3,000

[TheMason]

On the last day of 2006 the US KIA in Iraq hit 3,000. This 'milestone' is met with much fanfare by the anti-war crowd. Many in the media and on this forum have made much out of how bad this war is and how evil George Bush is for starting a war based upon 'lies'.

As a member of the US military this attitude mystifies me, and shakes my faith in what I am doing. I sometimes wonder if I'm an anachronism. After four years of war, 3,000 KIA US servicemen and 30-40,000 Iraqi deaths due to US military actions; is actually commendable and a success when compared to every war that has preceeded it.

In Vietnam (a largely anti-insurgent war) we lost 58,000.

In Korea (the last total war) we lost 54,000 and bombed several civilian targets. We leveled Pyongyang and destroyed dams which were never re-built. The latter would come to haunt the DPRK in 1997 as the lack of these resevoirs made the famine of 1997 even worse.

In World War II we lost about 400,000 war dead.

In short, and in terms of military science the loss of 3,000 servicemen during four years of combat and campaigning is INCREDIBLY SMALL.

Furthermore, the US military goes to great lengths to prevent collateral damage and has all but eliminated unnecessary civilian suffering. I see this in my new career field, I work at the planning level of war and before a strike is ordered not only is intelligence and weapons system experts intimately involved; but JAG (military lawyers) analyze the legality and proportionality of striking a target. WE HAVE PULLED OUR PUNCHES, SOMETHING THE ENEMY DOES NOT!!

This bothers me because I was stationed for 27 months in South Korea. If Kim Jon-Il ever decides to go South; some estimates place US military casualties between 10,000 and 28,800 in the first WEEK. In the first day of an invasion Seoul could suffer civilian deaths in the MILLIONS.

If we cannot bear 20 dead on the streets of Mogadishu (even though that was a stunning military victory worthy of song), or 3,000 in Iraq...what are we going to do when a strong, proud ally that has been among our strongest (stronger than Germany, France or Japan) since the end of WWII and Korea? What if Kim lobbs a Taepong-dong 2 missile on St Louis tipped with a nuclear, biological (the man has the most sophisticated bio program in the world) or chemical warhead? Will we be weak and craven and hide behind the casuality count like the anti-war movement is doing in Iraq?

As a country we need to loose much of our casualty aversion. It is irrational and unrealistic and will hinder our leaders from doing what is right. Clinton allowed this to happen in 1993, and this is where he was a horrible President. Ironically, with how much the liberals in this country tout the 3,000 figure as reasons why Bush is an evil and horrible President is probably why history will judge his actions in Iraq as a resounding success.

I am willing to give my life in Korea, Afghanistan or Iraq for a country that will honor my sacrifice. However, the hand-wringing anti-war movement cares not about my sacrifice. I have a bright future and a child I would like to see grow-up. However, where I to shed my mortal coil in combat for my country, I pray to God that the anti-war movement and Nancy Sheehan will not desicrate my death by using it as an argument that we need to leave Iraq or Korea or wherever. I would rather they spit, piss or shit on my grave. That would be more honorable.

[Jose]

A very well written post.

But I raise this question.
Is 3000 acceptable if you feel that it is an unjust war we are fighting?

I am proud of our servicemen, but when I hear WMD's and Al-Qaida links as a justification, and later hear the arguement of "Removing Evil Tyrant" and "War Crimes", a red flag goes up.

I was either lied to then, or lied to now.

[Joodah]

god bless you, sir.

jose, is it a lie when credible sources have told you about something, and then they (not the figurehead) turn out to be wrong?

[Jose]

At 1/1/07 04:18 AM, Joodah wrote: god bless you, sir.

jose, is it a lie when credible sources have told you about something, and then they (not the figurehead) turn out to be wrong?

So what you are saying is that they aren't lying, but are just incompetent?
What is a credible source? Rumsfeld telling Meet the Press that he knows where the WMD's are, later to deny that he ever said it in the first place.

I understand where you are coming from, but how am I supposed to trust the government (let alone the admistration) when they are so completely wrong that it costs people lives?

[Camarohusky]

3,000 lives isn't that much, I give you that. The real question is, have we accomplished anything in Iraq? I don't want to hear that we toppled Saddam and killed him, that was never our job nor our duty. (We relinquished the duty of toppling deictators when we ignored the fact that half of Africa is in lot worse than Iraq ever was.)

If someone can give me at leadt one LEGITIMATE accomplishgment I will feel better about the 3,000 death toll.

[JudgeDredd]

At 1/1/07 04:02 AM, TheMason wrote: After four years of war, 3,000 KIA US servicemen and 30-40,000 Iraqi deaths due to US military actions; is actually commendable and a success when compared to every war that has preceeded it.

IF the mission was to save lives by removing Saddam, pacify Iraq and set up stable democracy, then i don't know why you count limited US deaths as a success. You might as well not be there, then you'd have zero US deaths. Whether you like it or not, the success or failure in Iraq is counted by all those Iraqi deaths be they "insurgants" or civilians, not US deaths. Iraq is losing thousands a week, i think more now than during the Iraq-Iraq war.

But this is not even a war, this is only the peace-keeping. Or did i miss something?

[The-evil-bucket]

The death of one man is a tratgy, the death of a millon is a statistic.

[JudgeDredd]

At 1/1/07 06:32 AM, I7REI7I7 wrote: ....Iraq-Iraq war...

IRAN-IRAQ war.

worse typo of the year, and it's only been few hours. hic!

[JoS]

Because a.) every death is reported in the news, people dont like body bags in their living room. b.) you have gone so long without any major wars with lots of deaths (Korea and Vietnam) people aren't use to this kind of death toll. They under stand a couple here and there, but not 3000.

Don't feel bad, we have had 41 deaths in Afghanistan and people are calling for us to leave, including some members of the opposition party.

[bcdemon]

At 1/1/07 12:04 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/1/07 04:12 AM, Jose wrote: I was either lied to then, or lied to now.

None of that was a lie. There's a difference between lying and being wrong.

Evidence proves that the Bush Administration KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq just over a year before the invasion/occupation.

TheMason, people aren't booing you as a soldier, nor are they booing your abilities. They are booing your governments decision on how and where to use you and your abilities. If you were sent to a country that was actually a threat to the US, your civis would be full of praise for you.

[Luxury-Yacht]

I find it shocking that people are appalled at that figure. It's as if people expected maybe 10 American troops to die, tops. It's a miracle that more American troops haven't died.

[Fim]

not a bad argument.

I wonder how this is going to be taught to our children in the future? The war that nobody wanted or believed, that was justified on lies.

[Der-Ubermensch]

Beyond political motivation, beyond reasoning, I see a soldier's death on the field as noble and pure. A man who falls with honor and justice in his heart is a hero regardless.

[ReiperX]

In a justified war, yes 3000 deaths is not that much. In a war that most people don't think should have ever happened, yes that is a lot.

There was no link to Al Queda, there were no WMDs. Going to war for humanitarian reasons is utter bullshit. Yes Sadaam was not a great guy, but there is far worse going on in the world than what he was doing. Most of his big "crimes" happened in the 80's. Now if he was slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people around the time the invasion started, yes I might have supported it. But he wasn't.

[bcdemon]

At 1/1/07 02:23 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/1/07 12:39 PM, bcdemon wrote: Evidence proves that the Bush Administration KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq just over a year before the invasion/occupation.

Then provide it.

I have, on numerous occasions in the past, but anyway. I do apologize, I was wrong when I said "just over a year before the invasion", I should have said just over a year before Bush started talking of Saddams WMD.

Colin Powell 24 Feb 24 2001He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.

Now before you scream "memory hole = hippie = bias = not believable", you can even watch the video of him saying it. Condoleezza is on the video as well.

Then explain why Congress never picked up on it, if it was so credible.

I couldn't even begin to explain why this was over looked.

[Der-Ubermensch]

The man's trying to validate the hard work and sacrifice of the common soldiers on the ground over there in that God-forsaken cesspool. I doubt that falling into the same old bickering is addressing the issue at hand.

[hongkongexpress]

3000 is remarkably small, but it's still alot of people dead though. Like try telling the families of the dead, that 3000 is a remarkably small number.

[AapoJoki]

You're forgetting that the Bush administration itself desecrated 3,000 deaths of Americans by taking advantage of a horrible terrorist attack, and using it as an excuse to start a pointless war that only serves the interests of their campaign financers and themselves. You're saying that 3,000 is not a big number... well apparently it's big enough to start a war that together with its aftermath has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths already.

[Nuggs]

Wait wait wait... 3,000 dead americans isn't a lot. What are you smoking!?!?

I bet the anti war people had a 3000 party as soon as they heard the news.

At 1/1/07 03:48 PM, Nuggs wrote: Wait wait wait... 3,000 dead americans isn't a lot. What are you smoking!?!?

Compared to other wars 3000 really is a walk in the park for U>. troops.

[Microset]

well hey im jnust a close minded kid but i think the american public had an pushing effort on the war...more like it was in the public intrest, so dont cry to us

[drDAK]

I honestly only question the conception of the war, and its purpose in general. I want to die for my country, my family, my friends, and my God.. not for Mr. Bush.

[bcdemon]

At 1/1/07 04:08 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: I bet the anti war people had a 3000 party as soon as they heard the news.

You think us anti-war people are like the war mongers celebrating death and destruction? Hell no.

[Begoner]

3000 soldiers dead is 3000 too much for such a pointless squander of human life. Ironically, however, we were willing to go to war over a meager 3000 civilians dead in a terrorist attack, yet some pro-war advocates make light of the 3000 troop deaths. Are soldiers worth less than other people? Why do you say that so few lives have been lost in Iraq when the same amount of lives had been lost on 9/11? It's a disgusting double standard which doesn't even take into account the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died as a result of the war. If you think that the death toll in Iraq is small potatoes, then you must think the same thing about 9/11 lest you be a hypocrite. But you're right -- the number of US soldiers who have died in Iraq is insignificant. So were the people who died on 9/11. Hell, the 600,000 dead Iraqis may also be meaningless. 30,000 people die each day because of poverty-related causes -- that dwarfs all those other statistics. The thing that bugs me, though, is that we're spending money on slaughtering people and destroying countries instead of helping people and rebuilding countries. Sure, a couple thousand of soldiers dead is a minuscule amount if you take a broad view of the world. But it's still a couple thousand unnecessary deaths, it's meaningless bloodshed, and it's a futile waste. The expense of the war in Iraq for the US is equivalent to another 9/11, but this time executed at the behest of Bush, not bin Laden.

[Altarus]

At 1/1/07 05:32 PM, Begoner wrote: Ironically, however, we were willing to go to war over a meager 3000 civilians dead in a terrorist attack

The Iraq war wasn't over the 9/11 attacks. It was to prevent future, possibly worse attacks, from occurring. Actually, the irony here is that, in trying to avoid a loss of life greater in magnitude than the 9/11 attacks, Bush himself actually caused a loss of life greater in magnitude than the 9/11 attacks.

At 1/1/07 02:23 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/1/07 12:39 PM, bcdemon wrote: Evidence proves that the Bush Administration KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq just over a year before the invasion/occupation.

Then provide it. Then explain why Congress never picked up on it, if it was so credible.

He can't. He is just BS'ing if he says he can, and so he falls victim to Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

[JMHX]

Awesome, 3,000 to go until I win that bet with Proteas.

[bcdemon]

At 1/1/07 05:24 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/1/07 02:48 PM, bcdemon wrote: Now before you scream "memory hole = hippie = bias = not believable", you can even watch the video of him saying it. Condoleezza is on the video as well.

Then obviously, Colin Powell received new information (albeit incorrect) convincing him of WMD's in Iraq. As you can probably remember, it was Colin Powell who went to the UN making the case for the war in Iraq.

You make it sound like Powell was working solo on Iraq WMD. Not to mention Rices claim that Saddams weapons programs were controlled at the time. These people don't work independently of the administration, they all work together, they know the same shit as each other. How can you say Powell obviously received new information, do you have anything to back that up, or are you saying that because you don't want to think (admit) that you were blatantly lied to by your government?

But, I don't expect you to believe me. If you want to believe Bush lied about WMD's, then fine, but it's wrong to do so.

Nah, with the evidence I have seen, it's easy to believe that Bush lied. Your assumption that there was some new information isn't very convincing.

So yeah, Bush isn't perfect, but I still support the war in Iraq.

Sorry to hear that.

[Begoner]

What'd you expect the president to do, not retaliate on 9/11

Is the life of an American worth more than that of an Afghani? Due to our intervention in Afghanistan, we have imposed the equivalent of several 9/11s on the country. We have caused death and destruction at every juncture, and the Afghanis have suffered as a result. 9/11 pales in comparison to the travesty we unleashed on Afghanistan. He should have retaliated, but a reprisal attack is not only unjustified, but morally abhorrent. The Taliban were partially responsible for the attack, yet we also hurt Afghani civilians who were not complicit in the plot. Employing your justification, the Afghani people would be perfectly entitled to assault the US as retaliation for what we did to them; that is simply unacceptable. If you punish an entire country for the act of a few individuals, you will suffer dire consequences as a result. We have massacred the Afghani people (collateral damage, sure), and we have reaped and will reap the reward for our actions in American blood.

Saddam was executed because he killed an entire innocent village to eliminate one guilty assassin. Is that really so different from what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[bcdemon]

At 1/1/07 06:33 PM, Altarus wrote:

At 1/1/07 02:23 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/1/07 12:39 PM, bcdemon wrote: Evidence proves that the Bush Administration KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq just over a year before the invasion/occupation.

Then provide it. Then explain why Congress never picked up on it, if it was so credible.

He can't. He is just BS'ing if he says he can, and so he falls victim to Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Maybe you should re-read my last post on page 1 of this thread, the one about Powell and Rice saying Iraq has no WMD in 2001.