The journey from there to here

As I roam about the internet, I am often confronted with macabre counters that enumerate the deaths in the Iraq war. Though well intentioned, those counters miss several major points.

As Brad pointed out, the number (2037, according to the most recent list I checked) is over 2 1/2 years since war was declared in Iraq. And, while the death of EVERY soldier matters, it must be placed in context. 6603 American troops lost their lives on a SINGLE DAY on June 6, 1944 (D-Day)...important because we were ALSO involved in a foreign conflict opposed by a strong contingent of US protestors who felt we had no business being there (don't believe me? Google "America First" sometime, an organization that counted no less than Charles Lindbergh among its leaders). 3650 Union soldiers died in a single day at Antietam. 3100 Union soldiers (estimated) in a single day at Gettysburg (for the sake of the Civil War, I only included Union casualties, not out of disrespect for the Confederate deaths but as a buffer to those detractors who would bemoan the fact that my Civil War death count included deaths on BOTH SIDES of the line).

But those numbers, while important to me, pale when compared to another MORE important statistic that doesn't matter to the liberals, a point made by a conservative talk radio host (don't remember which one). The host asked his liberal callers repeatedly to tell him how many had died in Afghanistan. NOt one of them could.

Now, mind you, MOST of these liberals claim to be pacifists. They claim to be against the war, and that we are at war for oil. Afghanistan stands ignored as it is a fly in their ointment, a point at which most of their spurious arguments begin to unravel. It also is an embarassing sticking point as the casualty count (244, for all you numbers geeks) is too low to afford them the dramatic impact of a number that exceeds the number of years since Christ's arrival on this earth.

Add to that the fact that the number includes the TOTAL casualty count, which is just over 400 more than the COMBAT death count of 1634, and thus is irresponsibly inflated. The number 2037 represents TOTAL US troop deaths, which probably includes a couple cases of "Mohammed's revenge" from some bad Kurdish takeout.

I stand united with many Americans in desperately longing to see the day when all of our American troops come home. But I want them to come home as the heroes they ARE, and not the "babykillers" the antiwar movement is fast making them out to be.

And I believe EVERY deaths counts, but that counting numbers is a shameful attempt to manipulate public opinion through irresponsible reporting. Just as numbers related to chickenpox deaths (to sell guess what? chickenpox VACCINE) ignore the remarkably small amount of cases that result in death, the Iraq war casualty numbers ignore the relatively small percentage of combat deaths.

 

 


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 03, 2005

Another Gideon Masterpiece.

I did not know the Afghan count as well.  And did not even think about the hypocrisy of it.

on Nov 03, 2005
You have to remember, Afghanistan is the "good" war on terror, Iraq is just the diversion that keeps us from winning anywhere. To emphasis the deaths in Afghanistan would either make the struggle seem less valiant (because of the relative few deaths), or fire up the protesters against it...

I have no doubt that most of the people keeping the "Honor the Fallen" websites are doing it out of tribute. I do appreciate that some are keeping them current because I have been using them to do a little research of my own (which, as I've said before, will someday be the basis of more than a few articles). My favorites are the ones that provide photos and personal information about the people behind the statistics. Reading about their lives sometimes makes it hard to continue, but also reminds me that each "number" has a face, a name, a family and a story.
on Nov 03, 2005
When we do these fights over body counts, we also have to account for the Iraqi casualties, which could be as high as 100,000. To me, they seem to be the real "Casualties that don't matter." Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians die, and they are ignored while the lives two thousand American soldiers are deemed more important (at least by MSM).
on Nov 04, 2005
opposed by a strong contingent of US protestors who felt we had no business being there (don't believe me? Google "America First" sometime, an organization that counted no less than Charles Lindbergh among its leaders)


more accurately, a strong(?) contingent of perhaps 800,000 which evaporated immediately after 12/7/41--in other words, prior to being involved in any conflict.

as long as we're gonna take a lil tour of history's backwaters, please glance to your right wing, ladies n gennulmens, and for a display of famous isolationists (as opposed to non-interventionalists who advocated support of the uk while remaining neutral).
on Nov 04, 2005
MOST of these liberals claim to be pacifists. They claim to be against the war, and that we are at war for oil. Afghanistan stands ignored as it is a fly in their ointment, a point at which most of their spurious arguments begin to unravel. It also is an embarassing sticking point as the casualty count (244, for all you numbers geeks) is too low to afford them the dramatic impact of a number that exceeds the number of years since Christ's arrival on this earth.


actually afghanistan is exactly where the 'regime change in iraq = war on terrorism' nonsense totally unravels. what this administration has done is to totally ignore a huge mistake made by both reagan and the current boy president's father.

after making the afghani jihadists our proxy warriors (perhaps the only truly successful cia operation to that time...one that did more to bring down the soviet union than a thousand reagan speeches), reagan, bush, cheney and the other cold warriors spun on their heels and left the afghans to deal with the chaos and destruction their country suffered as a consequence. the unlimited amounts of money and assistance previously available suddenly dried up. virtually nothing was done to heal afghanistan's people or repair its infrastructure.

left to decay, it became the home of al quaeda...the people who actually attacked us on 911. for a very few months after the planes hit the towers, the war was directed at those who attacked us. following the initial rout, we had an opportunity to correct the past error and prevent it from recurring by focusing our efforts on wiping out the taliban and alquaeda there while establishing a viable central government.

today, afghanistan is well on its way to becoming a rogue nation once again, bin laden is still free, the taliban is reviving itself and sooner rather than later, we're gonna need to go back and try again.

those 2000+ lives lost in iraq weren't lost in vain...but they damn sure were lost due to vanity, arrogance and a total misperception of the lessons of history.

just as an aside, the worst casualty of the war in iraq is america's soul.
on Nov 04, 2005

When we do these fights over body counts, we also have to account for the Iraqi casualties, which could be as high as 100,000.

Under Saddam Maybe.  Not since the war began by a very long shot.

on Nov 04, 2005
I am sorry but I REFUSE to accept the numbers the so called "liberal" media is advertising much less the nonsense
from the Pentagon and this administration.

After witnessing:
the Sham that was Jessica Lynch (remember how we were all told that she was the super soldier?)
the lie that was Pat Tillman's death (we were told that he died at the hands of the enemy)
the coverup of Abu Ghraib and similar atrocities
WMD's (how come I knew it was a lie, yet the NY TIMES and its researches couldnt figure this out?)
and of course NOW ... learning WE the U.S beacon of democracy has "secret" prisons and gulags on navy ships and europe

NO buddy, I can NEVER accept numbers coming out of the Pentagon brass.
If they say its raining tommorow I am going out of my house in shorts.

The count of casaulties arent 2000+ its at least four times that. Not to be forgotten should be the almost 17k injured
and pulled out of the theatre of war in Iraq

The reason I dont jump up and down the Afghanistan mess is:
1) I know it was a sham to begin with ... to throw attention off for when we get to the real deal ... Iraq
2) Much like I understand that North Korea was added in the axis-of-evil list at the last minute to throw attention
off the fact that we are in endless war against countries whose resources we covet and who represent threats to Israel.
3) We could never in a THOUSAND years control Afghanistan ... there will ALWAYS be no-go areas. Theres a reason we paid
off the Northern Alliance to do our dirty work.

Mujahadeed commanders serve as governors and elected officials ... who still maintain their stock piles of weapons and
the opium that fuels their control.

Get real ... we never meanth to do anything worthwhile there ... it was just our "smokescreen" for where we really wanted
to be.

And like it or not, Kazai is the MAYOR of Kabul ... nothing more

I could go on and on ... but this is rather tiring.

We go and attack a nation that hasnt threatened us, could not do anything and we sit and try and justify the amount of
dead ... no we will be paying for this mess for years to come. That much we can be certain of.
on Nov 04, 2005
>When we do these fights over body counts, we also have to account for the Iraqi casualties, which could be
>as high as 100,000

Good point latour999.

This mess was lost with the first Iraqi casualty.
If the poll numbers are anything to go by ... we are waking up to that fact.
on Nov 04, 2005

NO buddy, I can NEVER accept numbers coming out of the Pentagon brass.
If they say its raining tommorow I am going out of my house in shorts.

No one here is your buddy, you ignorant troll.  You can create any figures you want to out of thin air, but they will still be as real as your brain. Imaginary.

on Nov 04, 2005
Ted Ralls August 8 2005 polical cartoon at www.ucomics.com_rallcom_2005_08_08_ (replace "_" with "/")
captures this nicely
on Nov 04, 2005

Ted Ralls August 8 2005

Ted Ralls!  You are going to quote an avowed racist bigot!  You are pathetic!

on Nov 04, 2005
Come on people, we all know that the Govt can't be trusted. Lies have existed in the Govt since the dawn of time. Heck any position higher than yours will always lie to the ones under them. I still how ever believe that sometimes things have to be done to better life. What we consider a terrible disaster, like a wild fire in a forest, nature considers it a blessing in disguise. From the ashes life will grow again. Every human has their own idea of what Good is and you wont always agree with what those who lead you but sometimes you have to just give it the benifit of the doubt. Just because you didn't vote for one person doesn't mean you do not follow their leadership. Once you engage in the ritual of voting, you are accepting that if you party loses that you will accept the opposite party as your leader. Otherwise you should not live in a country with those terms.

However I would like to see those who think things here are bad live in a place like Afganistan, Iraq, North Korea or even China. Heck, me being of Latin roots I would never see myself living no where in South America. It would take a business trip, and a job with good pay, to get me to even visit those places. Just my choice not to go.
on Nov 04, 2005
The count of casaulties arent 2000+ its at least four times that. Not to be forgotten should be the almost 17k injured
and pulled out of the theatre of war in Iraq


The number of fallen Soldiers is not unknowable, nor can it be hidden. Even if you don't trust the DOD, you can match up national news reports, obituaries, and local news stories. If there were 8,000 families missing loved ones while the DOD claimed far less, we would know about it.

I don't know about the 17K number. There have been quite a few service members coming home severely disabled (one of the primary reasons for this is the improvement in armor (and medical care standards, equipment, and response time) that allows a service member to survive an injury that would have been certain death in previous wars), and the number is certainly in the thousands. Your number sounds high, though. I'd have to do some reading to see if there's any truth to it.
on Nov 04, 2005
perhaps the only truly successful cia operation to that time


I don't know about that, the CIA was pretty successful in subverting democracy in Guatemala, Chile, etc.
on Nov 04, 2005
None of your figures matters to the left gid< it refutes there crying points rhetoric~~
3 Pages1 2 3