DescentBB

we hear a lot of US soldiers dying in iraq.
we also hear a lot of iraqi officials getting assasinated.

would it be true to assume that US army TOP RANKING soldiers arn't dying? since we don't hear much about that. these soldiers would surely be as important as iraqi officials.

yet iraqi officials drop like flies.

both are heavily protected desk jockies yes?

why the difference in mortality?

I'll just assume your assesment of the ratio's are correct and venture a guess.
The goal of these killings is to stop the progress of Iraq forming a new government. Killing Iraqi officers does more to achieve that goal than killing american officers?!?

Also, there is a much higher chance of a lower rank Iraqi soldier being bought by the enemy to expose his commander than there is a chance of bribing an american soldier to give up an american officer.

Simple. Iraqi officials are the important targets. Kill all the Iraqi officials and the government fails. Kill US officers and leave Iraqi officials and the government still succeeds.

Who are you going to kill as an insurgent?

roid wrote: why the difference in mortality?

Skill. If you were a backwards 3rd world terrorist, then you would rather go after backwards 3rd world target instead of the US Military.

That is why inferior nations around the world have been getting hit by terrorists, repeatedly, since 9/11. We just got better, too good for the vermin to hit the USA. So the rodents leave to infest other areas instead.

http://www.lonestartimes.com/index.php? ... 93,0,0,1,0

If this turns out to be a forged kidnapping, it should be a welcome sign that we're breaking the back of the terrorist uprising. These thugs can't capture our troops, so they go inside and play with dolls.

Now that's funny!