http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&printer=1

Yeah, but they don't count the soldiers who got all ripped up on the battlefield, and croaked elsewhere after getting airlifted out!
::)

Hey, but let us not forget what they died for...

http://nowhere.2entwine.com/archives/corporate_flag.jpg

2,000 dead soldiers


Disgusting.  I'm sure some people have been waiting for this too.

Not necessarily waiting for, but it was inevitable because it was an occupation. 

Disgusting.  I'm sure some people have been waiting for this too.


i'd rather be one of the ones waiting for it than be one of the ones responsible for it.

i'd rather be one of the ones waiting for it than be one of the ones responsible for it.



Touche.




Cat

This is sad.

Now let's give it some perspective:

D-Day:  3,256 dead (one day)
Antietam Creek: 3,654 dead (one day)
Shilo:  23,746 dead (one day)
Galveston Hurricane:  6,000-8,000 dead
Pearl Harbor:  2,388 dead (one day)
Battle Of The Bulge:  19,000 (three days)
9/11:  6,965 dead (one day)

All of those but 2 is a military battle.  Only Galveston and 9/11 are against civilians.  Out of all the battles, only the Battle Of The Bulge is more then 1 day.

And let's throw in some more statistics.  In the 1990 Gulf War, more servicemembers were killed in traffic accidents in the theatre then were killed in actual combat.  And while this story does not give the numbers of each, the latest deaths were caused in a traffic accident.

Any deaths are tragic.  But when the military sees things like this, it tends to strengthen the resolve to "finish the mission", not to curl up and crawl away.  That is a civilian response.  "When the going gets tough, quit".

The military is a dangerous job.  Nobody goes into the military thinking otherwise (unless they are fools).  I have had friends killed in training exercises.  I have also had friends killed in traffic accidents, a robbery, and when crossing the street when I was in.  I also lost friends in the 1990 Gulf War.  We accept that.

If the military quit just because people died, we would still be a Protecterate of England, or having to adapt to a German-Japanese world empire.  Because we sure as hell would not have won the Revolution, or WWII.

i'd rather be one of the ones waiting for it than be one of the ones responsible for it.


Let me guess, not Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or the people blowing themselves up, but Bush.  Right?  It's Bush's fault?

yeah, the casualties are so "modest" in comparison with so many of these other battles because this is a low-intensity conflict a la, say, the french occupation of algeria. it's the kind of slow bleeding off in the context of an urban occupation rather than a meeting of opposing military forces on a battlefield. therefore you get a lot fewer military deaths but still some pretty dire consequences for the civilians involved.

and of course another big difference between this and D-Day is that in WWII there was a clear definition of victory, clear goals and an exit strategy. this occupation of iraq could go on, in theory, forever. and as far as i can tell, it will.

in order to really put it in context, too, you need to consider the iraqi civilian deaths. reliable estimates start at 25,000 and go to exceeding 100,000. and i think it's telling the pentagon isn't even bothering to keep count.

folks who support this war need to come up with something fast because it's just getting worse and worse.

Let me guess, not Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or the people blowing themselves up, but Bush.  Right?  It's Bush's fault?


hello? when you invade a country, people are likely to try and kill you.

yes, it is most emphatically bush's fault. not to exonerate al-zarqawi or any of those other sleazebags, but it's most emphatically bush who put our troops in harm's way and got all those civilians killed for no good reason, based on a completely unsubstantiated lie. al zarqawi and them actually benefit a great deal from this, they get credibility, political power, recruits, before this they were marginalized cranks but now on the ground in iraq they look to the other folks over there like they were right all along about the evil united states. meanwhile the defense contractors who are so in bed with the administrattion are getting all manner of hot contracts over there. it's a cushy deal for everyone except the grunts on the ground and all the women and children getting killed.

9/11:  6,965 dead (one day)


That figure is incorrect. The official count records 2,986 deaths in the attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks).

But maybe you're right. Maybe because other national tragedies have claimed significantly more lives, that this crisis really isn't that bad... NOT! >:(

And the rising body account in Iraq is only one of many reasons why most people in this country are no longer supportive of the war. You also cannot speak for every service(wo)man when you say that their reaction to this is to "tough it out." But I guess we civilians are just a bunch of wimpy quitters who just wouldn't understand, right. Leave it to the experts.  ::)

hello? when you invade a country, people are likely to try and kill you.


We invaded Iraq.  Not Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or any of those nations.  Yet people coming in from outside Iraq account for most suicide bombings.

This is sad.

Now let's give it some perspective:

D-Day:  3,256 dead (one day)
Antietam Creek: 3,654 dead (one day)
Shilo:  23,746 dead (one day)
Galveston Hurricane:  6,000-8,000 dead
Pearl Harbor:  2,388 dead (one day)
Battle Of The Bulge:  19,000 (three days)
9/11:  6,965 dead (one day)

All of those but 2 is a military battle.  Only Galveston and 9/11 are against civilians.  Out of all the battles, only the Battle Of The Bulge is more then 1 day.

And let's throw in some more statistics.  In the 1990 Gulf War, more servicemembers were killed in traffic accidents in the theatre then were killed in actual combat.  And while this story does not give the numbers of each, the latest deaths were caused in a traffic accident.

Any deaths are tragic.  But when the military sees things like this, it tends to strengthen the resolve to "finish the mission", not to curl up and crawl away.  That is a civilian response.  "When the going gets tough, quit".

The military is a dangerous job.  Nobody goes into the military thinking otherwise (unless they are fools).  I have had friends killed in training exercises.  I have also had friends killed in traffic accidents, a robbery, and when crossing the street when I was in.  I also lost friends in the 1990 Gulf War.  We accept that.

If the military quit just because people died, we would still be a Protecterate of England, or having to adapt to a German-Japanese world empire.  Because we sure as hell would not have won the Revolution, or WWII.


Perspective or not. ONE death is too many in my book.




Cat

Perspective or not. ONE death is too many in my book.




Cat


The thing is, all those deaths in WWII were not in vain.  It is becoming eerily evident that the deaths in Iraq will be.

This is sad.

Now let's give it some perspective:

D-Day:  3,256 dead (one day)
Antietam Creek: 3,654 dead (one day)
Shilo:  23,746 dead (one day)
Galveston Hurricane:  6,000-8,000 dead
Pearl Harbor:  2,388 dead (one day)
Battle Of The Bulge:  19,000 (three days)
9/11:  6,965 dead (one day)

All of those but 2 is a military battle.  Only Galveston and 9/11 are against civilians.  Out of all the battles, only the Battle Of The Bulge is more then 1 day.

And let's throw in some more statistics.  In the 1990 Gulf War, more servicemembers were killed in traffic accidents in the theatre then were killed in actual combat.  And while this story does not give the numbers of each, the latest deaths were caused in a traffic accident.

Any deaths are tragic.  But when the military sees things like this, it tends to strengthen the resolve to "finish the mission", not to curl up and crawl away.  That is a civilian response.  "When the going gets tough, quit".

The military is a dangerous job.  Nobody goes into the military thinking otherwise (unless they are fools).  I have had friends killed in training exercises.  I have also had friends killed in traffic accidents, a robbery, and when crossing the street when I was in.  I also lost friends in the 1990 Gulf War.  We accept that.

If the military quit just because people died, we would still be a Protecterate of England, or having to adapt to a German-Japanese world empire.  Because we sure as hell would not have won the Revolution, or WWII.

The Galveston Hurricane?  I didn't know natural disasters acted on free will, let alone distinguished civilians from military!
:D

The government ordered the military to finish the mission in Korea.  We're still there.  The government ordered the military to finish the mission in Vietnam.  We lost 58,000 personnel before we decided to pull out. 

Donald Rumsfeld disregarded the admonitions of the top brass and ordered the military to storm into Iraq under his own cockamamie ideology.  The administration talked out of both sides of its collective mouth.  When convenient, they told us we'd be out of Iraq in a few months with minimal casualties.  Other times they told us we might be in Iraq for years as part of a "war on terror" with no forseeable end.  Bush celebrated "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, and then the administration backpedaled and told us we shouldn't have gotten the idea the war was over.

The government has been duplicitous and dishonest about its motives.  The administration planned this war in the fog of a dopy right-wing ideology and executed faulty plans with horrific incompetence.  It's time to cut our losses and leave. 

It isn't the military who screwed this up, it is the civilian Commander-in-Chief and his advisors who got us into this mess.  If our forces leave Iraq, it does not show poor will on the part of the military.  The military does what the federal government tells it to do.  The old saying goes, "if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

I don't care what kind of faux victory some Arab media outlets declare.  Everyone knows we could just blow the whole of Iraq into smithereens from the air.  Nobody can really make the case for Iraqi military superiority if we bail out.  They can make the case America started a mission it couldn't accomplish.  If some hawks find it humiliating to have the Arabs and the French laughing at us, I don't give a d*mn.  Maybe we deserve it for "electing" such a stupid government, eh?  So, you hawks, you John Wayne-types, will it be less humiliating to pull out after we've lost 4,000 soldiers?  8,000?  16,000?  When?

We invaded Iraq.  Not Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or any of those nations.  Yet people coming in from outside Iraq account for most suicide bombings.


this isn't quite right. you hear it a lot but then when they capture these characters typically the proportion of foreign fighters is much lower than expected. definitely not a majority, more like single-digit percentages.

you know, "foreign fighters" would make a good band name.

couldn't have said it better, agent 86.

this isn't quite right. you hear it a lot but then when they capture these characters typically the proportion of foreign fighters is much lower than expected. definitely not a majority, more like single-digit percentages.

you know, "foreign fighters" would make a good band name.

But it's so important for us to be liked by the Iraqis themselves!  Gotta be well-liked to be successfull.  This is Willie Loman foreign policy!

this isn't quite right. you hear it a lot but then when they capture these characters typically the proportion of foreign fighters is much lower than expected. definitely not a majority, more like single-digit percentages.


BRIEFING BY MAJOR GENERAL RICK LYNCH,
SPOKESMAN, MULTINATIONAL FORCE IRAQ
OPERATIONAL UPDATE
THE COMBINED PRESS INFORMATION CENTER,
BAGHDAD , IRAQ
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2005

Q: If I may, do you attribute the majority of those attacks to domestic fighters who are just not as effective as the foreign fighters, daily attacks?

GEN. LYNCH: No. I mean, we study in great detail the terrorists and foreign fighters, and there's only a small percentage of those terrorists that are Iraqi nationals, a small portion. And as we look at the suicide bombers in detail, over 94 percent of the suicide bombers are from outside of Iraq.

Full transcript.

BRIEFING BY MAJOR GENERAL RICK LYNCH,
SPOKESMAN, MULTINATIONAL FORCE IRAQ
OPERATIONAL UPDATE
THE COMBINED PRESS INFORMATION CENTER,
BAGHDAD , IRAQ
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2005

Q: If I may, do you attribute the majority of those attacks to domestic fighters who are just not as effective as the foreign fighters, daily attacks?

GEN. LYNCH: No. I mean, we study in great detail the terrorists and foreign fighters, and there's only a small percentage of those terrorists that are Iraqi nationals, a small portion. And as we look at the suicide bombers in detail, over 94 percent of the suicide bombers are from outside of Iraq.

Full transcript.

Dead is dead whether the bombers come from Baghdad or Timbuktu.  I fail to see how general Lynch's statement augurs well for the mission.

Yeah, I'm sure every insurgent they capture is waving their passport around... ::)

good effort! mr. lynch, however, seems to be talking about a particular subset of attacks rather than all attacks throughout the country. a quick google search yielded this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/international/middleeast/21baghdad.html

where the same guy talks about several hundred captured foreign fighters, which would seem to corroborate you. but then you scroll down and see this...

"Non-Iraqis make up a small percentage of the more than 10,000 suspected fighters currently detained in Iraq, and are believed to comprise less than 5 percent of the fighters in the insurgency. "

the same google search yields this

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm

which seems to say the proportion of foreign fighters is around 2 percent, or this

www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

which claims 4 to 10 percent. but you know, you can google anything for any results, so i encourage anyone reading to research on their own and draw their own conclusions. alas, the pentagon has good reason to overstate the proportion of foreign fighters because it supposedly substantiates the argument that iraqis want to be occupied. (kinda a hinky association there, logically, but there you have it.) anyway, i feel pretty comfortable in this from what i've read, that the proportion of foreign fighters is very small,but people can make up their own minds.

NEWSFLASH:

GOVERNMENTS LIE ABOUT WAR

Yeah, I guess the British public was was much relieved to learn that lots of their fathers, brothers and sons were killed by Rochambou's troops or the French fleet rather than the colonials during our revolution.  Foreign fighters anyone?

Let me also pont out that Iraq is a post WWI European creation carved out of the old Ottoman Empire (Syria too).  Ethnic loyalties amoung Arab people in those case are stronger than national identities.

Yeah, I guess the British public was was much relieved to learn that lots of their fathers, brothers and sons were killed by Rochambou's troops or the French fleet rather than the colonials during our revolution.  Foreign fighters anyone?

Let me also pont out that Iraq is a post WWI European creation carved out of the old Ottoman Empire (Syria too).  Ethnic loyalties amoung Arab people in those case are stronger than national identities.

Yes, this sort of post-colonial arrangement is still causing a litte trouble down in parts of Africa, if my memory serves me right...
::)

Yes, this sort of post-colonial arrangement is still causing a litte trouble down in parts of Africa, if my memory serves me right...
::)


That it does.  We can thank all those dead white guys history calls "statesmen" along with the live white guys we are suppose to call "leaders".

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/international/middleeast/21baghdad.html

where the same guy talks about several hundred captured foreign fighters, which would seem to corroborate you. but then you scroll down and see this...

"Non-Iraqis make up a small percentage of the more than 10,000 suspected fighters currently detained in Iraq, and are believed to comprise less than 5 percent of the fighters in the insurgency. "


And the same article goes on to say: "American commanders say that foreigners make up more than 90 percent of the suicide bombers. Many of those suicide attacks are directed at civilians."

Yeah, it's a real tough call when I'm asked to believe either a major general or The New York Times.

And the ones that are detained are different from the ones whose bodies we recover.

i feel pretty comfortable in this from what i've read, that the proportion of foreign fighters is very small...

Wishful thinking.

And the same article goes on to say: "American commanders say that foreigners make up more than 90 percent of the suicide bombers. Many of those suicide attacks are directed at civilians."




So I guess the Iraqi insurgents are a bit smarter than the foreign ones since they can come back tomorrow.  A silly distinction between classes of insurgents.

NEWSFLASH:

GOVERNMENTS LIE ABOUT WAR


NEWSFLASH:

OPENLY ANTI-WAR NEWSPAPERS LIE ABOUT WAR TOO

OK, here is something that seems to confuse a lot in here.  Maybe this will help.

As for those who are fighting in Iraq, most of them are Iraqi citizens.  They are composed of 2 major factions: those who want the Ba'ath party to return to power, and those who want a fundamentalist state (like Iran).  Those are the fighters we face, and those who are setting the IEDs.

The suicide bombers are almost all foreigners.  Most are of Palestinian descent.  One of the worst crimes against these people in the last 50 years has been the "brainwashing" to their youth that killing themselves is acceptible, as long as it furthers a leaders political/religious agenda.

Iraq does not have a "Suicide" tradition anywhere in it's history.  They are traditionally very fanatical fighters, but not suicidal.  This can be seen in the Iran-Iraq war.  When it came to clearing minefields, Iraqi soldiers had be be forced across them at gunpoint.  Iranian soldiers would storm across them willingly, because they "knew" that if they died, they would be assured a place in paradise.

Now most of the military casualties are from Iraqi fighters.  Firefights and IED is the major cause of US deaths.

Most civilian casualties are from "Suicide Bombers".  The last statistics I saw showed suicide bombers accounting for roughly 70-80% of civilian deaths.  This is because it is hard for them to attack "hard targets" like military bases.  So they go after "soft targets", like schools, shopping centers, and religious sites.

And tell me, which of these 2 groups are fighting for the people of Iraq?  Are the suicide bombers fighting for Iraq?  No, they are fighting to put in place the kind of Fundamentalist state that we are seeing in Iran, and fought in Afganistan.

Are the insurgents fighting for the people of Iraq?  No, they want a return to the terror and slaughter of Saddam.

If we pull out, Iraq looses.  The people of Iraq loose.

And the same article goes on to say: "American commanders say that foreigners make up more than 90 percent of the suicide bombers. Many of those suicide attacks are directed at civilians."

Yeah, it's a real tough call when I'm asked to believe either a major general or The New York Times.

And the ones that are detained are different from the ones whose bodies we recover.

Wishful thinking.


the funny thing about the general-vs.-the-nyt thing, is that all this stuff with the office of special plans and the openness with which the military and its civilian leadership has made the point that they fully intend to propagandize the american people if it will help drum up support for military action. the domestic arena is really another theater of operations, the goal of which is to make sure that the american people continue to support the war. the generals aren't motivated in their press conferences by a driving need to tell you the truth. they're motivated by a driving need to keep you in support of the war. this is a lesson they learned in vietnam, and that's why we keep hearing how everything's going fine over there when anyone with eyes in their head can tell it's not.

funny thing is, same thing appears to be true, at least to some degree, on the part of the new york times -- at least if this whole judith miller embarrassment and the degree to which the paper backed her in her reiteration of administration agitprop is any indication.

And, how many of those civilians are American?


American civilians in Iraq get special treatment by the "Freedom FIghters".

You see, they are videotaped being tortured, then being beheaded.

Not necessarily waiting for, but it was inevitable because it was an occupation. 


Seems the average whack-job in San Francisco couldn't be happier.

http://www.zombietime.com/2000_iraq_deaths_party/

Seems the average whack-job in San Francisco couldn't be happier.

http://www.zombietime.com/2000_iraq_deaths_party/


Because to some people, the death of servicemembers is simply a political tool to be exploited.  And a rising death toll to them furthers their cause.

I was in San Francisco during the 1990 Gulf War.  There are things that I saw there which still make me mad and sick.  I still remember an Iraqi expatriate who held a counter-protest across the street of an "Anti-War" protest, and who had posters demonizing Saddam.  Several members of the "Anti-war" protest attacked him.  He came back the next day and burned an Iraqi flag, and was attacked again.  The police had to step in to keep him from being killed.

And the ironic thing was, afterwards the Iraqi was removed, and forbidden from holding his counter-protest.  As far as I remember, no charges were ever filed against those who attacked him.

They do not call 'Frisco "Bagdad By The Bay" for nothing.

They do not call 'Frisco "Bagdad By The Bay" for nothing.

Actually, they do.  They just don't realize it because they're a bunch of twitchy paranoid nutjobs.
::)

Seems the average whack-job in San Francisco couldn't be happier.

http://www.zombietime.com/2000_iraq_deaths_party/

So, the response by the Rightie bloggers to this terrible news is to point to some photos of some grinning dipsy-doodles in San Fran and say, "See, they're happy about it!  They're the problem with America! They like it when our soldiers die!"  Or whatever hogwash they're on about.  Sad, really sad.  On the pathetic level I'd say.  I mean, they could at least sink their fangs into the liberal legislators and policy makers who supported the war in the first place....oh, maybe that wouldn't be so good.
OK, so if those ultra-lib San Franciscans were frocked in black and conducting a doleful memorial march Michelle Malkin et al. would have showered them with praise, right?
::)

yeah, i dunno. this is the first administration in american history to accept torture with a wink and a nod, so all this stuff about videotaping beheadings, which is unbelievably abhorrent, yes, but it seems a bit silly to get all up in arms about it when you're doing very similar things over there, videotaping people while you f**k with their heads and basically rape them, and then tie them up in sleeping bags and beat them to death.

if there's a moral high ground here, the war supporters most decidedly do not hold it. let me say again, the tally of innocent civilian deaths in iraq STARTS at 25,000. and no one can say for sure why we're there. every stated motivation has turned out to be a lie.

and why was that dude burning an iraqi flag? this seems to reveal more than you want to have revealed about the pro-war point of view. because the pretext is that pro-war people hated saddam hussein and wanted him out of power, but i've always suspected that they really hate the COUNTRY for whatever reason and just want to kill the people there.

and why was that dude burning an iraqi flag? this seems to reveal more than you want to have revealed about the pro-war point of view. because the pretext is that pro-war people hated saddam hussein and wanted him out of power, but i've always suspected that they really hate the COUNTRY for whatever reason and just want to kill the people there.


If I remember right (this was about 15 years ago), he was a refugee.  He had to leave Iraq because he was a minority (I seem to remember he was either a Kurd or Druze), and he lost several members of his family to Saddam's regieme.

The reason he was burning the Iraq flag, was in response to those at the protest that burned the US flag.  In "Anti-war" protests nationwide (then and now), burning the US flag seems to be an acceptible action.

So let me flip it back on you:  does anybody that burn the US flag really hate the US?  Does anybody who burn the US flag really want to see the death of US servicemembers and citizens?

Seems the average whack-job in San Francisco couldn't be happier.

http://www.zombietime.com/2000_iraq_deaths_party/


It is disgusting to suggest that these people are happy about the deaths just because they're smiling.  I saw Condi Rice smiling when she was testifying about the war in Iraq.  I guess she must be happy too.  And remember, GW was at a black tie event way back then actually JOKING ABOUT THE FACT that there were no WMDs.  He must be happy too!

i've been to a lot of protests (there are lots here in washington) and i've never seen anyone burn an american flag. i think that gets blown way out of proportion.

i've also noticed, though, that a lot of times it seems like conservatives put a lot more stock in the trappings and symbols of freedom than in freedom itself. people who burn the american flag are sorta silly but i never made much of it. i'd like to burn me a copy of the "patriot act" though, truth be told.

i've been to a lot of protests (there are lots here in washington) and i've never seen anyone burn an american flag. i think that gets blown way out of proportion.


That is an every-day occurance to protests in California.  And believe me, having lived in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas, I have seen a lot of them.  And yes, I have seen the US flag burned myself at least 3 times in these protests.

This is sad.

Now let's give it some perspective:

D-Day:  3,256 dead (one day)
Antietam Creek: 3,654 dead (one day)
Shilo:  23,746 dead (one day)
Galveston Hurricane:  6,000-8,000 dead
Pearl Harbor:  2,388 dead (one day)
Battle Of The Bulge:  19,000 (three days)
9/11:  6,965 dead (one day)


2,000 Dead, in Context
The New York Times
By: Victor Davis Hanson
10/27/2005

AS the aggregate number of American military fatalities in Iraq has crept up over the past 13 months - from 1,000 to 1,500 dead, and now to 2,000 - public support for the war has commensurately declined. With the nightly ghoulish news of improvised explosives and suicide bombers, Americans perhaps do not appreciate that the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the effort to establish a democratic government in Iraq have been accomplished at relatively moderate cost - two-thirds of the civilian fatalities incurred four years ago on the first day of the war against terrorism.

Comparative historical arguments, too, are not much welcome in making sense of the tragic military deaths - any more than citing the tens of thousands Americans who perish in traffic accidents each year. And few care to hear that the penultimate battles of a war are often the costliest - like the terrible summer of 1864 that nearly ruined the Army of the Potomac and almost ushered in a Copperhead government eager to stop at any cost the Civil War, without either ending slavery or restoring the Union. The battle for Okinawa was an abject bloodbath that took more than 50,000 American casualties, yet that campaign officially ended less than six weeks before Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender.

Compared with Iraq, America lost almost 17 times more dead in Korea, and 29 times more again in Vietnam - in neither case defeating our enemies nor establishing democracy in a communist north.

Contemporary critics understandably lament our fourth year of war since Sept. 11 in terms of not achieving a victory like World War II in a similar stretch of time. But that is to forget the horrendous nature of such comparison when we remember that America lost 400,000 dead overseas at a time when the country was about half its present size.

There is a variety of explanations why the carnage of history seems to bring today's public little comfort or perspective about the comparatively moderate costs of Iraq. First, Americans, like most democratic people, can endure fatalities if they believe they come in the pursuit of victory, during a war against an aggressor with a definite beginning and end. That's why most polls found that about three-quarters of the American people approved of the invasion upon the fall of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad in April 2003.

The public's anguish for the fewer than 150 lost during that campaign was counterbalanced by the apparently easy victory and the visible signs of enemy capitulation. But between the first 200 fatalities and the 2,000th, a third of those favoring the war changed their minds, now writing off Iraq as a mistake. Perhaps we could summarize this radical transformation as, "I was for my easy removal of Saddam, but not for your bungled and costly postwar reconstruction."

Part of the explanation is that, like all wars against amorphous insurgencies, the current struggle requires almost constant explanation by the government to show how and why troops are fighting in a necessary cause - and for the nation's long-term security interests. Unless official spokesmen can continually connect the terrible sacrifices of our youth with the need to establish a consensual government in Iraq that might help to end the old pathology of the Middle East, in which autocracies spawn parasitic anti-Western terrorists, then the TV screen's images of blown-up American troops become the dominant narrative. The Bush administration, of course, did not help itself by having put forth weapons of mass destruction as the primary reason for the invasion - when the Senate, in bipartisan fashion, had previously authorized the war on a score of other sensible writs.

Yet castigating a sitting president for incurring such losses in even a victorious or worthy cause is hardly new. World War I and its aftermath destroyed Woodrow Wilson. Franklin Roosevelt's closest election was his fourth, just as the war was turning for the better in 1944 (a far better fate, remember, than his coalition partner Winston Churchill, who was thrown out of office before the final victory that he had done so much to ensure). Harry Truman wisely did not seek re-election in 1952 in the mess of Korea. Vietnam destroyed Lyndon Johnson and crippled Richard Nixon. Even George H. W. Bush found no lasting thanks for his miraculous victory in the 1991 Gulf war, while Bill Clinton's decision to tamper Serbian aggression - a victory obtained without the loss of a single American life - gave him no stored political capital when impeachment neared.

Americans are not afraid of wars, and usually win them, but our nature is not militaristic. Generals may become heroes despite the loss of life, but the presidents rarely find much appreciation even in victory.

Television and the global news media have changed the perception of combat fatalities as well. CNN would have shown a very different Iwo Jima - bodies rotting on the beach, and probably no coverage of the flag-raising from Mount Suribachi. It is conventional wisdom now to praise the amazing accomplishment of June 6, 1944. But a few ex tempore editorial comments from Geraldo Rivera or Ted Koppel, reporting live from the bloody hedgerows where the Allied advance stalled not far from the D-Day beaches - a situation rife with intelligence failures, poor equipment and complete surprise at German tactics - might have forced a public outcry to withdraw the forces from the Normandy "debacle" before it became a "quagmire."

Someone - perhaps Gens. Omar Bradley, Dwight Eisenhower or George Marshall himself - would have been fired as responsible for sending hundred of poorly protected armored vehicles down the narrow wooded lanes of the Bocage to be torched by well-concealed Germans. Subsequent press conferences over underarmored Sherman tanks would have made the present furor over Humvees in Iraq seem minor.

We are also now a different, much more demanding people. Americans have become mostly suburban, at great distance from the bloodletting and routine mayhem on the farms of our ancestors. We feel cheated if we don't die at 85 in quiet sleep rather than, as in the past, at 50 right on the job. Popular culture demands that we look 40 when we are 60, and with a pill we can transform fatal diseases into the status of mere runny noses. (Admittedly, this same degree of medical technology has kept the death total in Iraq a far smaller percentage of overall casualties than it would have been in any earlier war.)

Our technology is supposed to conquer time and space, and make the nearly impossible seem boringly routine. Ejecting a half-million or so Iraqis from Kuwait halfway around the world in 1991, or stopping Slobodan Milosevic from killing civilians is not just conceivable, but can and should be done almost instantly with few or no American lives lost. With such expectations of perfection, any death becomes a near national catastrophe for nearly 300 million in a way the disasters at the battles of Antietam and Tarawa were for earlier, fewer and poorer Americans.

If our enemies similarly believed in the obsolescence of war that so heartlessly has taken 2,000 of our best young men and women, then we could find solace in our growing intolerance of any battlefield losses. But until the nature of man himself changes, there will be wars that take our youth, and we will be increasingly vexed to explain why we should let them.

Victor Davis Hanson is the author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian Wars."

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/opinion/27hanson.html?pagewanted=print

First, the Supreme Court has already held that flag burning is protected by the first amendment, and it certainly does get attention from the media that too often ignores people who have "peacefully assembled...". 

Second, one can hate the policies of the state and still love the country.  The lock-step, unthinking acceptance of whatever crap our "leaders" decide to perpetrate on us is neither liberal or conservative, its just plain stupid.

Mushroom and GW are correct when they point out that the death toll of American troops is indeed low compared to prior conflicts, and a lot of this is because of the great advances that have been made in medical technology since the Vietnam War. My understanding is that because of these improvements, the medics in the field can stabilize the conditions of wounded soldiers much faster, and that injuries that would have been fatal in previous conflicts now have a much greater chance of survivability.

unfortunately the other side of this is that a lot of the survivors have horrible wounds -- there's lots of concussive brain damage, lost and mangled limbs, paralysis, quite horrible, life-ruining stuff. 15,000 wounded, someone was pointing out, i forget who, that that's basically like the U.S. Army has lost a division in iraq.

and i forget the proportion who are coming back with PTSD ("shell shock," from back in the day when we still spoke plain english) but it's high, like one third or something shocking like that.

Mushroom and GW are correct when they point out that the death toll of American troops is indeed low compared to prior conflicts, and a lot of this is because of the great advances that have been made in medical technology since the Vietnam War. My understanding is that because of these improvements, the medics in the field can stabilize the conditions of wounded soldiers much faster, and that injuries that would have been fatal in previous conflicts now have a much greater chance of survivability.




Sure the death rate is lower, but the point is that, as in Vietnam, they are dying or being maimed for no good reason.  They shouldn't be there in the first place.

unfortunately the other side of this is that a lot of the survivors have horrible wounds -- there's lots of concussive brain damage, lost and mangled limbs, paralysis, quite horrible, life-ruining stuff. 15,000 wounded, someone was pointing out, i forget who, that that's basically like the U.S. Army has lost a division in iraq.

and i forget the proportion who are coming back with PTSD ("shell shock," from back in the day when we still spoke plain english) but it's high, like one third or something shocking like that.


No matter what the technology, no matter how good the medicine,


    WAR IS HELL

No matter what the technology, no matter how good the medicine,


     WAR IS HELL


troodat. there was an interview with robert fisk on democracy now who pointed out that war isn't "politics by other means" or any other such tripe, nor is it about victory or true grit -- it's about inflicting death and misery on an industrial scale. there's just not an upside to that.

That is an every-day occurance to protests in California.  And believe me, having lived in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas, I have seen a lot of them.  And yes, I have seen the US flag burned myself at least 3 times in these protests.


really? in the last 2 1/2 years I've attended perhaps 250 anti-war demonstrations here in California (I'll attend one tonight BTW)and I've never seen the Stars 'n' Strpes desicrated

at the last demo i was at this one guy got a megaphone and was chanting a bunch of stuff and ended up with "down with the USA", which was sorta funny, actually, because he was searching for a rhyme and that's what he came up with. he actually looked really embarrassed and a bunch of people around him came down on him pretty hard; progressives want to see that sort of trash even less than conservatives do. (i imagine a lot of conservatives WANT to hear about antiwar demonstrators chanting anti-US slogans because it gives them, the cons, something to work with, you know? just like liberals want to catch cons saying something racist or doing something hypocritical cf. william bennett's gambling addiction or rush's drug problem. really we should be more compassionate because addiction is a compulsion outside of someone's ability to control or will it, but the hypocrisy is so galling we can't help but call attention to it...)

ANYway, so yeah, i see some dumb stuff at demos, people handing out maoist leaflets and such. but whatever, it's a pretty big tent and a lot of cranks come out. mostly it's middle-of-the-roaders, though, i find, regular folks, college kids and families and stuff. i think anyone who did something totally off the wall, like burning a US flag, would be shut down pretty fast. the "down with the USA" guy is a funny example because you know, the dilemma is, how do you criticize US foreign policy, which i find objectionable in the extreme, without sounding like you're criticizing the nation at large, which i DO think the greatest the world has ever known and has been, until recently, an example to the rest of the civilized world. (and who do we have to blame for our recent fall from this vaunted status? hmm?) and it involves some very careful parsing of language that can be very difficult to maintain...

i've been to a lot of protests (there are lots here in washington) and i've never seen anyone burn an american flag. i think that gets blown way out of proportion.

i've also noticed, though, that a lot of times it seems like conservatives put a lot more stock in the trappings and symbols of freedom than in freedom itself. people who burn the american flag are sorta silly but i never made much of it. i'd like to burn me a copy of the "patriot act" though, truth be told.
During the first Gulf War I was in the Army, stationed in Germany, and there was a massive anti-war protest in front of my base. There had to have been a good 5,000 German civilians there. As circumstances would have it, one of my sergeants and I found ourselves on the outside of the base, needing to get back inside, and the only way back in was to walk directly through the crowd (and we were both in uniform). So we decided to chance it and walked through the protesters, and as much as I disagreed with them at the time I have to give them credit. No flags were burned, no one harassed us, and if anything they were respectful to us, despite our disagreements. (I have to admit that the sergeant and I were both nervous as hell.)
  This may just be my opinion, but I believe that by and large flag-burning incidents are few and far between and are done by only the most extreme members of the anti-war movement.

at one of the demos i went to a year or so ago probably the most popular guy there was this dude with a sign saying "d.c. cop against the war." most demonstrators are just looking for a little interaction, a chance to talk out the issues civilly with someone perceived to be on the other side. definitely i think few people have issues with the soldiers who fight the wars or with the police -- i mean, of course we need a military! of course we need police to keep the peace! these are basic ingredients of a civil society. my problem is with the people at the top, and the people who seem to shamelessly benefit from bad policy.

i was saying, too, though, on another thread, that i went to germany a few years ago, hung out with college kids, mostly progressive types, and they were very mellloooowwww. definitely way nonviolent, those guys.

What people in general need to understand is that to oppose the policies of one's government is

  AN ACT OF PATRIOTISM


and to support any damn thing the president does, because he is the president, is


  AN ACT OF STUPIDITY

unfortunately the other side of this is that a lot of the survivors have horrible wounds -- there's lots of concussive brain damage, lost and mangled limbs, paralysis, quite horrible, life-ruining stuff. 15,000 wounded, someone was pointing out, i forget who, that that's basically like the U.S. Army has lost a division in iraq.

and i forget the proportion who are coming back with PTSD ("shell shock," from back in the day when we still spoke plain english) but it's high, like one third or something shocking like that.

Instead of dying, far more soldiers are surviving traumatic injuries.  However, they're often severely handicapped for the rest of their lives.  These veterans need assistance in their daily lives, and often frightfully expensive regimens of medications, surgeries, tests, and therapies.  Well, goddammit, combat veterans ought to be entitled to every treatment possible no matter how expensive.  Is this what the Bush administration thinks?  Nope, fuggem!

Well, goddammit, combat veterans ought to be entitled to every treatment possible no matter how expensive.  Is this what the Bush administration thinks?


I agree with you 100% here.  And as long as they are under the care of the DOD, that is the case.  But when the servicemember leaves the military, they then fall under the "Department Of Veterans Affairs".  And that is another matter.

I have talked in here before about the VA.  It is a sad joke.  It is a perfect example of how our Government can't manage a Federal Health Care System.  For those that think we should have Socialized Medicine, take a look at the VA, and tell me you seriously want that nightmare for everybody else.

The VA is a beauracracy.  The level of care is no different now then it was under Clinton.  It is overloaded, underfunded, and is shrinking.  During the 1990's, 2 of the 4 VA facilities in LA were drasitcally cut.  And odds are, they will never be fully reopened.  In my area, the 2 closest hospitals were closed in the same time period, which means I have to drive to Montgomery (over 2 hours away) just to get my Motrin refulled.  Needless to say, I do not bother.

The VA is a joke.  Most of the "Doctors" there are interns, simply doing their time until they get their full medical license, so they can go elsewhere and make the real money.  The other doctors are mostly semi-retired or those doing thier 20 years, until they qualify for Federal Pension.  Very few really care about the quality of care from what I have seen.  They are just doing their job and collecting a paycheck (like most Federal Workers).

I do not blame this in Clinton, Bush, or any other President.  I blame it on the Federal Beauracracy.  Presidents come and go, but the beauracracy lives on.  And unless a President was to do something as drastic as Reagan did to the Air Traffic Controllers, it will continue.

And what are you all willing to give up in order that the VA get the full funding it needs and deserves?  Since we are all former military, we understand the face that we always get the "dirty end of the stick".  It happens when we are in, and happens when we get out.  But since civilians only pay us lip service anyways, we are used to it.

I agree with you 100% here.  And as long as they are under the care of the DOD, that is the case.  But when the servicemember leaves the military, they then fall under the "Department Of Veterans Affairs".  And that is another matter.

I have talked in here before about the VA.  It is a sad joke.  It is a perfect example of how our Government can't manage a Federal Health Care System.  For those that think we should have Socialized Medicine, take a look at the VA, and tell me you seriously want that nightmare for everybody else.

The VA is a beauracracy.  The level of care is no different now then it was under Clinton.  It is overloaded, underfunded, and is shrinking.  During the 1990's, 2 of the 4 VA facilities in LA were drasitcally cut.  And odds are, they will never be fully reopened.  In my area, the 2 closest hospitals were closed in the same time period, which means I have to drive to Montgomery (over 2 hours away) just to get my Motrin refulled.  Needless to say, I do not bother.

The VA is a joke.  Most of the "Doctors" there are interns, simply doing their time until they get their full medical license, so they can go elsewhere and make the real money.  The other doctors are mostly semi-retired or those doing thier 20 years, until they qualify for Federal Pension.  Very few really care about the quality of care from what I have seen.  They are just doing their job and collecting a paycheck (like most Federal Workers).

I do not blame this in Clinton, Bush, or any other President.  I blame it on the Federal Beauracracy.  Presidents come and go, but the beauracracy lives on.  And unless a President was to do something as drastic as Reagan did to the Air Traffic Controllers, it will continue.

And what are you all willing to give up in order that the VA get the full funding it needs and deserves?  Since we are all former military, we understand the face that we always get the "dirty end of the stick".  It happens when we are in, and happens when we get out.  But since civilians only pay us lip service anyways, we are used to it.


Yes, yes, the VA is a beauracracy.  So is the Rutland Regional Medical Center, or Johns Hopkins for that matter.  Every institution you deal with is a beauracracy, thats life in a complex society.  The VA could be a much better one if our "leaders" wanted to make it better.  Our lone Congressman, Bernie Sanders, has been fighting to improve the treatment of vets for years.  Our VA hospital in VT is on the eastern side of the state, about an 1 1/2 hours away in good weather.  Bernie got a clinic open in Rutland, on the west side, to better serve our Vermont vets.  It can be done.

The VA could be a much better one if our "leaders" wanted to make it better.


Politicians do not have to go to the VA for their treatment.  They use Bethesda Naval Hospital.  And like I said, the care for active duty servicemembers is among the best in the world.  If given a choice between Bethesda Naval Hospita (or any other facility for active duty servicemembers) l or any VA facility in the world, you know what I would choose.

The Navy in particular is among the best in the world.  All of the techniques used in Trauma medacine, as well as those for plastic surgery, limb reattachment, and limb saving started in military medicine.  The "Paramedic" system that has been in use for the last 30 years started with Army Medics and Navy Corpsmen.  Anybody old enough to remember the old system, ambulance drivers did not know any medicine at all.  In fact, the normal Ambulance was the same basic vehicle as a hearse!  (Check out the classic Cadillac ambulance in Ghostbusters if you don't believe me).

The VA always has been, and will always get the same poor funding it has gotten in the last 50+ years.  And with life spans increasing, expect it to only get worse.  If you really want to see it change, talk to your congressman or senator.  They are the ones that control the funding, not the President.  And even that will not help much, because the beaurocracy is so horrible.  I read somewhere in that it takes 30-40 "staff" in the VA to support 1 doctor.  And as long as short-time interns are the backbone, that will not change either.

Politicians do not have to go to the VA for their treatment.  They use Bethesda Naval Hospital.  And like I said, the care for active duty servicemembers is among the best in the world.  If given a choice between Bethesda Naval Hospita (or any other facility for active duty servicemembers) l or any VA facility in the world, you know what I would choose.

The Navy in particular is among the best in the world.  All of the techniques used in Trauma medacine, as well as those for plastic surgery, limb reattachment, and limb saving started in military medicine.  The "Paramedic" system that has been in use for the last 30 years started with Army Medics and Navy Corpsmen.  Anybody old enough to remember the old system, ambulance drivers did not know any medicine at all.  In fact, the normal Ambulance was the same basic vehicle as a hearse!  (Check out the classic Cadillac ambulance in Ghostbusters if you don't believe me).

The VA always has been, and will always get the same poor funding it has gotten in the last 50+ years.  And with life spans increasing, expect it to only get worse.  If you really want to see it change, talk to your congressman or senator.  They are the ones that control the funding, not the President.  And even that will not help much, because the beaurocracy is so horrible.  I read somewhere in that it takes 30-40 "staff" in the VA to support 1 doctor.  And as long as short-time interns are the backbone, that will not change either.


As I said, our lone Rep, Bernie Sanders, was able to pressure the VA to open a clinic in Rutland so that more vets could be better served.  We probably need two more (one in the far south and one in Burlington or Montpelier, but it is a start.  I'm not a vet, as you know, but I do want vetys to get the best treatment possible.

I have to disagree with you that presidents have no control over funding.  The executive branch writes the budget , and this one has certainly advocated cuts in VA funding (not saying its the only one to do so).