Ahh! That’s a damn silly definition.
Yes and no. It only took us about 2 months to topple the Iraqi government. Once Baghdad and Tikrit fell, the US set up The Green Zone and the Provisional Authority was put in place (late April of '03). The “Mission Accomplished” moment was May 1, 2003.
While that was a premature celebration, I still think it’s reasonable to consider Mar and Apr to be one phase and everything else a different phase. Whether you call the second phase part of “the war” or “occupation” or “peacekeeping” is debatable. But the Iraqi Government was overthrown and new authority put in place within a very short time.
Well, there is that.
And, remember, you can’t spell “funeral” without “F-U-N”! 
Thanks for the plug, but actually my main reason for despairing that Bush is in charge of the US is the war in Afghanistan.
This was the just war, to capture Osama Bin Laden who did organise the 9/11 atrocity. It had international support (and even had the desirable by-product of cutting down on massive heroin production).
However Bush is far more interested in getting control of Iraqi oil than fighting terrorism. So the Taliban are making a huge comeback, Bin Laden is still at large and Afghan heroin production is at record levels.
UK troops who followed the US into Afghanistan experience regular casualties:
As at 8 December 2007, a total of 86 British Forces personnel or MOD civilians have died while serving in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October 2001.
Perhaps Bush could write to their families explaining his strategy.
As Bush et al (or the US for that matter) didn’t get control of Iraqi oil…well, how did that work out do you think?
Certainly true…though I seriously doubt that any effort by the US and our helpful allies would have stopped heroin production in any case. Certainly the US lost focus…but I have to say that the Euro’s, with the possible exception of the UK, have been less than stellar there either. This wasn’t supposed to be a US only show in Afghanistan after all. If we dropped the ball, that is no excuse for the other nations that didn’t follow us in our stupid invasion of Iraq…right? What exactly is their excuse? Unless we are just going to be honest here and say the US and the UK are the only ones who have a military that can actually do anything outside our borders.
Perhaps he could, though I wouldn’t hold my breath. While you are asking him, you could perhaps ask the other nations who were supposed to help in Afghanistan why they didn’t do more as well…or why it always has to be the US who does the heavy lifting or it doesn’t get done. I’m very curious as to the answers you get to the later question…I would write off getting anything substantial from Bush and his merry men on this score. The US screwed the pooch wrt Afghanistan…no ifs, ands or buts about it.
-XT
I’m about 100 pages into Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (which incidentally, though it is brutally critical of the planning and execution of the war, has been received positively by conservatives and hawks, too.) Wolfowitz, for example, is painted as a dangerous idealist who thought that Iraq could be transformed into a Western democracy which would then cease to be a threat to or enemy of the US. Other neocons are painted as having similar fantasies, and ignoring the realism of the military leaders and the area experts. It’s a good read; I highly recommend it. It will give you the whys of the war. As for why we are still there, I think my post above expresses the conventional wisdom: being there sucks, but withdrawing would be worse.
You don’t think both Gulf Wars were about oil? 
The US intends to keep thousands of troops in Iraq permanently in a massive base and you don’t think the Iraqi Government will be heavily influenced by that?
Afghanistan retook its place as the world’s leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taleban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies.
…
The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report said the area of land used to cultivate opium poppies reached 30,750 hectares, compared with 1,685 hectares in 2001.
…
The Pentagon and the State Department are reportedly split over how heroin production should be tackled in the country.
While the Pentagon insists that the military operations in Afghanistan should be limited to fighting terrorists, while the State Department thinks armed forces should tackle opium production.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2814861.stm
No US troop surge for Afghanistan.
No serious search for Bin Laden.
However other countries are taking it seriously:
The commander of the British taskforce in southern Afghanistan said last week that UK troops could be in the country for as long as 10 years.
The dangers were described by Brigadier Ed Butler, commander of the British force in Afghanistan last night. He told ITV News that British troops had used at least 400,000 rounds of ammunition. “The fighting is extraordinarily intense. The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis,” he said, adding that the battles were “close and personal and hand to hand”.
…
At present there are about 20,000 Nato and affiliated troops from 37 countries, of whom about half are in southern Afghanistan.
That is a different assertion than what I was responding to.
Again, this is a different assertion than what I was responding to. You said ‘Bush’ was only interested in ‘gaining control’ of ‘Iraqi oil’. That is what I was responding to. It’s pretty clear that neither Bush nor the US has gained control of Iraqi oil. Having influence with the Iraqi government or claiming the Gulf Wars were ABOUT oil have nothing to do with that assertion.
Um…ok. This has nothing to do with my own statement nor do I dispute it.
Nope…never said there was one. What is your point?
Well, I think that is debatable…and incorrect even stretching the definition. But again…so what? What has this got to do with anything I said?
Well, again, that is debatable. You are aware that, low on the priority totem pole as Afghanistan is for the US we are still doing the heavy lifting there as far as troop strength goes…right? As far as other countries taking things in Afghanistan seriously…I’ll go along that the UK is at least.
From your cite:
I believe there are something like 17-20k US troops in Afghanistan, as a comparison. So…we pretty much match the entire commitment of all of NATO. Yeah, it’s nothing like the troops strength we have in Iraq…but think about those numbers for a second, then get back to me on how serious NATO really is about Afghanistan (especially considering that IIRC most of those ‘NATO’ troops are actually from the UK…who is ALSO with us in Iraq).
-XT
Not yet; they’ve been trying, but the Iraqi’s have been dragging their heels, fortunately.
Although Bush did succeed in suppressing Iraqi oil production for years, which put vast amounts of money in the pockets of his oil buddies. So it depends on how you define “control”.
Why the hell should the Euro’s do anything?
I thought the invasion of Afghanistan had to do with finding and punishing the culprits of 9/11.
As I recall 9/11 was an attack on the US, not on Europe.
OK, let me put it another way.
The US went into Afghanistan in pursuit of a terrorist group that murdered thousands of US citizens.
They went into Iraq twice. First because Saddam invaded an major oil-producing country.
My assertion is that there was no real evidence of WMD’s in Iraq and that the second invasion was primarily to make sure the Iraqi Government would keep supplying the US with oil.
You said:
“…though I seriously doubt that any effort by the US and our helpful allies would have stopped heroin production in any case.”
Heroin production was very low before the US invaded. Now it is at record levels. Not only did the US not stop heroin production - their actions vastly increased it.
Faced with the Taliban regaining control of Afghanistan, Bin Laden still at large, massive increases in heroin production and terrorist groups in Afghanistan causing major problems for Pakistan - no extra US troops are sent. Instead money and troops are poured into Iraq.
As Scoundrel Swanswater rightly said, why is NATO sending any troops?
And seeing how little effort Bush is putting in, compared to the massive investment in Iraq, why should we stay?
Well, it could have something to do with the fact that they agreed to.
Gee, I don’t know…what do you think? NATO requested and was granted the command of the ISAF. Perhaps that has something to do with why the Euro’s should do anything in Afghanistan?
Well, so what? From NATO’s perspective it was a deliberate attack on a member state (namely the US).
I don’t recall either WWI or WWII being direct attacks on the US either. And that was BEFORE we had a treaty to make us do anything. Put another way…does this mean that if Europe gets attacked we can tell them to go pound sand? I think that would be a decent compromise for losing all the wonderful ‘help’ the Euro’s (with the exception of the UK) has given us in Afghanistan. Sounds reasonable to you?
And as I told him the answer is…they wanted to. Seriously, you need to do some research on this if you don’t know the answer to your question. It boggles the mind that you are from Europe (England/UK IIRC) and don’t know why NATO is in Afghanistan…or what role they are supposed to be playing (by their own request).
Well, that’s a good question. After all, you (NATO) agreed to take control and to stay. But, perhaps being Europeans that doesn’t mean what it says it means…or something. Maybe because the US hasn’t done the majority of the fighting and dieing that means the Euro’s have an excuse to tuck tail and bolt. Who can say?
Put another way, NATO agreed to be there, they agreed to the deligation of roles in Afghaninstan, and they are there on their own hook (though the US of course supplies the majority of the logistics for their fine forces). If they want to bolt for home…well, I suppose they could. AFAIK no NATO nation that has sent forces to Afghaninstan has attempted to pull those forces out early (though they have been a bit stuborn at times with requests to increase their troop strength).
Out of curiousity and to try and lower the level of snark…why did you think NATO was in Afghanistan exactly? I’m seriously curious.
-XT
You are absolutely right. But, of course, you can do (and perhaps are doing) the exact same thing - cherry picking the evidence. How do we tell which slice of the data is “better”?
In fact, just the data in your post can be used to support two quite different (but not necessarily contradictory) ideas. Looking at the figures from the last quarter of last year, the trend is most definitely downward. But compare September past with March 2003 (the month of the invasion) and you find the death toll is identical, which goes toward the point that I’ve been highlighting here - that “peacekeeping” appears to be getting as bloody as actual warfare.
Actually, John, now that I’ve had a chance to catch up on this thread, I wonder why we’re quibbling, since you agree with a basic point: that the death toll may fairly be divided into two groups - the invasion (March and April 2003) and everything that follows (however one wants to characterize this period). And that is where the rub lies: about 140 deaths during the invasion, more than 3,000 after that. It compels me to iterate my earlier analogy: imagine the post-WWII occupation of Germany being twenty times as bloody as D-Day!
Perhaps this is the answer to the question in my previous post. Instead of arguing over which slice of the apple to examine, let’s look at the whole apple.
Well, my real issue is with your OP-- it just throws stuff out there without any analysis. But there isn’t any real reason why the invasion of Iraq needs to be compared to WWII. Maybe it just shows that the “war” part of war is a lot more lopsided these days. Why not compare it to Vietnam?
I just don’t see any value in looking at the death toll without looking at what folks are dying for. Sometimes it is worth it, even if you and I don’t think it is this time.
What concerns me most about this is what appears to be an attempt to downscale this war from an acute problem requiring emergency action, as in getting the hell out, to a chronic problem that we will live with for many a year to come, *a la * Korea. This would suit the Bushivik agenda just fine, being the equivalent, for all practical purposes, of “enduring bases” and a “strategic relationship”.
No seriously…‘the Surge’ is working.
If you are being serious here it’s WAY to early to tell that. If this was a whoosh…well, you got me.
-XT