In June, 42 American servicemen were killed in Iraq. In July, 54; August, 66; and in September, 72 members of the American armed forces were killed there. "Facts," as John Adams said, "are stubborn things." The facts in Iraq are that it's getting worse, not better, for Americans. The trendline is pretty clear.

Saddam Hussein is in jail and weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. Most of the issues that led us to war have been resolved, for better or worse. Americans are now dying in Iraq for a nation-building exercise. Is it really in America's interests to spend billions of dollars and more than a thousand lives establishing a democracy in a climate that's proved inhospitable to political freedom? Know this one reality: the Arab fight against freedom and democracy, advanced by the Americans, has been more fierce and sustained than any fight to oust tyranny and oppression, advanced by Saddam Hussein. This is an uncomfortable truth, but a truth nonetheless.

Mr. Flynn
You seem to be making the case to vote for John Kerry. To give Bush 4 more years after this debacle flies in the face of logic. But then again when is partisan politics logical?
If one looks back in history, The United Kingdom ceased to be a great power upon the completion of WWII. The empire was bankrupted by the war. With no quick solution to the terrorist problem, involving ourselves in Iraq was not the correct course. Between the tax cut and the cost of Iraq + any other military actions that become necessary, we are currently on the same path to bankruptcy.
We have to go in another direction in the crucial time in American history. We need a change in leadership.

What, do you suppose, is the consequence of such statements? It's October in an election year, and many conservatives are making similar statements criticising the president. To what end?

Forget for the moment whether the war was the correct decision, and concentrate on whether or not the U.S. will be better under Bush or Kerry. Regardless of what you think of the president, surely we all agree that a Kerry administration would be far worse. And if anti-Bush comments further the possibility of a Kerry victory in November, why make them now?

Isn't holding such criticisms for mid-November the prudent thing to do? If Kerry wins, will you be comforted by the conviction that you are right?

Alas the intellectual dishonesty of a conservative. You acknowledge that Bush has done a bad job but refuse to consider change because of a perceived perception that Kerry would be far worse. As bad a job as Bush has done, is that possible? We are no safer. Al Queda is alive and kicking. We are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and the debt is staggering. Whatever you think of Kerry’s politics, you must acknowledge that he would begin digging us out of the hole Bush has dug. With Bush we will get more of the same. Do You love America or are you conservative first?

I never said that I thought the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. I support the war. However, even if I did not, there are bigger stakes than Iraq.

1000 Americans have died in Iraq? Millions of unborn children have died within the United States. With the possibility of two or three Justices stepping down in the next four years, we cannot aford a Kerry presidency.

1000 Americans have died in Iraq? 5000 died in New York City. Do you really think Kerry is capable of preventing future attacks? Has there been an attack since 9/11? Why? Because the terrorists are being nice? Could it be because they are being drawn to Iraq where our military can engage them on foreign soil? Whatever the case, the Republicans are right to suggest that a Kerry victory is an invitation for terrorists.

Brad, I agree with you on several points and you may be loath to admit, but so does Kerry. I agree that we were right to invade Iraq; but not for the reasons we were fed. And while I've never seen it in terms of drawing out the terrorists, I think that's a good way of framing it to make the best out of a bad situation. Where I disagree is when we destroyed aliances and snubbed the UN to do it. We are safer when we have a world of allies and friends than when we have a world of enemies and at best disinterrested associates. That was the message I was hoping to hear from Kerry and that's the message he delivered. We are right to be there. We are wrong to go it alone.

We are right to be there? How so? There aren't any WMDs. Kerry's position seems ridiculous to me. You can't say half the things he says without agreeing that it was a mistake. The idea that things would be vastly different if only we had french troops supporting us is silly. The insurgents don't care from what foreign country their occupiers are from.

Thank you Greedo, you made my point for me. The WMD's was one of the reasons we were fed, not the reason we should be there. The supposed connection to Al-Qaeda was the other big one. Neither are factual, neither are justification to be there. The fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator and head bully on a rough block would have been something to consider. The fact that he ignored UN resolutions to disarm was another something to consider. Yes, both things were considered, but only after the phony, though more spectacular reasons were plastered everywhere. There's a reason it's not a good idea to cry wolf on a whim.

The other thing to consider is the fact that Saddam was neither a clear and present threat to the US nor US interests since we all know it wasn't about oil. Containment was the ideal strategy considering the more obvious and immediate threats, such as North Korea and unsecured WMD's in Russia. It wasn't as much a question of if; but rather a question of when and how.

During the debate, W made a very important comment: "We have to be right 100% of the time. Terrorists only have to be right once." North Korea has been right once already and the US has been wrong once. Unsecured WMD's in Russia improve greatly the odds of terrorists being right once, making the rest of the world wrong on the most important question. Do we need specifics on the plan to secure these? Pick up Kerry's book. What's Bush's plan? 13 years minimum of unsecured nuclear weapons in Russia. I'd also like to see specifics.

And finally, back to the idea of French soldiers fighting next to Americans. It's not so much the French soldiers as much as it is the diplomatic advantages that alliances provide. It's always nice to be at the top of the world, but as England, France, Rome, Greece and every other historic world power can attest, it doesn't last forever.

So then you do agree that Iraq was a mistake? Why doesn't Kerry think so?

The mistake was in the when's and how's not the if's. Kerry agreed that we needed at some point to enter and disarm Saddam. He disagreed about how the war was conducted. Reread my post. I also agree that at some point we needed to enter and disarm. It was a question of priorities. There were more immediate threats at the time. One has materialized in the form of NKorea's nukes, the other looms over us still and by the looks of it, will for the next 13 years.

Kerry does think the way the war was conducted was a mistake. Listen to what Kerry says and not what the Republicans say he says.

I don't think you're looking at the right data set. Facts may be stubborn but they are also malleable.

First, the number of Americans killed last month should also be compared to the number of Americans we expected to have been killed in a slower war. Remember the overheated "40,000 in one battle" type predictions of Baghdad-as-Stalingrad? Every life lost is bad but there are other comparisons a military man should make. How does this compare to 1946 Berlin?

The other comparison is "Iraq as a flytrap"--if you think that an "insurgent" killed in Iraq is one less with the inclination to blow up Cleveland, it's a comparison of us military typesdying versus many more civilians at home.

The third comparison is time. Today's stock price is bigger than yesterday's stock price. This doesn't necessarily matter to the question of what the stock is worth! Why are the data points for a quarter or two of Iraq battles definitive, or why not? Is the variation merely because the guys trying to kill us there have learned that IEDs and beheading videos are more effective, and we haven't effectively implemented a counter yet?

I recommend looking at Max Boot's The Savage Wars Of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power as an illustration of the type of war we're fighting on the ground. (My own warfare specialty isn't too effective here; not many submarines in Al-Qaeda's navy.)

My personal concern is twofold: (1) will we get the effective IED/RPG counter implemented? (2) The is an information war, and the enemy understands what lost us Vietnam was the control of information flow and change of public opinion--can we resist that?

Chap, who is your post directed toward?

Disarm what? He had no WMD! How can Kerry seriously say that he still supports getting rid of Hussein?

It's my understanding of Kerry that he disagreed with the reasons we were given to go into Iraq, the time line, and the way the war was conducted. Now that we're in, he believes we should finish the job.

It's my opinion that the job needed to be done. I don't think it was the top priority at the time by any means. We could have thrown a dart at the globe to pick the greater threat. Saddam was contained.

He was a brutal dictator, and we were laying seige to his country. This translated into his people going without basic life needs, which was the main reason the hold out could not last forever. But backing down would have undermined everything we'd done up until then, so the only solution was to depose the tyrant. What we've done by rushing in w/out regard for anything or anyone is that the death toll among Iraqi civilians is astounding (between 5000-10000) and the very people we were going to liberate are now harboring the insurgency.

Forethought is a virtue.

Mr. Freckleton,

It was directed at the original post, actually.

Hey Chap. Thanks I realized that after I posted.

You make some very good points. We live in the information age, where marketing and packaging makes all the difference. The terrorists understand this. In fact, to consider that 3000 people dying in a single terrorist attack is extremely massive in terms of terrorist attacks, however, in the normal course of war, 3000 people is, unfortunately, a fairly small number. But terrorist attacks get publicity, which makes the number seem much larger than it actually is. I think the same game is being played with respect to Iraq.

The other answer is that we've become so surgical and precise with our warfare that the death toll is much smaller for similar operations. In which case, 66 and 72 people are just as significant today as 10,000 and 15,000 people during WWII.