to the right compares the land areas of South Vietnam and Iraq. South Vietnam had an area of approximately 65,000 square miles, as opposed to 168,805 square miles for Iraq. There were about 8.26 American soldiers for every square mile of in South Vietnam. Today in Iraq there is only 0.78 of a soldier for every square mile of Iraq. Even with the proposed surge, this number goes up to only 0.91.

What this means is that the American soldier serving in Iraq must not only protect 576% more people as his (or her) Vietnam counterpart, but also must also 949% more land area. Post surge this will still be 484% more people and 806% more land than the Vietnam soldier.

All the data begs the question: Even with post-surge numbers, if the US military could not control South Vietnam with 537,377 troops; then how can anyone honestly believe we can subjugate a country one and a half times more populous, and with and area two and half times larger - with a force only 29% the size?

Madness. Pure Madness.

To achieve the same force ratio we had in Vietnam in 1968 in Iraq today in terms of U.S. troops to indigenous population we would need to have 899,548 troops in Iraq.

To achieve the same force ratio we had in Vietnam in 1968 in Iraq today in terms of U.S. troops to land area we would need to have 1,395,568 troops in Iraq.

To split the difference between these two numbers, the middle of the range would be 1,147,558 troops in Iraq.

And remember, all this would be just to achieve parity with our situation in 1968 Vietnam - it would not guarantee success.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: Surge - Iraq - Vietnam - escalation - comparison - graphs - charts - Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

NOTE: This article was co-written by Paul -V-

Sources:

• South Vietnam population in 1968: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/vietnam.htm
• US troops in South Vietnam: 537,377 according to the Heritage foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/troopMarch2005.xls
• Land area of South Vietnam: http://www.145thcab.com/civic.html
• Iraqi population: 26,783,383 and land area 437,072 km^2 (168,805 sq miles) : https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/iz.html
• US troop levels in Iraq in 2006: 133,000 as of March 2006: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm. (Bush mentioned 21,000 troops in his speech as the surge.)

Bookmark/Search this post with:
| | | | | | |