Originally posted by J_A_B
While 1100 or so men killed in action in Iraq is unfortunate, let's put those numbers into perspective, shall we?
The US Civil war caused over 850,000 dead if you count both Union and Confederate casualities. This remains the worst war in US history. This is the true disaster, especially since we were fighting ourselves.
WW2 caused us to lose more than 400,000 soldiers.
When we made the world safe for democracy in WW1, over 110,000 of our soldiers didn't come back.
There are more than 56,000 names carved on the Vietnam Memorial.
Over 54,000 Americans died during the Korean war.
The American revolution cost the lives of about 25,000 men, who like their descendants died in the name of freedom.
The utterly forgotten Mexican War resulted in more than 13,000 dead.
Compared to that, we're getting off amazingly light in Iraq. War is always ugly, but it's been a whole lot uglier in the past. Whether you agree with the Iraq conflict or not, it's pretty clear that current weapons, equipment, and tactics are doing a great job of minimizing American casualties.
Perhaps that's why each individual soldier killed collectively hurts us so much more--it's hard to identify with someone when there are a couple hundred names being flashed by on the TV each week. But with soldiers being killed individually, here and there....it becomes a lot more personal.
J_A_B
While I agree that the deaths in Iraq pale in comparison to past wars, it is of different context.
The Civil War was fought in the U.S., using massed armies with outdated tactics with advanced firearms = bloodbath.
The Revolution was fought in the colonies against a well trained army.
World War I was trench warfare with massed artillery bombardment, mustard gas, and the machine gun. Mix that in with mass trench charges = bloodbath.
World War II had us fighting in land, sea, and air. We landed in multiple islands in the Pacific, endured suicide attacks as well. Europe itself was against the well trained and efficient German Army and it's force.
Vietnam was a protracted war with sneak attacks, ambushes, and a determined enemy.
Now looking at Iraq, 1100 casulties isn't much, but there are also injuries that could render a soldier combat ineffective or basically disabled. I had a friend over there who recieved numerous pieces of shrapnel from a grenade and its not pretty.
From past actions the US military has done, with quick, effective manuevering and pinpoint attacks. We are used to achieve victory quickly and safely.
Another point about the casulties is that it could be in a day or 100 years, its all about how it was fought. If we were occupying a country roughly the size (for example) Vermont and we were taking these casulties, would that be different than holding onto a much larger country? I believe yes.
Putting names to the faces is a big deal and you can list names and numbers but there are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, daughters and sons that are crying from their loss. And for those with family over there right now, hearing reports of rampant terrorist attacks and car bombings, do you think they accept that their loved ones are safe? From news reports, its looking REAL easy to just blow stuff up over there. While success in destroying an army may seem all great and good, the victory arrives when there is peace.
At this rate it won't be for a long time.
Another big deal is that with the election. At this point, Bush is still our President while we're in Iraq and we still don't have a peaceful Iraq. The big question is that what will happen if Kerry becomes President? I say it can't get much worse than it is now, maybe he'll be able to do some good there, you never know.
If I could do anything, I'd say send more aid than troops. Replace the troops with workers and aid. Sure, you say they'll get kidnapped, but those that were kidnapped was due to the fact they worked with the US Mlitary. If we send workers there to repair the damage we done, build new buildings, give food and power, then would the terrorists stop? Would they bite the hand that feeds them?
We don't know, but it'd look better to the UN and the world if it looked like we want to rebuild Iraq rather than occupy it.
