The 4,000th American war death in Iraq is a grim milestone. Numbers tend to simultaneously grab attention and desensitize. Behind those numbers were people, who had lives and families. But we don't see them, just the abstraction of a number. The 4,001st death will not be nearly as arresting a headline, but it will certainly be worse than 4,000 as 4,000 was worse than 3,999. Is there a number that would make the Iraq war prohibitive? If not 4,000 American lives, then 14,000? 40,000? 400,000? Alas, there is no calculator that can spit out a figure that shows when a war's benefits outweigh its costs. If America had lost not a single one of its 4,000 sons and daughters fighting in Iraq, the war would still not have been worth fighting. Anarchy, 100,000 or so dead Iraqis, hundreds of thousands displaced, $600 billion down the drain and counting, $3.26 for a gallon of gasoline, and a decline in American prestige globally, aside from the deaths of 4,000 of America's best, are what the war has wrought. The seizure of weapons of mass destruction from the wrong hands, the model that would serve as the catalyst domino for the democritization of the region, the thwarting of a fledgling nuclear power, and the disruption of an operational alliance between Hussein and al Qaeda would all justify this war, we were once told. Such were the bad premises upon which the war was waged. Bad premises beget bad results, the worst of which is the escalating number of the dead.
The Bush war goes on.
4000 dead, and Bush wants more.
No end in sight, and no clue.
McCain wants to continue it.
McCain is another Bush.
We have had enough!
I am,
George Vreeland Hill
It IS interesting to note that in every successive conflict America endures , the Amer. casualty rate has dropped precipitously. Yet at the same time , the media "outrage" has reached a crescendo pitch. How long before we can no longer tolerate ANY casualties? It says a lot about us and our media bias toward conservative values, which aver that everything has a cost. The subliminal message is that these soldiers have all died in vain. Is the Iraq war is not deemed worth it by CNN?
CNN has never stated how many casualties it thinks were acceptable. But at the same time tacitly expressing that any casualties are unacceptable. Not very realistic.
I love that CNN interrupted their programming to let everyone "SEE" how "BAD" it's going in Iraq.
I have to admit , most blogs I read that unload on the "4000" really don't seem to be well thought out. Just emotional venting that never stops to contemplate the big picture. Emotional, not logical decision making seems to be the norm now. How many times a day do YOU hear the word 'outrage'? Scary.
I have to add one thing : If CNN would have minded their Ps & Qs all along , then there would be no FoxNews , since people have to get the conservative viewpoint as well as the liberal. FoxNews success is a direct result of CNN's unflinching support of the liberal agenda. Too bad ......they were great at one time.
I think it's more accurate to refer to it as the Iraq occupation, and not the Iraq war. All our objectives in Iraq -- forming a stable government, managing crime, refereeing a sectarian conflict, rebuilding the basic infrastructure, winning the hearts and minds -- are elements of an occupation, not a war. However, this raises an important question: how do you win an occupation? Currently, there is no clear guidance and while social conditions will wax and wane, how do we know at what point we can finally say "we've won, let's leave?"
Even if things get much better in Iraq that doesn't mean they will stay better if we leave. While the casualty rate in Iraq may be low compared to WWII and Vietnam, I'm not sure such comparisons mean anything. Iraq was a starving, impoverished third world country without an army, air force, or navy; nor was it backed by any great power. The question isn't about casualties, but about whether Iraq was a just war. The evidence is clear that Iraq wan an unjust war, so any casualty over one is too many.
Quoting EricWilds :
"The evidence is clear that Iraq wan an unjust war, so any casualty over one is too many."
I don't pretend to think I have enough personal knowledge , such as our leaders have daily access to in intelligence briefings by the CIA , FBI, Homeland security, Eschelon, etc. And with fighting still taking place , I think it's still too early for an "unjust" moniker. It's only just started , friend.
You should amend your post ,if not your notions, to reflect this general lack of knowledge on your part also......Unless you have top-secret clearance. Maybe like this :
"The evidence that has been made public thus far leaves the possibility that Iraq was........"
I don't need any "secret" or privileged information to know that the war in Iraq was unjust. We know that the casus belli -- Iraq's WMD that threatened this country -- were entirely the product of an over active imagination, and that Iraq had no role in 9/11 and was not an ally of al-Qaeda. Where is the justice in invading and occupying a country that had no weapons to threaten us?
The war in Iraq has just been a three trillion dollar scam. The question is why aren't the American people demanding that those in the Bush Administration, in Congress, and in the media be held responsible for plunging our nation into this gigantic catastrophe.
I don't need to amend my post one word. However, you should amend yours to reflect the fact that you believe war should have some moral legitimacy, and not just play dumb and hope that our leaders are doing the right thing.
Mikey: Evidence is that which we see (the same Latin root for video, vision, and other such words). So, your suggestion for EW to present only the "evidence that has been made public" is a way of missing the meaning of "evidence"--information that we can see and thus evaluate. Applying your standard to any question would necessarily silence debate until debate is moot, which is generally what people who lack evidence for their assertions want.
We'd better be getting some f'ing oil out of this deal. But I doubt Bush is that smart.
Quoting Dan Flynn :
"Mikey: Evidence is that which we see (the same Latin root for video, vision, and other such words). So, your suggestion for EW to present only the "evidence that has been made public" is a way of missing the meaning of "evidence". "
I'll take the blame for not clarifying my point a little better. My problem is not with the term "evidence" , but the term "we". To ignore the fact that most likely there is a big difference in the information that people who don't have national security clearance are privy to , versus people who DO have security clearance , is burying one's head in the sand. It just so happens that the people "with" are the one's running the show and are sworn to secrecy about their clandestine knowledge. The "with"'s also happen to be the same people who others are pinning all their wildest real or imagined "crimes" on. Throwing the baby out with the bath water ,so to speak.
I can see someone taking the morally relative route if we're talking about if Johnny stole the teacher's apple..... But we're talking about nuclear weapons in the hands of entities that are , by their own admission, bent on destruction.
I'll still pin my hopes on our elected officials who would err on the side of giving the warning signs validity. Not naysayers with an obvious political ax to grind .The alternative has the potential to be catastrophic.Sorry.
My point leaned toward trying to expose the knowledge gap between the "with" and "without" groups. .........In other words - How can I(or EW) pass final judgment on circumstances which I ,by necessity, must acknowledge that I am not fully enlightened? .............Hey ,and I didn't even have to recite Latin.
Also , I wish all the quasi-enlightened folks would get together and rate every serious military conflict or "occupation" of the past 200 years as "just" or "unjust" , and why they think so. It might give the rest of us a clue as to the moving scale by which some so hastily measure such complicated issues.
Like I already stated , It all depends on who you believe. I mean , we must put our trust in the folks who have the all the face cards. It's our system. It just happens to be Bush/Cheney & Co. at this point in history.
Mikey
P.S. So far this seems to be a great place to talk about the issues . I think I might stick around a while. Great job. Will also acquire your books sooner or later . Thx.
Quoting EricWilds:
"However, you should amend yours to reflect the fact that you believe war should have some moral legitimacy, and not just play dumb and hope that our leaders are doing the right thing."
I thought this is what you were arguing for?
Unless I want to start my own country , I'm sort of bound to inherently trust who our nation has elected.
No matter how much I tell myself that I form my opinions from "the facts" , would it not be prudent to at least ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that I am not in the intelligence 'loop'? That I might not know all of "the facts"? By not doing so , wouldn't I be saying ,passively,that I know all the facts? That was my point to begin with.
Quoting EricWilds:
"However, you should amend yours to reflect the fact that you believe war should have some moral legitimacy, and not just play dumb and hope that our leaders are doing the right thing."
1. I thought this is what you were arguing for?
2. Unless I want to start my own country , I'm sort of bound to inherently trust who our nation has elected.
No matter how much I tell myself that I form my opinions from "the facts" , would it not be prudent to at least ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that I am not in the intelligence 'loop'? That I might not know all of "the facts"? By not doing so , wouldn't I be saying ,passively,that I know all the facts? That was my point to begin with.
oops
