Sad Milestone: 4000 US Soldiers Dead in Battle in Iraq

[charlabob]

We “achieved” the sad milestone of 4000 sometime this weekend. The 4000 “only” includes people killed in combat; it doesn’t include people who are badly wounded and die later and it doesn’t include “noncombat” — often suicide — deaths. And, of course, it only includes Iraq.

Does anyone know of any vigil/observation already planned? We gathered around the Statue of Liberty at the 1,000 and 2,000 milestones — it was very touching and almost spontaneous. We didn’t expect to get to 3 or 4,000)

cb

Share This

[JoB]

there is nothing one can say about this milestone except that it has to stop.

Share This

[amrakx]

Stop the Insanity.

Share This

[amrakx]

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”.

Share This

[Tonya42]

My opinion is that history will judge the cost worth the reward.

You know, we need to keep perspective. We’re 5 years into the Iraq War, things have improved to a degree, but it is still ongoing. The current situation could persist for another 10 years, or another 10 months. But the internet and modern media have a way of compressing time, and judging events as history long before the verdict was called. When we look at Iraq 50 years from now, it could been seen as as significant as the Korean War, with which it has many similarities. Or it could be seen as a post-modern Boer War.

It may have been easier to not fight the Nazis in the 1940s. Millions may have died, but millions who did die could have been spared, and the billions of then future people who were yet to be born would not have known freedom.

History judged the cost worth the reward. The same could be said true of Iraq. Or it could not. It is far too soon to tell.

But some things are a simple fact of this war, facts that have come to pass.

The US is in the region, permanently. Ten million people could take to the streets in protest of March 19th every year for the next century. We’re not leaving Iraq in whatever capacity, they better get used to it.Yes I hate to break it to you but Obama himself would not pull the plug.

You don’t build a fortress city, a massive consulate and five major bases capable of hosting strategic airlift sized cargo planes for a short stay.

This is a generational war, deal with it.

Equally, the US military, at high cost, has become wise in the way of asymetric warfare and stability, lessons that will serve them well this century, as Iraq is the template that most wars of the 21st century will look like. Urban, low intensity, asymetric, high tech vs. low tech, uniformed vs. irregular, and innocent civilians as fair game by usually one of the two sides.

So again, keep perspective, and lets figure out a way to make this end on the best possible terms, not just for our interest, but for the Iraqi’s welfare, as they really deserve a peaceful country of their own design.

Share This

[Anonymous]

Thank you for your post, Tonya. That was wonderfully put. And very true.

Share This

[charlabob]

What if the country of their own design is an Islamic Republic, along the lines of, say, Iran? It will definitely be peaceful (as in no one will dare open hir mouth). Until we decide to overthrow that one.

No, NR — it’s not very true. Most democrats don’t believe we can pull out immediately. We just don’t accept the insane notion that we have to stay there forever because we built some buildings.

If history agrees that this war was worth it, it will be because the revisionist historians have once again succeeded. Those of us who know better will try like hell to make sure they don’t.

Share This

[Kayleigh]

$500 billion (billions of that $ lost, stolen, or squandered) and 4,000 American lives?

I’m not sure anything is worth that. And I don’t recall it being presented to Congress and the American people as a “generational war”. We were supposed to be greeted as liberators and in and out of Iraq quickly, with our ultra-cool precision weapons technology.

Revisionist history? You bet.

Welcome to the military-industrial complex and a world of perpetual war.

Share This

[WSMom]

Wasn’t “Tonya” Patty Hearst’s SLA name?

Share This

[Anonymous]

charlabob – guess what, Republicans don’t think we have to stay there forever either just “because we built some buildings”.

Republicans are just more realistic.

Share This

[Anonymous]

I just want to break this down for everybody.

And, yes, any war is hell.

World War Two: 405,000 soldiers died. 2,091 billion dollars spent. Roosevelt/Truman were President (both Dem.)

Vietnam War: 58,000 soldiers died. 650 billion dollars spent. Johnson was President (Dem)

Korean War: 36,000 soldiers died. 691 billion dollars spent. Truman was President (Dem).

I just wanted to put everything in perspective. Obviously us Republicans are not as war crazy as you would all like to think.

Obviously, this isn’t every war in history, but it gives you an idea.

Share This

[JoB]

New resident…

world war II.. attacked by Japan… Europe a wreck… mass annihilation of jews.. no choice.

Korean war.. start of the cold war… big mistake… we are still there…

vietnam war… is there anyone who still thinks this one was not a mistake?

To put it in perspective… just the Korean and Vietnam War cost us 1,341 billion dollars that could have funded a lot of programs at home… not to mention the lives we spent needlessly…

When do you think we will learn?

Invading Iraq didn’t make America safer.

Invading Iraq didn’t make Iraq safer.

Invading Iraq didn’t eliminate one member of Al Qeuda involved in 911.

Invading Iraq has lost over 4,000 American lives (not the total dead.. just those killed in action) and injured another 29,000. And that’s just American lives.

I don’t think America needs to wait to figure out whether this was a good idea.. we already know it wasn’t.

What we don’t know yet is how to get out. But we need to figure it out soon.. before we are at war with more than Iraq…

This could well be the beginnings of world war III.. and that’s not something to just get over.

Share This

[JanS]

JoB…well said…and if we want to get technical, it’s not even a “war” per se..is it?

Share This

[walfredo]

JoB- well said. I wish your preferred candidate had the judgement to learn from these past mistakes, and the courage to stand up for those ideals despite being unpopular…

NewResident- it’s a pretty sad commentary to justify the lives of 4000 young Americans as not really a big deal… As long as were under 40K young dead, we should stop whining?

Share This

[Anonymous]

Um, walfredo, I don’t remember saying that it was justified that 4,000 have died. I put perspective on the current situation. Remind me, when did I say that it’s “not really a big deal”?

Obviously we haven’t learned from past mistakes. I wanted to also remind everyone that those past mistakes were made by Democratic Presidents (some, not all).

Share This

[walfredo]

Justify, minimize. Potato, potatoe. Comparing Iraq to WWII is kind of silly…

Share This

[Anonymous]

walfredo – you put words in my mouth simply because I posted historical facts. It’s not potato, potatoe. I never said those things you accused me of and I never implied them.

I wasn’t “comparing” anything. Again, I posted facts.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

My biggest concern with the Irag war is that we were complelty misled on why the war began? Basically it is almost like junior high school when a rumor ends up causing the “bullys” to gain up on the loner kid and then that continues to happen through h.s… In this case Bush was the lead Bully he misled America on why we needed to enter Iraq. In fact, (although I am an Obama supporter) I believe Clinton has stated this numerous times herself.

Share This

[walfredo]

I just don’t see the point of the comparison I guess. You seem to be strongly implying that the Bush administration, and republicans in general are taking too much heat over this war, where in fact this war hasn’t been that bad (historically), and the ones with real consequences were started by democrats…

I’m not sure what the point of the data is, if not to make some point. If that wasn’t your point, what is?

Share This

[Anonymous]

BDG – I like the analogy!

walfredo – again, you have put words into my mouth. And, again, I never made a comparison.

I posted facts about past wars (they happened to occur during the term of Democratic Presidents, which I noted) and I think it added perspective.

I have never, ever said this war is “not that bad”! I even, I think, began the post with “all war is hell”.

So, I’m not really sure why you are so offended that I posted those facts, but it hardly constitutes you applying feelings and thoughts to me that I just don’t have.

Share This

[walfredo]

On a side note- as we mark the 5th year anniversary of this dumb war, and the 4000 American death, and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, both civilian and insurgent. It seems like a great time to reflect on how this happened, and why it happened, and most importantly what could prevent this in the future.

Is it the politician who still thinks it was a great idea? The one who chose to do what she believed was politically expedient over what was right? Or was it the one who showed, judgement and courage and a depth of insight rarely seen.

A true leader:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Share This

[WSMom]

Walfredo, these sound like Obama’s words, but you’ve left out who gave this speech, when & where.

Share This

[Tonya42]

I cannot believe that after 5 years some are still unclear as to why we went to war?

To establish a military/political foothold on the heart of the Arab world that will allow us to launch military operations into other places on the far side of the planet easier than Europe or Diego Garcia if necessary.

– To find, locate, destroy and prevent future creation of WMDs

– To stabilize control over the long term the world’s oil supplies.

– To bring long term strategic stability to the region by virtue of our long term presence, in the same way our presence in Asia and Europe stabilized those regions.

– To liberalize and bring democracy in the Middle East.

– To show planet Earth, and the muslim world in particular after 9/11, that the US can invade a country on the other side of the planet, take it over in 3 weeks, dismantle its government and armed forces, and occupy it for years.

– To cement American economic ties in the region and prepare it for future American investment, at the expense of Chinese investment, which was growing in Iraq prior to the war.

– To more forcefully be at the center of all things in the Persian gulf region. If the Gulf War got us a ‘seat at the table’, as the expression goes, the Iraq War would (in principle) put us at the head of that table.

And thats just off the top of my head. Now of course, some of these goals worked out better than others. But I really think the ‘why’ has been answered. The outstanding question is, is it immoral for a government to go to war for any of those things? I can think of a lot worse reasons to go to war than energy supplies or long term strategic stability. Examining if a country can accept that there are reasons to go to war other than national survival, threat or in response to attack – that is really the heart of the matter, and I think the root of the continuing debate.

*************************************************

And to: WSMom, who asked this brain teaser:

“Wasn’t “Tonya” Patty Hearst’s SLA name?”

DING DING DING You WIN!

However that is my real name, my other name is Anastasia and as you will probably chime in “Wasn’t that the name of the wicked step sister in Cinderella??” Let me help you along with a resounding YES.

Share This

[charlabob]

One of the reasons the mortality rate for this war is relatively low is that medical care can keep people alive who probably would have died on the battlefield or in medevac in earlier wars. Which makes our inattention to the needs of returning veterans even more criminal.

For a view of and from wounded veterans, from long ago but sadly relevant, pick up “Johnny Got His Gun,” by Dalton Trumbo. It’s very painful to read, but we owe it to the folks returning with broken bodies and minds.

Share This

[Ken]

The idea that the Iraq “adventure” was worth it is silly.

Smart people knew it was a colossal bad idea when the neocons proposed it in the PNAC letter in 1998.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

It did not suddenly become a good idea when the neocons came to power in 2000.

As I told my brother in law (Sgt. Maj 18th Airborne)and my nephew (Capt 82nd Airborne) in 02, I am not anti war, but I am anti stupidity.

War is the stick half of diplomacy. The goal of diplomacy it to leave the stick in the bag until there is no other choice. When actual diplomacy fails (not the sham half assed republican version) Then the politicians should hand the Military the bag with a well defined goal. The US military is the best on the planet at killing people and breaking things. Expecting the military to build or rebuild a country is not just stupid, it is contrary to their strengths and core function. When the military part of the job is done, they hand it back to the political and diplomatic leaders and go home. This is the core errors of the current administration. This is also the lesson learned from the Viet Nam war and it was not just Colin Powell who codified it.

As far as withdrawal, all the political leaders of either party have to do is give the order to withdraw. The generals are perfectly capable of formulating a plan to do so in an orderly fashion and installations and equipment will be either removed, transferred to Iraqi control, abandoned in place or destroyed depending on the cost in blood or treasure to deal with them. As long as this administration pretends to the crocodile tears of caring about Iraqi’s while not allowing even the translators to leave the country, let alone come to the US, we have no choice but to assume this “adventure” was designed to drive up the cost of oil for the benefit of the oil companies, and bankrupt the federal government for the benefit of the conservatives who wanted to kill the “new deal”.

Share This

[Author]

Posts