2000 and counting...

[PeachMonkey]

The US military damaged the infrastucture of that country during the invasion, and at a minimum they have a responsibility to help replace what was lost. If the aim of this war were really so noble, shouldn't we be leaving it a better place than we found it?

Your point is well taken, but the US is:

-- Failing to rebuild the infrastructure. See earlier threads about how little of the recovery money is actually going to the Iraqi people and infrastructure, and how conditions have gotten worse, rather than better, for most Iraqis.
-- Incapable of establishing peace on the ground. Western forces are traditionally incapable of defeating insurgencies by nature, and the Iraqis simply do not want us there. If our goal is to simply establish another Saddam-like "strongman", the only likely way we can get a clean break, then it casts even more aspersions on the motivations for the invasion.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally Posted by MisterMike
To help rebuild and bring democracy at this point.

I think the role of the U.S. military in Iraq ended after we bombed them and captured Saddam.

Time to leave.

That's sounds a little contradictory.
If the whole point was to remove Saddam and replace his dictatorship with a new democratic nation... the work has only begun. Yes, Saddam is gone. But there is hardly a stable democracy there. If the coalition ran away with their tail between their legs now, it would leave a fertile ground for another tyrannical dictator to pick up where Saddam left off. The US military damaged the infrastucture of that country during the invasion, and at a minimum they have a responsibility to help replace what was lost. If the aim of this war were really so noble, shouldn't we be leaving it a better place than we found it?

You missed the clause 'at this point.' in Mister Mike's entry.
The 'whole point' in your response does not line up with the goals of the American Adventure in the Middle East.

In this and in other threads, there are a variety of links to the actual words of the leaders in the Bush II Adminstration that explain what the original rational for invading Iraq was all about. Some have pointed out that those words are 'Out of Context', but you really should decide for yourself.

According to international laws (which some claim the United States need not bother following, even though by ratifying such treaties, we make those international laws, United States laws), once we invade a country, we have the obligation to stabalize the country we invaded.

Of course, by turning over 'authority' to Iraq, and forcing an 'imperfect' election, the United States is trying to get out from under that obligation.

Several have said that if the Iraqi's ask us to leave, we will. Look for that request to come from the victorious Shi'ite Muslems in early February. At which time, Iraq will become very similiar to Iran ... a religous country.

Look for massive oppression of the Sunni's. And hope the ignore the Kurds.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Today's helicopter crash brings the total US fatalities in Iraq to 1,418.


michaeledward

 

[Bester]

Would it have mattered if that crash had happened in Germany, where 75,603 US servicemen are currently stationed, or Japan (40,045), or South Korea (40,258), etc?

Dead is dead, a tragedy regardless of where, or how.

 

[michaeledward]

You are correct that Geography does in some way highlight this tragedy. If this helicopter crashed in Europe or Southeast Asia, it would still be a tragedy. What makes it stand out as a cause for concern is that our servicemen and women are in Iraq because of statements like this.

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor
Date: 9/10/2002
Quote/Claim:
“We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.” [Source: Telegraph]
Fact:
“We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

. . . and today, Ms. Rice was confirmed by the United States Senate to the post of Secretary of State.

Should statements like that be disqualifiers?

m

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If we purged the government of liars and crooks, what would we do with all those empty peopleless buildings?

 

[Tgace]

What do the majority of people actually serving and giving their lives think of the sacrifice? Im shure there are many that dont want to be there, but Ive seen/met/heard from many who believe in what they are doing over there. Does it matter?

 

[michaeledward]

What do the majority of people actually serving and giving their lives think of the sacrifice? Im shure there are many that dont want to be there, but Ive seen/met/heard from many who believe in what they are doing over there. Does it matter?

This begs the question .. please define "what they are doing"?

Are they protecting us from the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were a grave and gathering threat to the United States?

Are they ridding the world of an evil tyrrant; Saddam Hussein?

Are they spreading freedom throughout the world?

Or are they just cannon fodder?

I don't wish to make light of the service these fine young men and women fulfill. But, the mission has been far from clear for a very long time. And that the reasons for the mission have shifted and shifted again over the past two and a half years is something we should all be constantly vigelent of.

 

[Blind]

I don't wish to make light of the service these fine young men and women fulfill. But, the mission has been far from clear for a very long time. And that the reasons for the mission have shifted and shifted again over the past two and a half years is something we should all be constantly vigelent of.

This is a good point, as TGace said elsewhere it is to a degree it seems at a point where you gotta finish what you started. Clearly if America(primarily but the other nations throwing in their help as well) withdrew now it would be disastrous. To my mind Iraq was a bad call, and as a non American I have my suspicions about the reasons why, and Erik wrote a very informative post from his perspective on the "popularity dropping" thread.

I can honestly say that right now I do think what America is doing there is very important, I am not that up to speed on the situation and only listen to what info I can glean from friends or the news. That said I would make a guess that if all assistance was removed now I guess there would be even less security and more murder than there is now-speculation I admit but from where I stand that is how it appears. So from that perspective and the fact that most soldiers would feel they are protecting their nations interests sure, they should feel they are doing something worthwhile.

What needs to be looked at IMO is what steps will be taken in future to prevent this kind of thing happening, obviously the UN saying NO is not enough. I do realise I am just a wishful thinker though.

 

[Makalakumu]

If we purged the government of liars and crooks, what would we do with all those empty peopleless buildings?

Homeless shelters?

 

[michaeledward]

Some current statistics ....

1453 - Total United States Fatalities in Iraq
_998 - Hostile United States Fatalities since the End of Major Combat Operations (5/1/2003)
1246 - United States Fatalities since President Bush challenges "Bring Them On".
1078 - United States Fatalities since Saddam Hussein was captured (12/13/2003)
__ 13 - United States Fatalities in February 2005 (so far)

 

[RRouuselot]

One of the benefits of working on a military installation is we can get more positive news than is offered by CNN, ABC, & NBC which tend to go for stories that are more “emotional” shall we say. They hardly ever focus on the positive side of a story but rather do stories that try get a reaction out of your average American.

The Navy Marine Corps News & AFN mainly focuses on the positive stories that come out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Things like GIs building schools, furnishing it, helping dig ditches, purifying water supplies, giving medical care to people that otherwise couldn’t get, let alone afford it, and so on. Occasionally they show some “gloom-n-doom” but most people in the military are painfully aware of that anyway and don’t really need to be reminded what happens in a war since many have already been in at least one.

Do I think the reason for going there were justifiable…..not really, but there is nothing we can do about that now except suck it up and do a good job helping people while we are there.

 

[RRouuselot]

If we purged the government of liars and crooks, what would we do with all those empty peopleless buildings?

Even with all the crooks and liars we still have one of the best standards of living in the world. I have been to some real 3rd world **** holes in my day that would lock you up just for writing that....so trust me on this…..you would rather live in the US with all the liars and crooks than some other places I have been.

Americans have it GOOD.

 

[michaeledward]

Today, the number of American soldiers who have died in Iraq will quite probably reach 1,500. Is there an end in sight?

 

[shesulsa]

Oh, Michael. How many people do you think are willing to admit you're right ... er ... left? :ultracool

 

[Tgace]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4241

Data on US service member deaths are provided at The Center for Military History’s Military Casualty Information web page . Here we can find a number of casualty statistics, but I focused on only two sources. The WAR ON TERRORISM - OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM depicts casualties by month and is current to January 29, 2005. This data provides the baseline for a historical comparison.

Since the Department of Defense (DoD) has established “deaths per 100,000” service members on active duty as its criterion, it is simply a matter of mathematically calculating the ratios for GI deaths in the 23 months of OIF to arrive at the deaths per 100,000 rate, which I will refer to simply as the death rate. I used the latest DoD figures available (2004) for active duty strength as 1,418,731. This figure will of course, fluctuate due to mobilization and de-mobilization of reserve component units.

The important numbers for the comparison:

• Total hostile and non-hostile deaths for IOF are 1429
• Death rate for 23 months of OIF is 100.7
• Average death rate for one year is 52.5
• Average monthly death rate is 4.4

Note the last two numbers as they are key in comparing GI death rates for the last 24 years and the rates from OIF. Statistics going back more than two decades are provided on the chart U.S. ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY DEATHS PER 100,000 SERVING - 1980 through 2002 . The rest of this exercise is, as they say, a matter of running the numbers.

Right at the top of the table are the death rates for all causes in 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency. Note the accident rate alone is nearly twice what is today. The total yearly death rate for Carter’s last year is 110.7, which is more than double the OIF yearly death rate! Note to the major press: we weren’t even at war in 1980, yet DoD had an accident rate among GIs that was almost 20 points more than our yearly rate in Iraq.

We can’t tell from the chart how many of these accidents were off-duty or happened during training. It’s a safe bet that many occurred during training exercises due to the loss of experienced officers and NCOs during the Carter “hollow” military years. Also note that when President Reagan took office in 1981, the accidental death rate started to decline even as troop strength increased.

Other significant events occurred that affected the death rate. In 1983, hostile action in Grenada resulted in a 0.8 rate, while the terrorist attack on the Marine Barracks in Beirut far surpassed our deaths on Grenada with a rate of 11.6. Overall, our death rate in 1983 was 108.5, which is still far above our OIF rate of 52.5.

By 1989, the accidental death rate had declined almost 29 points from 1980 while uniformed end-strength had increased by almost 144,000. Also in 1989, Bush ’41 ordered US forces to conduct Operation Just Cause, which had a death rate of 1.0 due to hostile action. Still, 1989 saw a total death rate of 71.0 which is almost 19 points above the yearly death rate of OIF.

The next big event was in 1991 when the US conducted Operation Desert Storm (ODS). This operation resulted in a death rate of 6.9 per 100,000 service members. But the actual operation lasted about 1.5 months. Therefore, a monthly rate for ODS would be approximately 4.6. This is slightly above the monthly death rate for OIF at 4.4.

In 1993, the accidental death rate continued to decline, but under Clinton’s watch the suicide rate peaked out in 1995. At a rate of 15.0, it was the highest self-inflicted death rate of any president over the 22-year time period depicted on the chart. This contributed to an overall death rate of 62.5; still 10 points over the rate for OIF.

Thankfully, the suicide rate dropped in 1996, but this was also the year we suffered a hostile action death rate of 0.1 due to operations in Bosnia. The rate works out in raw numbers to be about two people. It is difficult to get exact casualty figures for Bosnia, but the number of KIA as being two makes sense from a scanning of available reports. These two were killed from mines, while an estimated 50 were also wounded from mines and from unexploded ordnance.

Also note the sharp increase of terror attacks during Clinton’s Presidency. The last big terrorist attack came during Reagan’s first term on the Marine Barracks, then attacks tapered off to zero in 1990 and 1991, and were 0.1 in 1992, Bush 41’s last year in office. Starting in 1993, the death rate due to terror attacks climbed to 1.6, then 0.4, 1.2, 0.2, and in Clinton’s last year in office it was 1.1. During Clinton’s eight years in office the total death rate was 4.5 due to terror attacks, which was far below the 11.6 of 1983, but exceeds the rate of 3.6 due to the attack on the Pentagon on 9-11.

Finally, there is no uniformed death rate due to hostile action shown in 2001, which was the start of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan. This is more than likely due to the small numbers of troops initially employed, and the type of operations that were conducted. Large conventional forces were comprised of native Northern Alliance formations and Pashtun tribal units. Also, these DoD figures do not count casualties sustained by CIA operatives and paramilitary personnel such as Johnny Michael Spann. However, in 2002 there was a hostile action death rate of 1.1 as more Soldiers and Marines were deployed to Afghanistan. The yearly death rate total for 2002 was 58.2, which is still above the OIF rate of 52.5.

Of course, we can’t tell from this data how many accidents were training-related, off-duty, or if they happened in a theater of war. Therefore, any OIF death rates would have to be added to incidents at home station. Nevertheless, what these figures should tell the American left is that just training for war, even in peacetime, is a very dangerous business. And, in case any of the aging hippies from the 60s in the press rooms across America are wondering, the yearly death rate for our “conventional” involvement in Vietnam from 1964 to 1973 was 176, more than triple the current rate in OIF.

Ultimately though, this kind of rational examination of the numbers is not going to convince many people on the left. Even if you show them that when Jimmy Carter was in charge that he had an accidental death rate almost 20 points higher than the death rate in Iraq, they would probably just scoff and say something to the effect that “well…at least we didn’t have to go war.” This view betrays their true agenda.

They don’t give a damn about our troops, no matter what phony sympathy they express about the deaths of our heroes. If they did, they would have had Carter’s head on a pike.

In reality, they’re just scared they’ll be asked to help join the effort to protect our freedom, because they simply don’t want to have their nice, safe cocoons punctured.

Douglas Hanson is our military affairs correspondent

 

[michaeledward]

Tgace, can I assume that because you posted this article, you actually mean to say this ?

They don’t give a damn about our troops, no matter what phony sympathy they express about the deaths of our heroes.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/004154.php

At the beginning of the Iraq War, an accidental helipcopter crash killed several American soldiers. A general said about the accident: "What we do is dangerous. Even in peacetime." Indeed, year in and year out, an average of one to two American soldiers die every day, during peacetime, as a result of accidents. This casualty rate has never attracted any public attention. Accidental deaths in peacetime never make headlines, notwithstanding their relative frequency.

There have been 53 combat deaths in Iraq in the 90-plus days since May 1--roughly one every other day, about half the Army's accidental death rate during peacetime. Yet every one of these deaths has been front-page news. Why?

Not because of the strategic significance of this casualty rate, which is zero--just as the roughly equal rate of accidental deaths of troops in Iraq has no impact on the strategic situation there. And not because such an intense focus on near-zero casualty rates is a standard staple of war reporting. Past wars have, needless to say, generated vastly greater casualty rates. At the height of the Vietnam war, to which liberals longingly compare Iraq, an average of 40 American servicemen died each day--75 times the current rate in Iraq--and fatalities in World Wars I and II were far greater still. Yet in none of these conflicts was each casualty considered front-page news.

It is fair to say that no country has ever had to fight a war under this kind of scrutiny--where the death of every soldier is trumpeted in front-page headlines. It is doubtful whether a war can be fought under such circumstances. It has become a political commonplace to say that the continuing casualties in Iraq will, at some point, become a political problem for the Bush administration. I don't doubt that this is true, given the tone of the news coverage, which suggests on a daily or near-daily basis that every fatality is proof of the failure of our effort in Iraq.

If we ask why the minuscule combat casualty rate in Iraq receives such intense publicity, while the nearly-equal accidental death rate there is almost ignored, and accidental deaths of soldiers in other parts of the world are never reported, there can be only one answer: the focus by the American press on every combat fatality represents a conscious effort to undermine the war effort and the Bush administration. Why else this sudden concern for the well-being of the American G.I.? Why else the ritual incantation: “...the fifty-third combat death since President Bush declared the end of major combat on May 1”? Why else the studied refusal to put the minimal casualties in Iraq into any kind of historical context? Why else do the front-page stories on every casualty crowd out objective coverage of the great progress that has been made in Iraq in an astonishingly brief period of time?

And consider the tactics of the anti-American forces in Iraq. They launch attacks on a daily basis, not seeking military advantage of any kind but seeking rather to kill an American soldier every day or two. Why? What is the goal? Publicity in the American press, primarily. The only hope of the desperate Baathists and other desperadoes loose in Iraq is that the American people will tire of the war and the reconstruction effort and go home. The withdrawal of American troops from Somalia after casualties were sustained in Mogadishu made a deep impression on the Arab world, and serves as a model for insurgents in Iraq and elsewhere. And the Baathists would like nothing better than for Iraq to be perceived as a second Vietnam.

So the Baathists kill not for military advantage but for headlines, and American reporters and editors oblige them. Is it unfair to suggest that these parties work together for a common purpose--to discredit the Iraq war and the Bush administration with the American public?

Outraged liberals will say that the press must report what happens, and cannot be expected to suppress news of American casualties. Of course. But editorial judgment dictates the prominence given to stories and the context in which they are placed. Why does not the New York Times headline, each morning, “Man Killed In Car Accident In Iowa”? Presumably because such a death, while undoubtedly tragic for the man’s family, has no broader significance. But why is that so different from the death of a single soldier in Iraq, which has no strategic significance whatsoever? One could argue that every highway fatality is newsworthy because it casts doubt on the success of America’s effort to promote highway safety. But our newspapers have no interest in promoting such a theory; hence individual traffic deaths are not considered newsworthy. Such examples could be multiplied endlessly, as thousands of Americans are killed every day, some accidentally, some intentionally; some while engaged in noble enterprises, others not. Every day, reporters and editors decide which of these fatalities are newsworthy, what will be said about them, and in what context they will be placed.

So all I ask is that American newspapers start applying fair and objective news judgment to what is, in fact, a remarkably low casualty rate, under the circumstances. And stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

[michaeledward]

Tgace, can I assume that because you posted this article, you actually mean to say this ?

They don’t give a damn about our troops, no matter what phony sympathy they express about the deaths of our heroes.

 

[MisterMike]

We hear how mani U.S. troops are killed/injured on a day to day basis.
We hear how many Iraqi troops/police are killed on a day to day basis.
Why don't we hear how many insurgents are killed on a day to day basis?