| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Hanson - The Terrible Arithmetic -- On Killing an American |
| 2004-06-01 |
| EFL There is a certain number of Iraqi terrorists that either need to give up, reconsider their militancy, leave the country, or be killed for there to be peace and the emergence of a consensual government. Given the fiery sermons of al Sadr, the cadres of Baathist hold-outs, the horrific assassination of peace-loving Iraqi officials, and the constant bombing of American soldiers, it may well require the latter ultimate fate. We do not know the exact number of enemies that must be eliminated, but only that it will grow exponentially—along with Iraqi and coalition deaths—unless we act decisively. By the same token, there are a limited number of Americans that we can allow to be killed in Iraq before the American people tire of it all—who nearly three years after watching the bodies freefall from the World Trade Center on 9-11 are forgetting their immediate peril from al Qaedists and the rogue governments that enable such terrorists to operate. At some critical point to come, Americans will no longer see the sacrifice of their precious youth as worth the effort in Iraq to ensure consensual government and our own long-term security—and at that point they will simply say no mas. Again, we do not know how many fatalities we as a nation can endure, only that in our present postmodern society the number for good or evil is far lower than was true in World War II, Korea, or Vietnam. Our grandfathers rightly accepted that 600 might be lost in a terrible night on Okinawa if such a sacrifice meant freedom from Japanese militarism; we wrongly believe that the present 600 combat dead this past year were either not worth the effort, all preventable, or in no real way connected to the safety of 300 million at home. My rough guess is that once the toll exceeds 1,000 combat dead, the United States will be seriously looking for a rapid exit strategy regardless of the dire circumstances involved. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #14 Allow me to attempt to quote WWII Gen George LaMay:" Let me tell you about war. You need to kill people until the other side has had enough and stops fighting." I wonder if the NPR interviewer swooned. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-06-01 5:00:37 PM |
| #13 i do think the campaign has almost been masterfull,yeah yeah the lefties will ball and screach quamire but a car bomb and few morters being lobed around does not constitute chaos.There may well be trouble spot cities but these are diminshing in thier capacity to carry on thier campaign of oppresion when they are confined in these hell hole cities,the people that live there are wisening up everyday as can be seen by the gradual whitlling away of Sadr's little 'army' of goons. Unless something big and it'd have to be real big happens soon i think the terror mongers will get board and move on to another theatre of 'operations', perhaps going to Afganistan or Sudan.Every day Iraq moves forward the bad guys are taking two steps back. It may not seem that way from the constant images of burning Datsuns freshly boomed in the street to constant peddaling of Abu-Gurib photos claiming America are now Nazi's or some other shit but 5 - 10 years down the road the place and people that live there could certainly be a whole lot better off and the screeching left may hopefully STFU! |
| Posted by: Shep UK 2004-06-01 4:44:10 PM |
| #12 Liberalhawk has some good points.But the press is going to be a factor concerning "what balance" really exists. |
| Posted by: rich woods 2004-06-01 4:38:00 PM |
| #11 Frank, Frank, Frank. Those are details. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-01 3:42:09 PM |
| #10 "My rough guess is that once the toll exceeds 1,000 combat dead, the United States will be seriously looking for a rapid exit strategy regardless of the dire circumstances involved." Go back to the original estimates and it looks like we've run a masterful campaign. Denver Rocky Mountain News; Nov 2002: "We see that former Sen. Gary Hart has joined those who have parted the veil to the future and foreseen the number of U.S. killed and wounded in a possible war with Iraq. Hart's estimate: 5,000 to 10,000 casualties." Chicago Tribune, Dec 2002: "Estimates of the number of American soldiers that could be killed on a war in Iraq have ranged from less than 1,000 to as many as 5,000, perhaps more if chemical or biological weapons are used." |
| Posted by: Frank 2004-06-01 2:47:32 PM |
| #9 was it not 500 men a minute lost during the harshed landings of D-day,was it not similar numbers during the campaign of assaults on Islands held by the Japanese, yes it was.Was it not around 52,000 or so that died during the Vietnam campaign. My point is to overthrow a vicious tyrant like Sammy wasn't ever gonna be casulaty free but 'fuck a' were here now a year or so on and the death toll of allied troops combined is probably about 1100. That rough figure (probably lower) is a reflection of the increadble skill right from the highest stratigic level to the smallest tactical squad on the ground,yes things have gone wrong but any war will always throw your plans into disarray but getting the plan back on track roughly where you want to get to is all part of what armies have to do. Sometimes all the bleating of Lefties about how we killed 20'000 Iraqi women and children (no men of course) and how it was all for oil, supposedly anyway, I do briefly wonder should this venture have been undertaken to capture/kill Sammy and try to sort the region outor should we just have done nothing and watch as decade after decade takes its toll on hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's, possibaly miilions if left unchecked? I'm no friend of the Sunnis and Shias and shit but it would be good for everyone in the world if people wern't slaves of opressive regimes like Sammy had set up or Kimmy has in North Korea. the Baathist type regimes are just as big a threat if not more so then the Nazi's. |
| Posted by: Shep UK 2004-06-01 2:30:53 PM |
| #8 You can call me all the names in the world. I don't give a crap. I am also a "Damn_Proud_American. There is no comparison between the war in Iraq and Afganisthan. There is no comparison between the war Iraq and Omaha Beach. We should have nuked Afganisthan and when the media shows burned babies then we will show 3000 burned Americans. I did once, but I will no longer support a personal war between Bush and Saddam. Why should I care if Saddam wants to kill a bunch of Iraqis? The Shitte mass graves in Iraq were created by the first Bush, anyway. If Saddam attacks the U.S., we destroy Iraq, not this sissy nation building we are doing now. I don't care for the Iraqi hearts and minds. I am NOT falling for the Bushies spin on this war. I will never be for building any nation. If the Bushies want free Iraqis, lets start of with all Africa, all of the Middle East, China and North Korea. Iraq is a freaking waste of blood, sweat, money, and time. If anyone wants to call me names for not supporting Bush, you have the FREEDOM to do so. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5078 2004-06-01 2:24:09 PM |
| #7 The total dead so far in OIF over the last 13 months, from combat and from accidents and other causes, is equal to just under 7 days worth of U.S. highway traffic fatalities. If someone would like to explain to me why I should be in a panic over the former, but not the latter, I'm all ears. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-06-01 2:16:34 PM |
| #6 ..Once the combat toll hits 1000, look for all the mass media to make some kind of 'milestone' out of it and ask whether or not it is worth it. (To put it in perspective, asking whether or not we should bail after 1000 dead would have had us off Omaha Beach within an hour or two of the landings...) Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-06-01 1:49:55 PM |
| #5 The death toll went over 1,000 on that horrible September morning. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-01 1:49:06 PM |
| #4 "The Bush Administration is not counting U.S Soldiers that died after their injuries." Yeah they are you moron. "The Bush Administration is not counting former military soldiers (contracters), whom I still consider U.S Soldiers, that died. " Maybe you do in your deluded little world, but no one else does. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-06-01 1:26:07 PM |
| #3 Anonymous5078 -- Provide a source, please. Are you saying that 200 U.S. contractors and soldiers and Marines former listed as WIA are now KIA? I would love to see some credible evidence of that. Remember, we're talking about OIF casualties, not OEF. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-06-01 1:24:44 PM |
| #2 What do mean "once the death toll exceeds 1000?" The death toll has already exceeded 1000. The Bush Administration is not counting U.S Soldiers that died after their injuries. The Bush Administration is not counting former military soldiers (contracters), whom I still consider U.S Soldiers, that died. The death toll is well over a 1000. Let's all wake up from the Pentagon spin. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5078 2004-06-01 1:13:51 PM |
| #1 i dont think theres a magic number - i think it depends on whether americans see the casualties balanced by progress towards goals. there had been a considerable number of casualties up through Jan 1, but the people accepted them, since they saw the capture of Saddam, and steady progress on reconstruction. The casualties in April were in the context of a host of images suggesting failure, the deaths in Fallujah, and the rebellion of the Sadrists. The gradual victory over the Sadrists, the principal accomplishment of the US military in May, was obscured by the Abu Ghraib scandal. Now, with a new Iraqi govt, there may be increasing focus on real events in Iraq. We need to keep our eye on the ball, and keep moving forward. If we're moving forward its no quagmire, and the people will see it, even if US deaths stay as high as in May. If there is no progress even lower casualties will not stop the view that its a quagmire. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-01 1:04:05 PM |