Supporting the Troops - More Bodybags

[RickSp]

As of today 2,702 American soldiers have died in Iraq and 19,910 have been wounded according to the Pentagon. Deaths of American soldiers don't seem to make it into the news anymore. From figures at Iraq Coalition Casualties I plotted the deaths and wounded per month.

Anyone who says that we are not losing the war should look at the trend line. Iraq is sinking into sectarian violence and is both a training ground and a rallying cry for the jihdists. And more American keep dying while our idiot king squawks 'stay the course" like a deranged parrot.



Incidentally today, two retired Army major generals and a former Marine colonel called for Rumsfeld's resignation. I think they are aiming too low.

Three retired military officers who served in Iraq called today for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, telling a Democratic "oversight hearing" on Capitol Hill that the Pentagon chief bungled planning for the U.S. invasion, dismissed the prospect of an insurgency and sent American troops into the fray with inadequate equipment. The testimony by the three --two retired Army major generals and a former Marine colonel -- came a day after disclosure of a classified intelligence assessment that concluded the war in Iraq has fueled recruitment of violent Islamic extremists, helping to create a new generation of potential terrorists around the world and worsening the U.S. position.

It is time to support our troops, by bringing them home.

[ibm]

"Deaths of American soldiers don't seem to make it into the news anymore."

true. and that's what scares me.

[Zinkovich]

Also, some quotes from Republicans during the Clinton presiency an the situation with Kosovo:

President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." -Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) "No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it." -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99 "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." -Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99 "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years" -Joe Scarborough (R-FL) "I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles." -Senator Inhofe (R-OK ) "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag" -Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 Why didn't they support our president in a time of war? "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem." -Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) "The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president." -Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) "You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Funny how opinions change, isn't it guys? I wish someone would call these people out on the hypocritical "support the presient during war" position they have now.

[Jack]

It's all such a farce. Even the sides don't stay on their own side for more than a decade. When all sides become one, will people finally rebel?

[Chris]

excellent post Rick, Love the Neo Con blabbering BS RE: Clinton as well.

[joseph2622]

Everyone always talks about U.S. casualties, but in the media today only one sentence is to be said about both U.S. and Iraqi casualties. When only a year ago a whole 5 minute segment was to be reported on U.S. casualties, when still only a sentence for Iraqi deaths. Do you remember seeing the first bombs launched in Iraq on national television, I do. I believe our troops should be brought home and stop this foolish ploy to bring Democracy to land I believe should resolve by itself, but thats not what the oils says. Not much I can say but...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Following I collected from WikiPedia
Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iraqi Deaths:
30,000 - given by G. W. Bush in a public speech on December 12, 2005. Spokesmen later said Bush was "basing his statement on media reports, 'not an official government estimate'."

100,000 excess deaths - estimated in the September 2004 Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq;

The United Nations reported that 14,000 deaths have occurred in the first half of 2006 alone.

The Iraq Body Count project counts between:
43,269 and 48,046 civilian deaths reported in major media through September 1, 2006.

Armed forces of other coalition countries:
236 (118 British, 32 Italian, 18 Ukrainian, 17 Polish, 13 Bulgarian, 11 Spanish, 5 Danes, 4 Salvadorans, 3 Slovaks, 2 Australians, 2 Dutch, 2 Estonians, 2 Romanians, 2 Thai, 1 Fijian, 1 Hungarian, 1 Kazakh, 1 Latvian.)
Non-Iraqi civilians

In total, at least 568 non-Iraqi individuals have been killed since the 2003 invasion (311 contractors, 87 journalists, 20 media support workers, and 150 aid workers).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have cried about this very dynamic. In this country, we make such a big deal about our war dead -- as if one lost is more important than thousands of Iraqi's innocent men, women, and children who have did nothing to our country. A life in Iraq is just as important than a life in America. I say this with strong conviction, and I find it very misleading to hide the very fact that we have killed, with the same "they are not that important" attitude as Sadamm, and if you compare them to the fallen leader, I will call you unAmerican. To hear the use of the words "collateral damage" to describe the Iraqi dead, I generate a cold blooded remorseless attitude of this administration to the huge lost of innocent life. :(

[RickSp]

Quote by: joseph2622 Everyone always talks about U.S. casualties, but in the media today only one sentence is to be said about both U.S. and Iraqi casualties. When only a year ago a whole 5 minute segment was to be reported on U.S. casualties, when still only a sentence for Iraqi deaths. Do you remember seeing the first bombs launched in Iraq on national television, I do. I believe our troops should be brought home and stop this foolish ploy to bring Democracy to land I believe should resolve by itself, but thats not what the oils says. Not much I can say but... (

An excellent point. Every time I hear the canard "well, why don't Muslims apologize for 9/11", as if all Muslims were responsible, I wonder when Americans will apologize for the slaughter of upwards of a 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

[bishop]

excellent quotes there zinch..

the generals are definitely coming out of the closet in force.. there were these generals, once again chastizing the administration's complete incompetence... another story was army chief, general shoomaker who refused to sign the pentagon's budget plan for 2008. and only afterwards did the dipshit republicans decide to tack on another "quick" $20 billion to the budget.. i love how they can just tack on such a massive amount of money as if it was some minor mistake like forgetting to dot your "i"..

we'll see if all this military angst can translate into seeing the republicans lose control of congress in november. i have my fingers crossed, but i'm not holding my breath either.

rick, what was your r^2 roughly? would've been interesting to see the trend in iraqi deaths as well. (i believe that's one of the last cases where the pro-war crowd can argue that we should stay.) imo, these civilians are going to continue getting butchered whether we stay there or not. bush's little gift to the world..

and at the same time, while our people are dying and getting wounded in greater numbers (numbers which pale in comparison to iraqi civilian deaths), how about those iraqi troops? they sure are kicking serious arse, eh?

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop rick, what was your r^2 roughly? would've been interesting to see the trend in iraqi deaths as well. (i believe that's one of the last cases where the pro-war crowd can argue that we should stay.) imo, these civilians are going to continue getting butchered whether we stay there or not. bush's little gift to the world.. and at the same time, while our people are dying and getting wounded in greater numbers (numbers which pale in comparison to iraqi civilian deaths), how about those iraqi troops? they sure are kicking serious arse, eh?

Nothing so fancy, Bishop. I just used Excel's "add a trend line" feature. Lots of scatter so I imigaine the r2 is not high. The whole question of Iraqi deaths is wide open as the US never consider the deaths of Iraqis to be worthy even of counting.

[bishop]

heh... but excel always spits out the stats - the graph is optional. or at least that's how i remember it working..

i just decided to ask for r2 because i didn't see much statistical confidence, but more of a random walk instead. i think if you trended both the max and min using 2 lines, it seems to be converging on an average 60 deaths per month.. it's been a little while since there've been over 80 deaths per month - hopefully that average won't be hit. of course, the lower average for 2006 is probably due to the fact that we aren't really doing much of anything over there aside from dodging IED's and bullets.

i think if one were to do the same trend analysis on iraqi deaths, we'd likely see a much clearer trend in the wrong direction..

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop heh... but excel always spits out the stats - the graph is optional. or at least that's how i remember it working.. i just decided to ask for r2 because i didn't see much statistical confidence, but more of a random walk instead. i think if you trended both the max and min using 2 lines, it seems to be converging on an average 60 deaths per month.. it's been a little while since there've been over 80 deaths per month - hopefully that average won't be hit. of course, the lower average for 2006 is probably due to the fact that we aren't really doing much of anything over there aside from dodging IED's and bullets. i think if one were to do the same trend analysis on iraqi deaths, we'd likely see a much clearer trend in the wrong direction..

I used the trend line only for graphical purposes. I'm not sure if a detailed analysis will tell very much. Beyond the obvious spikes around the two elections, the rate at which US soldiers are being killed is constant to trending upward, as constrasted with the Bush administration happy talk. The trend is clearly not toward "victory" for anyone except the insurgents.

[bishop]

i'd imagine that the morale amongst the troops must be horribly low right now - especially after rumsfeld's decision to cut their breaks short and ship the fodder back into the desert.

simply singing happy songs won't make the situation there better.. real leadership was what was needed (imo, a real leader would've decided to stick with the inspections rather than start this war in the first place), is needed and will be needed in the future. and it's good as fact that the current administration can't handle this situation. they're just trying to coast on until the end of the term and hand this pile of shit off to the next administration to deal with. all the while, more of our own are going to die for no good reason at all.

[grandpa]

Quote by: bishop i'd imagine that the morale amongst the troops must be horribly low right now - especially after rumsfeld's decision to cut their breaks short and ship the fodder back into the desert. simply singing happy songs won't make the situation there better..

I just discovered a 2003 story about how at least 17 U.S. troops have committed suicide in Iraq:
USATODAY.com - At least 17 U.S. troops have committed suicide in Iraq; Army seeks answers

The holiday season in Iraq must be rough.
It's probably getting harder to find troops to smile for the camera for fake press conferences (remember?).

Grandpa h.

[Georgia]

Interesting thoughts and figures we have.
Here's a few other campaigns for perspective:

Iwo Jima February 19-March 26, 1945
U.S. casualties 26,000
Japanese dead 22,000
U.S. deaths: 6,800

Normandy:
Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed.
Over 209,000 Allied casualties.

South Korea:
600,000 Korean soldiers died in the conflict
More than a million South Koreans were killed, 85% of them civilians.
About 400,000 Chinese were killed.
U.S. Suffered 33,686 deaths.
Total casualties were about 2,500,000
More than 80% of the industrial and public facilities and transportation infrastructure and half of all housing was destroyed.

Philippines:
450,000 Japanese killed
120,000 U.S. killed.
90,000 Civilians dead.

Civilian deaths (Civilian only):
China: 7,000,000
Germany: 1,840,000
India: 1,500,000
Indonesia: 4,000,000
Italy: 145,000
Japan: 600,000
Poland: 2,200,000
Soviet Union: 11,500,000
Too many to list here, but around 32,326,700 civilians total:
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mariner deaths:
Civilian: 9,521
Marines: 19,733
Army: 235,000
Navy: 37,000

Vietnam:
58,000 U.S. dead
350,000 U.S. casualties
1-2 million Vietnamese deaths

Almost 700,000 soldiers died in the American civil war, add another 62,000 civilians.

Indeed freedom has a very, very high price to pay, and the U.S. have a big share of that cost.

WW2 alone cost 132,418,200 U.S. lives.

Surely Iraq is a bad situation and I'm suprised anyone here supports unilateral pullout. (Well, not really suprised)
Who do you suppose would fill the vaccume? Granted it would sure make GWB look bad.
Questions:
Would turning Iraq into the Cambodian Killing Fields be worth the embarrassment of just one man? Two or three men?
How would running away from Iraq make the world safer?
Would they respect us then?
If Iran possessed Iraq would it be a good thing?
Would they stop there?

One solution might be to geographically separate the warring rivals. It may require demilitarizing zones but better than the murder going on today, including militarizing the borders of and around Iran. If Iran doesn't like U.S. forces along their border then fine...Bring it on.
Once a central government is set up in Iraq then..and only then can we gradually pull out.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Georgia militarizing the borders of and around Iran. If Iran doesn't like U.S. forces along their border then fine...Bring it on.

Seems like I heard this one before...

[Georgia]

Seems like I heard this one before

What I was suggesting is to stop/slow down the Iran fighters entering Iraq and let Iraqis deal with thier country with less Iranian influence.

I'm not saying invade Iran, but the Iraqi's along side the U.S. need to stabilize thier border.
(That sounds familiar doesn't it?)
What I am saying is Iran should have no say in objecting to a secured border with Iraq and U.S. should not back down from that stated mission under Iran protest.

[RickSp]

It is always one of the the "support the troops" neo-conservatives who downplays the deaths of American soldiers. Here is where they show their true colors, where it become clear that our soldiers are the last ones that they support. They consider our soldiers to be just so much cannon fodder for the glory of the empire. I frankly find it disgusting, beneath contempt.

More Americans have now died in King George's stupid wars than died on 9/11. These neo-cons really don't give a damn about those deaths either. Irving Kristol, wrote in the Wall Street Journal Aug. 2, 1996, "With the end of the Cold War, what we really need is an obvious ideology and threatening enemy, one worthy of our mettle, one that can unite us in opposition." The Bush administration found this enemy in its largely fictional Global War on Terror. 9/11 is just another convenient excuse to grab more and more power.

As an aside, any comparsion between the war in Iraq, the invasion of a small weak state by a large imperial power, to the battles of World War II suggests either an ignorance or a willful disregard for history.

I notice that while Georgia dismisses the deaths in Iraq, he/she shouts "bring it on" in support of a new and even more disastrous war. Just another chicken hawk acting macho, demanding that others do the dying.

He/she also notes that "Once a central government is set up in Iraq then..and only then can we gradually pull out." I guess he/she is unaware that there is a central government, even if it spends most of its time hiding in the Green Zone. Since the election in 2005, 1,268 American soldiers have died, as of this morning. Not that the neo-cons give a good god-damn.

:

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Georgia What I was suggesting is to stop/slow down the Iran fighters entering Iraq and let Iraqis deal with thier country with less Iranian influence.

You're claiming that Iranian fighters are entering Iraq and joining the "terrorists" in action against the U.S.?? Could you please present some evidence to support that claim?

I think it's the other way around, the U.S. is using terrorists in Iraq to destabilize Iran.

"On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say " The Raw Story | On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say

"In a stunning repeat of pre-war Iraq activities, the Bush administration continues to publicly call for action and pursue diplomatic solutions to allegations that Iran is bomb-ready. Behind the scenes, however, the administration is already well underway and engaged in ground operations in Iran."

[Georgia]

Rick you seem to be the king of misquotes.
You wrote:

he/she shouts "bring it on" in support of a new and even more disastrous war.

When I wrote:

I'm not saying invade Iran

Why do you need to misquote? Is it required for your point?
Also:

It is always one of the the "support the troops" neo-conservatives who downplays the deaths of American soldiers.

Are you saying your're anti-"Support the troops" then in the same breath support them?

Yes I do support the troops, they're my next door neighbors, they're fathers and friends.

Somehow you fail to understand the current central Iraq government isn't strong enough to defend Iraq. If you do understand this are you supporting an instant U.S. pullout and allowing wholesale slaughter of millions of human beings as the terrorist seize control?

Rick funny how some resort to name calling as they don't have much else to offer. Reminds me of the school yard 40 years ago.

Zeebadee:

Could you please present some evidence to support that claim?

Khaleej Times Online - Saudis plan 560-mile fence across border with Iraq
"Saudi Arabia plans to build a fence along its border with Iraq to prevent terrorists from entering the kingdom. Most are believed to enter Iraq by going through Syria, Jordan and Iran"

It Shines For All: American Ambassador: Iran Has Fighters In Iraq Archives
"Zalmay Khalilzad accused Iran today of having forces in Iraq "

Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 173
"Iran sent its fighters to Iraq shortly after the fall of the Saddam regime"
"Iran pursue two principal objectives in Iraq: the first is to stir up problems for the Americans to keep them pinned down and divert their attention from its nuclear program"

Iran Focus-Iraqi Interior Minister: Armed Iranian fighters arrested in Samarra - Iraq - News
"armed Iranian agents have been arrested among rebels fighting in the city of Samarra. The Al-Hurriya TV aired footage of Falah Naqib who accused Iran of backing insurgents in this presently volatile region of Iraq."

Do you require more links? Tons of them available in a google search.

The U.S. is using terrorists in Iraq to destabilize Iran.

Could you please present some evidence to support that claim?

Why is it neccessary for you link Left-wing blogs while I use world news reports?
Notice I provide no Right-wing blogs as "Proof"
Do you have any other sources?

[RickSp]

Georgia you dismiss or downplay the deaths of US soldiers while claiming to "support our troops". I do find that disgusting, just as I find the comparison of a guerilla war in Baghdad to WWII, as both you and Bush have done, to be ridiculous.

Quote by: Georgia Somehow you fail to understand the current central Iraq government isn't strong enough to defend Iraq. If you do understand this are you supporting an instant U.S. pullout and allowing wholesale slaughter of millions of human beings as the terrorist seize control?

The Iraqi goverment lacks all credibility because it is seen as a puppet of the United States and exists primarily behind the walls of the Green Zone. As long as we remain as the infidel occupier, the insurgency will continue to remain lethal to will continue to grow. If we remain as occupier the Iraqi army will never be ready and the Iraqi government will never become established.

I have never suggested and "instant pull-out" but even that would be better than Bush's "stay the course" straight to defeat, with who knows how many more US troops going home in body bags..