A surprising statistic

Graeme Smith's latest article was appended by an interesting set of statistics:

VICTIMS PER ATTACKER FOR SUCCESSFUL ATTACKS

BY TARGET

Against NATO forces: 1:3

Against Afghan forces: 1:3

Against government and civilian targets: 1:.2

BY TYPE OF ATTACK

Individual bomber: 1:6

Vehicle-borne: 1:4

SOURCES: VIGILANT STRATEGIC SERVICES AFGHANISTAN, UNITED NATIONS ASSISTANCE MISSION TO AFGHANISTAN

I wondered if I was misreading the numbers, but they were backed up in the text of the article:

A report for the United Nations in September found that, on average, more than three suicide bombers are required to inflict a single casualty on the international forces. "From a military point of view, this could be considered extreme failure," the report said.

My first reaction was to grin at the incompetence of the suicide bombers: if it takes three of them to kill one NATO or Afghan soldier, that's a pretty poor ratio. Which, it goes without saying, makes me quite happy. The enemy's incompetence is to be celebrated.

But on reflection, they can afford to sacrifice human life, much as we can afford to sacrifice equipment. It's all about what you have in abundance to fight with. We have money and machines. They have people.

And in the final analysis, if we pull out and abandon Afghanistan to them after, say, 100 fatal casualties, and they sacrificed a hundred times that, or 10,000 suicide bombers, they'll still have beaten us. Not militarily, but by having more will than we do.

I'm done chuckling at their incompetence for now. I just hope that a three-to-one ratio isn't enough to make Canada give up.