Casualties and hysteria

[Bemidjiblade]

I work as a graveyard waiter and the news is always on the TV at our restaraunt ('cause there's only so long I can watch the Weather Channel, and Adult Swim is too inappropriate, dang it).

Last week I heard a news report about a car bombing, and the AP news mantra was that "This puts the casualties in Iraw at 2700!!!  Congress is putting new pressure on Prez. Bush to pull out."

Ok.  For the record, I am a HUGE fan of the US Armed Forces, and the freedom they have purchased not only for us but for the world at large through their bravery, duty, and sacrifice.

But if we're serious about this being a war on terror, exactly what sort of casualties were we expecting?

Here is an excellent DoD comparison of casualties by war.

I wish that no one had to die preserving freedom.  But as long as there are bad men who won't stop trying to take our freedom and our lives away, someone has to stop them.  Thank God for the US Military.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/MMID/casualty/WCPRINCIPAL.pdf

In short:
Revolutionary War: 4,435
1812: 2,260
Mexican War: 13,283
Union Army in Civil War: 364,511
Spanish American War: 2,446
WW I : 116,516
WW II: 405,399
Korean War: 36,574
Vietnam Conflict: 58,209
Persian Gulf War: 382

The losses in our war against terror are tragic.  Every death means a family/marriage/friendship broken, probably dozens.  But this is a war.  In war, good people die so that other people can live free.

The willingness to put lives on the line for that good purpose is only one of the many reasons the men and women of our armed forces deserve our respect.  They do NOT deserve to be back-stabbed by a political maneuver that would pull us out ahead of time and make every one of those sacrifices in vain.

[jefnvk]

I agree.  I cannot agree with this mentality that in war, no one should die.  I think it comes from our 'I should get what I want' society.

I look at these stats, and wonder how some people today would react to something like D-Day, or Iwo Jima, where casuality counts could approach in ONE DAY what ours have been in two and a half years.

And I would have put Revolutionary War at a higher count than that, but then again, it may not include milita casualities.

[roo_ster]

Those who do not particularly like America do what they can to undermine support for the war on militant Islam.

In the case of the media, they believe that a focus on casualties will undermine our will to see it through.  It is nothing more than propaganda provided at no fee for the jihadis.

Know them for what they are.

[Standing Wolf]

In war, good people die so that other people can live free.

We could easily have won the war against Islamic terrorist savagry in 2001 without incurring the loss of a single American life. We've had the necessary technology in our arsenal since the summer of 1945.

We're a lot like the guy with a CCW permit and a whole safeful of fine firearms, who insists upon duking it out with criminals instead of carrying and using any of his firearms.

[Art Eatman]

That I support our efforts in Iraq doesn't mean I don't (via hindsight) see some serious mistakes.  For instance, it's now obvious that the general who said we needed more troops initially, to clamp down tighter on the country after the first phase of combat was over, was correct.

It seems to be the case that nobody in the Administration or the Pentagon foresaw the numbers of hostiles coming in from outside Iraq, just to fight Infidels.  These seem to be in the forefront of the Sunni resistance.

One aspect of the continued Sunni hostility that puzzles me:  If they want us out of there, don't they realize that all they have to do is quit shooting at us?  How can they not see this?

Art

[grampster]

The decision to make war is a serious one.  However, if the need to engage in that behaviour is necessary, then it should be undertaken in the most savage fashion that is possible.  It should be difinative and carried out with no other purpose than the total destruction of the opponent.  There is no accusation that ascribes to the winner.  If there is no enemy, there is no enemy.  WWI is an example of not following through.  WWII is a better example of following through, but is still faulted because of the rise of the Russian Empire.  That did not need to happen and we spent nearly 50 years learning that lesson.

What we have today is a collision between Western Civilization and 17th Century Tribal Feudalism.  The West is made up of a polyglot of peoples that are perhaps described on the Left or Right of the reality of Western Civilization.  We could go on for hours defining this, but in the end it is a sort of live and let live idealistic notion.  Today's America is probably the quintisential example of this.  Europe continues to struggle with this notion since WWII.  The West is an inclusive notion; it is expansive in it's embrace, even though it struggles with itself.

Tribal Feudalism abides no opinion.  The way of the tribe is the be all, the end all.  There is no unity because there can't be.  It is the quinitisential notion that the larger is held sway by the smaller.  There are no parameters except dominance of the many by the few.

In many ways, there seems to be no difference.  To the stong go the spoils.  That is the lesson of history.  But the question remains:  Would you like to live in a feudal tribalistic society based upon a a warped view of a religion that worships death? And tollerates no objection?  That proscribes dress, appearance, where you live, how you think, what you read, etc etc ad nausium.   Or would you rather live in a semblance of freedom, somewhat corrupt, but able to come and go pretty much as you please.; even with all the warts that portends?

[Art Eatman]

No argument there, grampster.

Recommended reading:  "What Went Wrong?  Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response" by Bernard Lewis.  Lewis is a professor emeritus of middle east studies at Princeton.  This is a more recent effort, of some two dozen or more of his writings.  He gives an overview of the history of the region and the early inter-relationships with the western world.  He addresses the internal conflicts of the mideast, and the changes in cultural patterns.  He also illustrates many of the cultural and religious reasons the mideast cannot cope with the current era of international inter-relationships.

It's obvious there are problems, when but for oil the GDP in exports for the entire region is less than that of Finland and its mere five million people...

ARt

[grampster]

Art,

"The Closed Circle"  Harper Rowe, David Ryce-Jones.

[RevDisk]

We could easily have won the war against Islamic terrorist savagry in 2001 without incurring the loss of a single American life. We've had the necessary technology in our arsenal since the summer of 1945.

Yea, great idea.  Murdering civilians (which is what you are advocating) that had nothing to do with attacking us is a great solution that instantly make all fundimentalist wackos lay down arms.   I have some lovely ocean front property in Montana I have for sale too.  You seem to forget, sir, that at least one Muslim nation happens to own nukes.   Do you really think they wouldn't retaliate?

This is not a war between Christianity and Islam.  It is in everyone's interest to keep this war against Wahabi terrorists.

[Sean Smith]

If you think our current war in Iraq is wrong, then no number of casualities is low enough.  They were all "murdered" by that "Nazi," Bush.  But the goodness or badness of the war is a political question; judging the severity of the casualties should be based on an appraisal of the operation in the context of military history, not just pitching a hysterical hippie-fit about how "war is BAD, man!"  Well, no *expletive deleted*it.  

In that context, they are almost absurdly low.  There have been about 1700 American military deaths in a period of just over 2 years.  In Vietnam there were about 58,000 deaths in about 10 years of US involvement.  So looking at annual casualties, the idiots comparing Iraq to Vietnam are off by about a factor of 7.  But it seems impossible for people to keep any kind of perspective on this sort of thing, which is quite awful enough as it is without indulging in historically ignorant hysterics.

Historically, 1,700 dead isn't even a minor battle.  America got its victories cheap in World War II compared to its allies and opponents, and the Battle of the Bulge killed almost 9,000 Americans in a six week period.  I think the present-day media would be begging us to surrender to the Germans at that point, and extoling the virtures of Jagerschnitzel.

[dinosaur]

it's now obvious that the general who said we needed more troops initially, to clamp down tighter on the country after the first phase of combat was over, was correct.

And the socialists would be screaming that we've turned Iraq into a police state. They have an "answer" for everything including why didn't we do something if we did nothing.