So says the Time/CNN headline I saw while logging on this morning.
Could someone explain to me again just what we’re getting out of this “damn fool war”?
There’s more to a story than a headline, you know:
Going on the offense will necessarily lead to more casualties on our side. If it forestalls them in the future by killing insurgents and pacifying areas, then it isn’t a terribly bad deal, horrible as that might be to contemplate at times.
Now, if you hold the entire thing as unnecessary, then I can see your view. I hold a different one, of course, and one must consider at all times the consequences of our withdrawal now.
In any case, it would be a good idea to consider the entire picture regarding American casualties, and not just the headline stat that you provided.
I thought I read that since one month out of the 12 in 2007 (march?) had the lowest monthly death toll in a few years, that that meant things were improving? 
Yeah, just like anyone considered the consequences of getting into this clusterfuck in the first place.
“We’ll appeal to reason only when it helps us do what we want to do anyway.” 
Do we really need to go over this yet again? If the war is worth fighting, then it’s worth US casualties. If it’s not worth fighting, then it isn’t worth those casualties.
But looking at casualties alone is ridiculous. If that is the only measure, then the last few months show us we’re on the road to success. No reason to exit when we have 4 months in a row of decreasing casualties. Right?
I’ve never supported the war, and so I’ve never thought it was worth one US or Iraqi death. But sometimes wars are worth fighting, and if all you do is focus on how many US soldiers are killed, then you’ve lost the war before you even started.
How could anyone give you a precise answer to this? I would go with ‘don’t hold your breath’ as a good rule of thumb though. Especially since it seems Iraq and the Iraqi war are somewhat off the front page these days since things have calmed down…relatively. Maybe if things heat up again there will be a stronger push to get us out…but I honestly haven’t heard anyone on either side (who could actually win) say that they plan to yank the troops out any time soon.
-XT
Iraq not descending into out-and-out civil war, thereby dragging neighboring countries into the dispute and creating a region-wide conflict with disastrous consequences?
At least, that’s what we’re getting out of it now, IMO. Be nice if we hadn’t started it in the first place, but you play the hand you’re dealt.
So ya wanna consider stats in the story? Consider this: the second worse body count was racked up in 2003, the year of the invasion. Granted, we didn’t didn’t charge in there on 1 Jan. 2003, so the average daily death toll for that year was probably higher than the average for this year. But it appears that a) peacekeeping it getting to be as bloody as actual warfare, and b) in this particular case things have gotten worse. And I know of no one claiming to see light at the end of this tunnel.
You say you considered this war necessary. Fine. But how was it necessary?
I haven’t seen an adequate answer to my question yet. Kinda confirms my suspicion that the thing has produced nothing of practical value for us.
-
The US has found all the WMDs in Iraq.
-
Saddam Hussein, who ‘masterminded 9/11’, has been overthrown.
-
Bush has been re-elected.
-
Iran has abandoned its nuclear program (obviously out of fear and awe)
-
Halliburton has become very profitable.
-
The US has established an international reputation.
If the number of deaths increases we have to stay to honor the dead. If the number decreases we have to stay because things are going better. If the political situation improves we have to stay because our strategy is working. If the political situation worsens we have to stay to make it better.
I don’t see what is so hard to understand.
Sorry 'Moose but why’s this in the Pit?
This has to rehashed again around here, really? Can’t you just look up some old and not so old threads?
Well…so what? What does this prove exactly?
Again…so what? What if the body count is lower now? Does that prove anything? If it’s higher? The same?
We lost more troops as peace keepers than we did in most of the military actions outside of Vietnam. I believe we lost more troops in peace keeping actions in Beruit and Somalia than we did in, say, the first Gulf War. What does this prove?
Insurgencies are usually more bloody than actual warfare…at least in modern times and short of all out world war. Ask the Soviets all about it in their invasion of Afghanistan…or look at the US’s combat losses in Vietnam.
You haven’t been paying attention then. While I personally don’t subscribe to the belief, there are plenty of people who are optimistic about how things are going in Iraq atm. Combat AND civilian casualties are down. A lot of Sunni groups have signed up for a loose coalition (personally I think this will be a major problem down the pike but concede that MMV). Iran has (seemingly) curtailed or at least scaled back it’s covert support into Iraq.
Myself, I think the light at the end of the tunnel is a train rapidly approaching us from the other direction…but that is by no means a universal viewpoint these days. And if you know of ‘no one claiming to see light at the end of the tunnel’ you seriously need to get out from under the rock you have been hiding under…even it the dark days of 6 months ago there were folks who were optimistic. Unless they don’t count of course.
Mileage will vary I’m afraid. If you don’t believe we should have invaded Iraq then nothing is going to convince you that there was anything of practical value…so the question is moot (as you knew it was when you asked it). if you think the invasion of Iraq was necessary then the amount of sacrifice is moot…it was something that was necessary and so has a value in and of itself.
-XT
Don’t you mean “the hand you deal” there?
I’m not sure. Gut-level feeling. At this point there seems to be nothing to be gained by an abstract discussion of the matter - that has been done ad nauseum. While I’ve restrained myself here, what I really want to do is put on my Grumpy Old Man hat and bitch about the clowns that made this all possible. Or see if we can get old Country Joe to lead us in a few choruses of “And it’s one, two, three, what are we fighting for?”
Guess I expected more outrage. Or at least more shit-flinging from the usual monkeys. . . .
Funerals?
My thinking on the body count runs something like this:
The actual War of American Aggression Against the Peace-Loving People of Iraq (I’m being sarcastic, OK?) lasted three or four weeks. Everything since then has been occupation. Imagine, in 1946, the casualty rate among American forces occupying Germany rivaling that of D-Day. Dammit, something’s wrong with this picture! It just seems to me that if, after four years of occupation, we’re still losing people at a rate that rivals the actual shooting war, then (to borrow a line from criminologist Henry Lee) something is fucked up here.
I suspect you’d respond that we’re fighting an insurgency, not merely occupying the place. You have a point. But I’m skeptical that we’re making any meaningful progress there. (In fact, a case can be made that insurgencies can never be broken unless you kill everyone. Witness US in Nam, USSR in Afghanistan, etc.)
As I think about it, Viet Nam was never a “real” war for the US - it was all about fighting the insurgency. And we all know how that clusterfuck ended.
In short - peacekeeping is not supposed to be a bloody business.
It is certainly true that some folks can find reason for optimism. Bully for them. But I’ve learned the hard way that it is possible to be optimistic and dead wrong at the same time. At present I just can’t work up any warm feelings about the course of events in Iraq. Now you may well be right - maybe I’m missing something here. Maybe I’m not. . . .
You’re right that I was dubious about this war from the outset. But I’m always open to reason and to a good argument in favor of a proposition. When I ask “Could someone explain to me again just what we’re getting out of this ‘damn fool war’?” I really am looking for valid arguments against my position. But I’m not seeing any here. Until then, I have to conclude that glee has pretty much nailed it.
The problem with that reasoning, I’ll once again remind you, is that it can be turned around in order to claim the exact opposite. All one has to do is pick another time frame for comparison. In fact, let’s pick one that is less arbitrary than a calendar year.
If the actual “war” was the first one or two months, then let’s look at the US casualties:
Mar '03: 65
Apr '03: 74
In the last 4 months of this year (the time after “the surge” was fully in effect):
Sept '07: 65
Oct '07: 38
Nov '07: 37
Dec '07: 22
I guess we must conclude that Bush is finally doing something right. No? Not only are we losing fewer troops than during the war, but the trend is undeniably down. And Dec '07 had the lowest casualty rate of any month since the war began. Link for statistics on casualties.
No. By your own words, here Bush is, not at war, and still losing 899 servicemembers a year.
Most presidents handle peace with fewer deaths than that.
No, I used his definition of the war. Look at the part of his post that I quoted.