2000 and counting...

[michaeledward]

For a couple of weeks now, there have been reports about Saddam Hussien's acceptance of an Exile deal which could have prevented the war. The President of the United Arab Emerites had apparently arranged for Hussein and his family to exile themselves to his country, opening the door for Iraqi elections.

You may recall, President Bush repeatedly called for this exact event prior to the invasion of Iraq.

It will be interesting to see who will follow up on these reports.

 

[arnisador]

Yes, I'd like to hear more about that.

 

[michaeledward]

Here is one headline

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/International/2005/10/30/1284645-sun.html

Saddam exile was set in 2003

Sun, October 30, 2005
He had accepted an offer to flee weeks ahead of the U.S. invasion but the move was scuttled.

By AP

And here's another link from three years ago

http://english.people.com.cn/200301/31/eng20030131_110989.shtml

US President on Saddam's Exile

Joining the chorus to press Iraqi President Saddam Hussein into exile, US President George W. Bush said Thursday that he would welcome such an arrangement to avoid a possible war.

It will be interesting to see if these reports are true and how the Administration might try to square this circle.

 

[michaeledward]

The number of U.S. Fatalities in Iraq has now beyond 2,100.

The number of U.S. Fatalities in Afghanistand is 257. 97 of those deaths have occured in 2005.

 

[sgtmac_46]

For a couple of weeks now, there have been reports about Saddam Hussien's acceptance of an Exile deal which could have prevented the war. The President of the United Arab Emerites had apparently arranged for Hussein and his family to exile themselves to his country, opening the door for Iraqi elections.

You may recall, President Bush repeatedly called for this exact event prior to the invasion of Iraq.

It will be interesting to see who will follow up on these reports.

It is apparent that Saddam Hussein was approached with that deal, but Saddam Hussein added conditions to the deal, and negotians with the Arab League fell through. Note, michael, it was the arab league he was negotiating with. Lets not try an insinuate it was Bush that scuttled the deal, as he wasn't a part of this negotiation. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/02/saddam.exile/?eref=yahoo

 

[sgtmac_46]

The number of U.S. Fatalities in Iraq has now beyond 2,100.

The number of U.S. Fatalities in Afghanistand is 257. 97 of those deaths have occured in 2005.

To put those numbers in perspective, in 2004 "16,694 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 42,636 total traffic fatalities."
http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1112,00.html

Apparently the war we should be concerned about, if we're worried about young American men and women dying, is the war on drunk driving. That's the one more likely to kill the average American.

 

[michaeledward]

To put those numbers in perspective, in 2004 "16,694 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 42,636 total traffic fatalities."
http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1112,00.html

Apparently the war we should be concerned about, if we're worried about young American men and women dying, is the war on drunk driving. That's the one more likely to kill the average American.

What is the population of Young Drivers in America compared with the number of servicemen in Iraq?

 

[mj_lover]

i fail to see what drunk driving has to do with the war. yes, it is sad, and traffic deaths should be minimalized..but has no relavence to war. sir, it almost seems as if you are saying the deaths of these people is trivial.

 

[sgtmac_46]

What is the population of Young Drivers in America compared with the number of servicemen in Iraq?

If we're looking at body counts as an indication on what is a course of action worth, we should examine where the larger body count exists. A dead US serviceman dying in Iraq is no more or less dead than one who returns home and is hit by a drunk driver. Bullets aren't anymore gruesome than a 2000 pound projectile of a more pedestrian nature.

We tend to view war death as some sort of particularly gruesome event, while driving by those killed in an equally horrific manner on the highway with barely a glance.

I have family and friends in Iraq, and it is a dangerous place. But it's also dangerous driving down the roads of our nation. The difference is that the men and women in Iraq know the dangers, and they are doing a noble job (Despite the best efforts of some to denigrate their sacrifice in the name of a political agenda).

The point of my comparison is to add perspective to a statistic that is thrown about by some in the attempt to elicit and emotional response. Some perspective shows that 2200 dead in a 3 year war is by no means a massacre. What's more, a good 1/3 of that number are as a result of accidental injuries outside the realm of combat, meaning that they are the natural result of moving large numbers of men and equipment to and fro, and would likely happen if those same people were stationed in the US (Base accidents occur all the time).

Finally, as I have pointed out before, we lost more dead in the morning hours of June 6, 1944, trying to take a set of beaches in northern France, than in the entire history of this war. The "Butcher's Bill" should not be the deciding factor on whether or not a task should be completed.

 

[arnisador]

A body count is no measure of the value of the action. But...this isn't D-Day, and I think there's a reason why so many people are commenting on the body count now, as they did in Vietnam.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

A body count is no measure of the value of the action. But...this isn't D-Day, and I think there's a reason why so many people are commenting on the body count now, as they did in Vietnam.

Exactly. Iraq, by any estimations, was never the threat that Nazi Germany was. Now, I understand that many feel that our actions were justified there; however it was, by the war's architects own admission, a pre-emptive war and such wars have a higher standard for justifying casualties.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Exactly. Iraq, by any estimations, was never the threat that Nazi Germany was. Now, I understand that many feel that our actions were justified there; however it was, by the war's architects own admission, a pre-emptive war and such wars have a higher standard for justifying casualties.

"Higher standard"? 2200 in 3 years is not high by any standard of war.

What's more, the justification or not of the cause has nothing to do with the cost.

What's more, Nazi Germany was no direct threat against the US either. Japan attacked the US, not Nazi Germany. Give one example of how Nazi Germany had declared intent to directly threaten the US prior to the US declaring war on Germany?

It could be argued (and many people at the time did) that Germany was never a direct threat to the US.

However, we felt that Fascism needed to be rooted out, as the ideal of fascism was a threat to everyone. We were right to attack Nazi Germany to end the threat of totalitarian fascism there, and were right to attack Saddam Hussein to end the threat of totalitarian fascism in that country (In case anyone was wondering, that's what the Ba'athist party was, a fascist national socialist party.)

What's more, there are other examples of wars we fought that were not necessary, but right. In the balkans for example. There was no threat whatsoever from the Serbians, yet, it was considered the right thing to do. What's the difference between then and now? The political party in power.

If the free world were as honorable and brave a people as we wished to be, we would put an end to totalitarianism on this planet permanently. But, since, for a lot of reasons, we find it more convenient to tolerate dictatorial regimes, we'll just have to take the victories where we can get them (Whether the wars for fought for the right reasons or not).

 

[Jonathan Randall]

What's more, Nazi Germany was no direct threat against the US either. Japan attacked the US, not Nazi Germany. Give one example of how Nazi Germany had declared intent to directly threaten the US prior to the US declaring war on Germany?

Germany DECLARED WAR on us, before we declared war on them. Also, in the months before Pearl Harbor, we were fighting an undeclared naval war with them in the Atlantic. Immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Nazi u-boats launched a full scall assault upon our shipping. The U.S. Merchant Marine had the HIGHEST casualty rate (by percentage of members) of any service during the war.

Also, a total European victory by the Nazis would have been as contrary to our interests as any event in our history could possibly have been, including the Revolution (as if we had lost the first time, demographics made separation inevitable, IMHO).

It just is not possible to equate Iraq or any other nation in the Mideast with either Stalin or Hitler. And yes, the COST does have a bearing on the matter. We must always judge whether the cost of something is worth the result.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

"Higher standard"? 2200 in 3 years is not high by any standard of war.

What's more, the justification or not of the cause has nothing to do with the cost.

I never said that it was high, by historic standards. I DO say that it is harder to justify casualties in wars that are not DIRECTLY in our national interest.

Sure the cause has to do with the costs. Sometimes the cost is TOO HIGH for the RESULT and not to ask ourselves continually whether the cost is justified shows a disregard for the lives of our young people (I know that you, personally don't disregard their lives, but others couldn't care less how many we lose so long as their political party is justified).

 

[sgtmac_46]

(I know that you, personally don't disregard their lives, but others couldn't care less how many we lose so long as their political party is justified).

As I know that you don't disregard their lives, either. However, the argument that some are willing to sell-out lives for political party justification goes both ways. It is clear that insurgencies strengthen as it becomes clear that they are gaining headway. Our enemies aren't stupid by any stretch of the imagination. The belief, on their part (probably justified) that the body count they are inflicting is getting them the results they want, merely serves to give them the belief that all they have to do is ratchet it up, and they can win. So, perversly, the over-emphasis on the number killed, as if with just a few more we will pull out, ends up getting MORE servicemen killed than a united front.

Now, you will argue, and arguably so, that it is your right, duty and responsibility to voice your dissent. I would never do anything to restrict your right to do so. But realize that, even as you do so, it can be argued that the voice of dissent in this country grants comfort to the enemy, and convinces him that he can win. They believe, even now, that all they have to do is make this conflict more costly, that means more car bombs, more snipings, more IED's against US troops.

So, if we're focusing on what is likely to cause our troops more death and injury, it is more complex than simply saying "Bring them home now" or even "Maybe we shouldn't be there". Perceptions are as powerful in war as bullets.

Perhaps we should save the indictments of each other until after we finish what, though we may not have agreed on it's original justification, any rational person can realize we have to finish. Again, though, this being America, we have the right to voice our opinions on any given topic without restraint. I would not have it any other way, but I pray that my fellow Americans understand the dangers of over-simplifying a situation full of real complexities.

We should have learned this from the Vietnam war. Belief that we lack resolve gets our servicemen killed ONCE they have been committed to a task (regardless of what we think of the original advisability of that task).

 

[Jonathan Randall]

We should have learned this from the Vietnam war. Belief that we lack resolve gets our servicemen killed ONCE they have been committed to a task (regardless of what we think of the original advisability of that task).

No, I think the contrary was true. We were losing 150+ soldiers a week in Vietnam and South Vietnam, despite tons of money, infrastructure building and American life spent, was no closer to standing on its own in 1970 than it was in 1965.

My point is that I see similiar results in Iraq (a probable Shiite dominated Islamic theocracy allied with Iran as well as some sort of likely partition) at 2100 lost as we would see at 10,000 lost. I think that after mismanaging the first stages after taking Baghdad, many in power are preparing a "stab in the back" theory to explain any failures. I want to save those 8,000 by not allowing them to maintain an open ended conflict with steady losses.

This is another reason why you do NOT go to war without OVERWHELMING public support. Not just a majority along if we have a quick victory and a parade, but enough for the long haul. I am thinking of the Powell doctrine, although the man himself has lost much of my respect.

 

[sgtmac_46]

No, I think the contrary was true. We were losing 150+ soldiers a week in Vietnam and South Vietnam, despite tons of money, infrastructure building and American life spent, was no closer to standing on its own in 1970 than it was in 1965.

It was as much the political situation in the US at the time, otherwise the North Vietnamese wouldn't have spent so much effort playing the propaganda game and flying US celebrities to Hanoi.

What's more, i've already established that Iraq differs GREATLY from North Vietnam. First of all, there is no super-power playing overt patron to a powerful government. If Iraq has any comparison to Vietnam, it might be argued that Iraq is Vietnam minus North Vietnam and the Soviet Union. It is Vietnam with only the Viet Cong as the enemy, who were broken and irrelavent after 1968, after the military failure (and the US propaganda media victory) we call "The Tet Offensive".

Again, this shows the power of perception versus reality.

My point is that I see similiar results in Iraq (a probable Shiite dominated Islamic theocracy allied with Iran as well as some sort of likely partition) at 2100 lost as we would see at 10,000 lost. I think that after mismanaging the first stages after taking Baghdad, many in power are preparing a "stab in the back" theory to explain any failures. I want to save those 8,000 by not allowing them to maintain an open ended conflict with steady losses.

Well, since I don't see the current situation as a total failure, i'm disinclined to agree with you hypothesis. Again, 3 provinces of the country's 18 are currently involved in insurgency activities, this number has not grown.

Further, you may want to save those "8,000", but it's also likely that you'll simply insure a prolonged conflict that will cost the lives of those 8,000. Sometimes our best intentions go awry.

This is another reason why you do NOT go to war without OVERWHELMING public support. Not just a majority along if we have a quick victory and a parade, but enough for the long haul. I am thinking of the Powell doctrine, although the man himself has lost much of my respect.

The war was undertaken with Overwhelming support, even from Democrats (though many wish to forget it for political reasons). Now that we are in this conflict, VICTORY is the only solution. I, however, will take to my grave the conviction that once we undertake a necessary task (as this task has become, even if it disputably was originally) it should be completed.

 

[Tgace]

Iraq is not Vietnam

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/669tqiiq.asp

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621836013.html?from=storyrhs

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-06-20-iraq-vietnam-vets_x.htm

If there are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, these graying soldiers and the other Vietnam veterans serving here offer a unique perspective. They say they are more optimistic this time: They see a clearer mission than in Vietnam, a more supportive public back home and an Iraqi population that seems to be growing friendlier toward Americans.

"In Vietnam, I don't think the local population ever understood that we were just there to help them," says Chief Warrant Officer James Miles, 57, of Sioux Falls, S.D., who flew UH-1H Hueys in Vietnam from February 1969 to February 1970. And the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were a tougher, more tenacious enemy, he says. Instead of setting off bombs outside the base, they'd be inside.

"I knew we were going to lose Vietnam the day I walked off the plane," says Miles, who returned home this month after nearly a year in Iraq. Not this time. "There's no doubt in my mind that this was the right thing to do," he says.

 

[Flatlander]

Further, you may want to save those "8,000", but it's also likely that you'll simply insure a prolonged conflict that will cost the lives of those 8,000.

Or some other 8000. Or more... I think the fact is that, due to the superior training and equipment of the American forces, fewer people will die with them around, working toward securing the nation.

Now that we are in this conflict, VICTORY is the only solution. I, however, will take to my grave the conviction that once we undertake a necessary task (as this task has become, even if it disputably was originally) it should be completed.

I agree. The US is obligated to remain there until effective security can be established.

 

[arnisador]

"Higher standard"? 2200 in 3 years is not high by any standard of war.

What's more, the justification or not of the cause has nothing to do with the cost.

But the cost does have something to do with whether it's worthwhile to act on that justification.

It's all moot now. We're there! I'm glad Saddam Hussein is out. I hope things'll be better for the Iraqi people 10 years down the road.