NationStates Jolt Archive

"My disagreement with the peace-at-any-price men, the ultrapacifists, is not in the least because they favor peace. I object to them, first, because they have proved themselves futile and impotent in working for peace, and second, because they commit what is not merely the capital error but the crime against morality of failing to uphold righteousness as the all-important end toward which we should strive ... I have as little sympathy for them as they have for the men who deify mere brutal force, who insist that power justifies wrongdoing, and who declare that there is no such thing as international morality. But the ultra-pacifists really play into the hands of these men. To condemn equally might which backs right and might which overthrows right is to render positive service to wrong-doers ... To denounce the nation that wages war in self-defense, or from a generous desire to relieve the oppressed, in the same terms in which we denounce war waged in a spirit of greed or wanton folly stands on a par with denouncing equally a murderer and the policeman who, at peril of his life and by force of arms, arrests the murderer. In each case the denunciation denotes not loftiness of soul but weakness both of mind and morals." -- Theodore Roosevelt


While I tend to agree with Teddy on this one, I fail to see it relevance to the initial post in the thread. I am not a pacifist - far from it. However the argument over whther the current administration backs right or overthrows it is debateable. The notion that the war in Iraq would in any way qualify as "self defence" even more so - even as I fully support the actions in Afghanistan and many other initiatives looking to deal with extremist terrorists.

While I tend to agree with Teddy on this one, I fail to see it relevance to the initial post in the thread. I am not a pacifist - far from it. However the argument over whther the current administration backs right or overthrows it is debateable. The notion that the war in Iraq would in any way qualify as "self defence" even more so - even as I fully support the actions in Afghanistan and many other initiatives looking to deal with extremist terrorists.

While there's no proof of any link between al-Qaeda and Saddam (in fact, at the time, one could say that they were at cross-purposes from a religious standpoint), it is interesting that the only world leader who openly praised the 9-11 attacks was Saddam.

Sometimes, when I hear the theory that Bush is just giving payback for his Dad, I think that might be incorrect - he may be giving payback for Saddam's ugly praise of 9-11.

While I tend to agree with Teddy on this one, I fail to see it relevance to the initial post in the thread. I am not a pacifist - far from it. However the argument over whther the current administration backs right or overthrows it is debateable. The notion that the war in Iraq would in any way qualify as "self defence" even more so - even as I fully support the actions in Afghanistan and many other initiatives looking to deal with extremist terrorists.

Then you should have countered with this one:

"We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity." -- Theodore Roosevelt

While there's no proof of any link between al-Qaeda and Saddam (in fact, at the time, one could say that they were at cross-purposes from a religious standpoint), it is interesting that the only world leader who openly praised the 9-11 attacks was Saddam.

Sometimes, when I hear the theory that Bush is just giving payback for his Dad, I think that might be incorrect - he may be giving payback for Saddam's ugly praise of 9-11.


Well, I remember seeing some Palestinians dancing in the street more than Saddam's comments. Still, if Bush really spent all that money and lives out of a simple fit of rage over a rude comment, then he is far too impulsive for his job.

In point of fact, though, when you go all the way back to reading the Bush/Gore debates it is pretty clear that GW went into office looking to clean up Iraq as unfinished business as he brought up Saddam repeatedly during those conversations.

Whether it was for Dad, for his Saudi business partners, for personal glory, or because he really honestly thought that Saddam was the biggest threat to the country I can't say.

but it was clearly something destined to escalate on his watch.

Then you should have countered with this one:
...




Now why should I bother getting into a quote war with you when you're doing it so nicely all by yourself!

I mean, if military quotes/themes are the order of business, then under the circumstances I think I'll follow Sun Tzu's advice and let you beat yourself up for me....

lol.

Now why should I bother getting into a quote war with you when you're doing it so nicely all by yourself!

I mean, if military quotes/themes are the order of business, then under the circumstances I think I'll follow Sun Tzu's advice and let you beat yourself up for me....

lol.

You're missing it. I'm not just doing military quotes. I'm trying to keep to quotes (just for today). Kyott, on another thread, seems to get it.

I still take more offensive to anti-war protests than what Bush said, but as was explained to me from an unlikely source when I enlisted (my mom) "He is your Commander-in-Chief, whether you like it or not when he speaks you listen."

So, in summary.

What Bush said was bad, but those who pushed him into making such a statement are worse, IMO of course.

When did we get to the point that creating oversight is bad? Its a democracy, not a dictatorship. If we simply accept everything our leaders say and do as god's own truth, how does that protect us. Iraq is a mess. I don't care if you one of those crazy bible thumping crusaders who want to nuke the towelheads, or a guilt ridden crazy who thought saddam was the greatest guy ever. Its true. Now, I'm not a vet, but I know plent of them, and we can always agree that war is bad. I'd think soldiers more than anyone else would know that war is not a good thing, and should never be entered into lightly. If we are unwilling to double check our leaders, then we might as well give up every freedom that those men and women have fought so hard for. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." And that doesn't mean trusting every little thing they tell you. That means watching those in power like hawks and throwing them out when they betray the public trust by falsifying information (if it happened... if it didn't, we should investigate anyways).

When did we get to the point that creating oversight is bad? Its a democracy, not a dictatorship. If we simply accept everything our leaders say and do as god's own truth, how does that protect us. Iraq is a mess. I don't care if you one of those crazy bible thumping crusaders who want to nuke the towelheads, or a guilt ridden crazy who thought saddam was the greatest guy ever. Its true. Now, I'm not a vet, but I know plent of them, and we can always agree that war is bad. I'd think soldiers more than anyone else would know that war is not a good thing, and should never be entered into lightly. If we are unwilling to double check our leaders, then we might as well give up every freedom that those men and women have fought so hard for. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." And that doesn't mean trusting every little thing they tell you. That means watching those in power like hawks and throwing them out when they betray the public trust by falsifying information (if it happened... if it didn't, we should investigate anyways).
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain


"It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with confidence, stands a good chance to deceive." - Mark Twain

"It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with confidence, stands a good chance to deceive." - Mark Twain
"No man's opinion is any better than his background, his experience, and his general common sense." -- Jack O'Conner

"No man's opinion is any better than his background, his experience, and his general common sense." -- Jack O'Conner


I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them.
George W Bush

I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them.
George W Bush
You're doing an excellent job, Silli!

I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them.
George W Bush
"No one has a finer command of language than the person who keeps his mouth shut." – Sam Rayburn

"No one has a finer command of language than the person who keeps his mouth shut." – Sam Rayburn


"The cruelest lies are often told in silence. "
--Robert Louis Stevenson

"The cruelest lies are often told in silence. "
--Robert Louis Stevenson
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." – Mark Twain

"No one has a finer command of language than the person who keeps his mouth shut." – Sam Rayburn


Or did I want to go with...

"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking. "
John Maynard Keynes


Too many good choices.


However I must (unwillingly) abandon the playing field.

Duty calls.

"No one has a finer command of language than the person who keeps his mouth shut." – Sam Rayburn
Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." Dan Quayle

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." – Mark Twain


but I'll close out with:


"What luck for rulers that men do not think. "
Adolf Hitler


Later.

What is this? The online version of Quote Unquote?

What is this? The online version of Quote Unquote?
"Euphemism is the first refuge of the diplomat." – Paul Greenberg

Now why should I bother getting into a quote war with you when you're doing it so nicely all by yourself!

I mean, if military quotes/themes are the order of business, then under the circumstances I think I'll follow Sun Tzu's advice and let you beat yourself up for me....

lol.

I'll go with General Patton :D

Yes, pushed. The ones that want America to run from Iraq with our tails between our legs, they were the same ones who started calling Iraq a new Vietnam in September '03 because they believe in a "weaker America for our future."
Well, I'll believe in a weaker American military for all our futures, but that's not the same thing as you're saying. Anyway, no-one 'pushed' Bush into making a flag-wrapped ass of himself last Friday. No-one, that is, except his handlers, who shoould've known better... after all, they're gifted with two brain cells to rub together, an area lacking in their commander-in-chief.

~~SNIP most of the BS~~ We didn't need an authorization to go into Iraq since we already HAD a resolution to go into Iraq.
The US needs no authorization huh? You are right. Imperialistic forces acting outside the confines of the United Nations need no authorization whatsoever.:rolleyes:

Lets call such actions an affront to International laws that were agreed to by the offending nation(s).

Kofi Annan, Hans Blix, Richard Perle, a host of international lawyers and politicians state that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. They wouldn't be saying that IF the US was indeed operating on behalf of the UN.

The US was wrong and the world knows it. Do try to keep up Corny.

The US was wrong and the world knows it. Do try to keep up Corny.

The US, by its own internal Constitution, requires no authorization from the UN. See Reid vs. Covert for the jurisprudence. It's set in stone.

The US is under no sanction from the UN, nor is a UN force invading the US to punish it. Do try to keep up.

The US, by its own internal Constitution, requires no authorization from the UN. See Reid vs. Covert for the jurisprudence. It's set in stone.

The US is under no sanction from the UN, nor is a UN force invading the US to punish it. Do try to keep up.
Actually and ironically, the US is being punished by the insurgents in Iraq.

Bush's approval rating is at rock bottom and Republicans are paying the price for bad decisions of the Bush administration.

The world is less safe.

Hundreds of billions of US dollars are being flushed down the Iraqi toilet bowl, while many US citizens don't even have basic health care.

Yeah Iraq was a real threat to the US. Give me a break Sierra, or WL, or whatever name you are going by these days.

The fact remains that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, immoral, and unnecessary.

*snips the BS*

Believe what you will. The Law is on my side and I know it. You can believe what you will and I'll respect you for your opinions.

We'll agree to disagree because this debate will only get more out of hand.

Actually and ironically, the US is being punished by the insurgents in Iraq.

And yet the insurgents are getting massacred over there. Do try to keep up.

Hundreds of billions of US dollars are being flushed down the Iraqi toilet bowl, while many US citizens don't even have basic health care.

So your saying we shouldn't rebuild what was destroyed? Your saying we shoudn't be helping the Iraqi people?

Yeah Iraq was a real threat to the US. Give me a break Sierra, or WL, or whatever name you are going by these days.

He was to the region.

The fact remains that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, immoral, and unnecessary.

Wrong on all counts!

And yet the insurgents are getting massacred over there. Do try to keep up.
Yet the war goes on and on. Since Bush declared Mission Accomplished on May 1, 2003, almost 2,000 US soldiers have died and another 15,000 have been wounded.

So your saying we shouldn't rebuild what was destroyed? Your saying we shoudn't be helping the Iraqi people?
Where did I say that? Talk about putting words in other peoples' mouths.

The US shouldn't have invaded in the first place and then there wouldn't have been anything destroyed. How does killing Iraqi civilians help them? Depending on where you get your news, Iraqi civilan deaths as the result of the US invasion number anywhere from 30,000 (http://www2.iraqbodycount.org/)to over 100,000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html).

He was to the region.
Bush based the invasion of Iraq on flimsy "evidence" that Iraq was a threat to America.

What does Colin Powell say about his involvement in the grand deception?

“It’s a blot,” Powell said. “I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.”

More Powell insight:

More recently, Powell has come under fire for his role in building the case for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In a press statement on February 24, 2001 he had said that sanctions against Iraq had prevented the development of any weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein. As was the case in the days leading up to the Persian Gulf War, Powell was initially opposed to a forcible overthrow of Hussein, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration's determination to remove Hussein. He had often clashed with the hawks in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks—an insight supported by testimony by former terorrism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission.

And what did Clarke have to say about all of this? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml)

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know"........

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.


It would appear now that the largest threat to the region is the US presence in Iraq.

Wrong on all counts!
No Corny, I am not wrong. I wish I were.

I repeat. "The fact remains that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, immoral, and unnecessary."

Actually and ironically, the US is being punished by the insurgents in Iraq.

Bush's approval rating is at rock bottom and Republicans are paying the price for bad decisions of the Bush administration.

The world is less safe.

Hundreds of billions of US dollars are being flushed down the Iraqi toilet bowl, while many US citizens don't even have basic health care.

I agree here whole heartly.


The fact remains that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, immoral, and unnecessary.
I'll agree with illegal under somedefinations, I'll believe unneccessary, but
can you prove immoral?

I agree here whole heartly.

I'll agree with illegal under somedefinations, I'll believe unneccessary, but
can you prove immoral?
I can't prove that the war against Iraq is immoral. Morality is subjective. I personally believe that the killing of innocent people and destruction of their country is immoral. Millions of people around the world would agree with me in that regard.

Even a US soldier talks about morality:

"I went to fight in Iraq to get revenge for 9/11... I found out Bush had led us into a war that was immoral and totally wrong..." (http://www.ivaw.net/index.php?id=187)

No, I cannot prove that the Iraq war is immoral, but I feel deep in my heart that it is, and was from the very start.

Yet the war goes on and on. Since Bush declared Mission Accomplished on May 1, 2003, almost 2,000 US soldiers have died and another 15,000 have been wounded.

You will be correct. Shall we take alook at past casualties though that have left many more dead and wounded to put this in perspective?

Where did I say that? Talk about putting words in other peoples' mouths.

I'll take back the comment. I let my emotions get the better of me.

The US shouldn't have invaded in the first place and then there wouldn't have been anything destroyed. How does killing Iraqi civilians help them? Depending on where you get your news, Iraqi civilan deaths as the result of the US invasion number anywhere from 30,000 (http://www2.iraqbodycount.org/)to over 100,000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html).

How does leaving Saddam in power help the Iraqis? It doesn't. More would have died if we haven't invaded. Also, if you actually believe the 100,000 number, goes to show just the types of sites your reading. More accurate numbers place it at around 20,000-25,0000. Now the question remains, how many of those were actually US inflicted as opposed to terrorist inflicted.

Bush based the invasion of Iraq on flimsy "evidence" that Iraq was a threat to America.

I'll grant you that one.

*snip*

Very nice. Nice try at a rebuttal that is. However, anyone with an once of sense can see through the political ploy. I for one don't care what the former Secretary of State says. What I do care about is the flagrant violations by Saddam of International Law.

It would appear now that the largest threat to the region is the US presence in Iraq.

Here I will call Bullshit in light of recent events.

No Corny, I am not wrong. I wish I were

Actually Canucky you are wrong. I have shown you to be wrong in this thread. However, you are to blind to see it. That or brainwashed. Half dozen one or the other.

I repeat. "The fact remains that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, immoral, and unnecessary."

Invasion illegal? Wrong. Proven that it wasn't illegal. Just the opposite infact has been true.

Immoral? Wrong. It was the most moral thing that could've been done.

Unnecessary? That is your opinion and your welcome to it.

Now on that note, We'll just agree to disagree.

I took alook at their mission statement.

Don't they realize that if we leave now that the nation will fall into a civil war? Don't they care about the good that our forces in Iraq are doing?

"More than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

Bush did not single out any critics by name but said many of them had supported Kerry. The president said the criticism has taken a toll on U.S. forces.

"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush said.

The Heck?
Whats the so called "America's will", the fact that you govern the most powerful country doesnt mean you can kill everyone who opposes "your" will...

I preffer the term "United Statesian" or "US'er", Why? Well, I was born in South America, so I guess that makes me an american too.

You will be correct. Shall we take alook at past casualties though that have left many more dead and wounded to put this in perspective?

I'm not going to say very much but this. The influenza took thousands if not tens of thousands (maybe more) of lives after the first world war. How many people die of that nowadays? Advances in the medical field keep the number of disease related deaths small compared to yesteryear. Much the same with combat casualties.

Your anology only works if combat equipment and medical science never advanced beyond the timeline which you will use as an example. And if that were the case, the body count would be much higher, you can be assured of that.

I'm not going to say very much but this. The influenza took thousands if not tens of thousands (maybe more) of lives after the first world war. How many people die of that nowadays? Advances in the medical field keep the number of disease related deaths small compared to yesteryear. Much the same with combat casualties.

Your anology only works if combat equipment and medical science never advanced beyond the timeline which you will use as an example. And if that were the case, the body count would be much higher, you can be assured of that.

Actually, it'll probably be lower still. Think about this. Our casualties in the American Revolution were around 6000. Our casualties in the Civil War was 600,000 (combined). In Vietnam, 55,000 died over 10 years. Its not necessarily technology that decides a death toll.

Its not necessarily technology that decides a death toll.
You're right there.

It's politicians that decide.

You're right there.

It's politicians that decide.

This is, unfortunately, an accurate statement.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." And that doesn't mean trusting every little thing they tell you. That means watching those in power like hawks and throwing them out when they betray the public trust by falsifying information (if it happened... if it didn't, we should investigate anyways).
I wholeheartedly agree.

You're right there.

It's politicians that decide.
If Vietnam taught us nothing else, it should have taught us that. :(

Also, if you actually believe the 100,000 number, goes to show just the types of sites your reading. More accurate numbers place it at around 20,000-25,0000. Now the question remains, how many of those were actually US inflicted as opposed to terrorist inflicted.


So the Washington Post was exaggerating the numbers to promote their liberal agenda? Is that what you are saying? Did you read where that number (100,000) came from? It was a low estimate by scientists that risked their lives in Iraq just to do this study. Scientists that used a widely accepted method to come up with that estimate. I dismissed the number myself as being exaggerated until I heard the story of how it was done and how they came to the conclusion they did.

Try to rebutt the information for once instead of just saiying "thats not true. you only believe that because you are a brainwashed lefty". You are one of the worst when it comes to spouting bullshit and never supporting it, in the face of overwhelming evidence posted to the contrary (I know you hear that a lot and you will say that it's a mass conspiracy by people working together to do a character assasination, but how likely is that?).

Actually, it'll probably be lower still. Think about this. Our casualties in the American Revolution were around 6000. Our casualties in the Civil War was 600,000 (combined). In Vietnam, 55,000 died over 10 years. Its not necessarily technology that decides a death toll.


I'm always curious about people who draw this comparison. Yes, fewer American's have died in this war than others, praise be to effective body armour. but it implies that the losses are insignificant enough to not be a noteworthy part of the issue.

But it sets up an interesting follow up question: Exactly how many DO have to die before it becomes significant?

To a single grieving family, losing a son (or daughter) is the same no matter how many other caskets come home alongside their loved one's.

So, is Iraq worth 3,000 lives? Or 5,000? How many exactly does it take before the cost of eliminating a non-threat becomes too expensive?

I'm not trying to put you specifically on the spot for this. Just my feelings about that subject in general because it is such a sad and distastefull line of reasoning to pursue.

I took alook at their mission statement.

Don't they realize that if we leave now that the nation will fall into a civil war? Don't they care about the good that our forces in Iraq are doing?
Not according to Liberatarians. The party says that it won't fall into Civil war if we handle it correctly in a withdrawal.

I'll try to find the link. I posted it earlier yesterday. Hard to remember which thread,

Was the thread destroyed...do they disappear if they hit page 7?

Was the thread destroyed...do they disappear if they hit page 7?
No. They become archived and if you contributed to the thread, you can go back through your subscriptions (under the profile link), and access what you need.

Perhaps this is the thread you are looking for?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9921800#post9921800

No. They become archived and if you contributed to the thread, you can go back through your subscriptions (under the profile link), and access what you need.

Perhaps this is the thread you are looking for?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9921800#post9921800
Thanks, I didn't know that about the profile thing.

Exit Strategy (http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf).

Read that Corn: tell where you disagree,

Thanks, I didn't know that about the profile thing.

Exit Strategy (http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf).

Read that Corn: tell where you disagree,
I never thought I would say this, but I agree with the proposed exit strategy of the US Libertarian Party.

However, I think the Bush administration wants to maintain American troops in Iraq (location, location, location) for the long term, as in forever or until the oil wells dry up. Why else would the US be building 14 enduring bases (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm)in Iraq.

Also, another reason that the Bush administration wants to stay in Iraq is to support US fat cat corporations that are or will be making huge profits by raping the Iraqi economy. See Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations).

I honestly believe that the Bush administration does not want to leave Iraq anytime soon and that the loss of lives of US soldiers to maintain this dream is acceptable under the circumstances.

Thanks, I didn't know that about the profile thing.

Exit Strategy (http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf).

Read that Corn: tell where you disagree,

I'll take a look at it and let ya know what I think.

So we have Iraq Body Count (http://www2.iraqbodycount.org/) showing 26,982 (minimum) to 30,380 (maximum). Or up to 100,000 given this new estimation-based survey.

According to Unknown News (http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html), combined casualties for Iraq and Afghanistan are 71,756 killed and 179,733 -- all opponents, and civilians.

They cite 48,235 seriously wounded civilians in Iraq.

Yet the allegation of "100,000" casualties was being made last year: Pentagon Suppresses Details of Civilian Casualties, Says Expert (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1031-01.htm).

Coalition forces are accountable for a high percentage of casualties, though in recent days the insurgents have changed their tactic from targeting Coalition forces to Iraqi police and civilians, who they see as collaborators. Because of this, the Pentagon has come under recent pressure to release casualty figures, but everyone seems to agree they are lower than the actual number (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002592206_civilians30.html). The military claims that it cannot respond to all incidents.

Iraq Body Count only includes casualties where two or more journalist agencies report the incident, which provides the basis of their criteria for confirmation. Yet there are many more casualties which have gone unreported, or only reported by one source.

Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, of the Iraqi 'Iraqiyun humanitarian organization (http://iraqmortality.org/articles/news) claimed in July 2005 that there have been 128,000 deaths since the invasion. That's about 4,413 per month.

Even as far back as 2004 it was reported there were 37,000 (http://iraqmortality.org/iraqi-group-civilian-toll-over-37-000) civilian fatalities through the first seven months of the war -- Mar to Oct 2003. Remember, that was just civilian casualties. Iraqi military casualties are on top of that and were not counted. Over the first seven months of the war, that was a death toll rate of about 5,285 per month. However, it should be noted that the first month of the war was a significantly large number of casualties. The rate dropped off significantly thereafter, as far as deaths attributable directly to Coalition attacks.

We're in the 32nd month of the war, and by most accounts civilian casualties have been picking up over the past year -- not diminishing.

Just multiplying those figures out over 32 months would bring an estimated civilian death toll of 141,000 - 169,000. There have admittedly been worse and better times during the past few years.

The truth is we cannot know for sure. Iraq Body Count clearly knows that it is underreporting, using a conservative criteria of two media sources, and knowing many deaths will never be reported through the media.

We have a range from as low as a conservative/reliable report of 27,000-30,000 up through estimates spanning from 40,000 to as high as my admittedly unscientific 141,000 - 169,000.

My own calculation are very loose approximations, but serve as an example of what the "death rate" would be if it continued at those rates. Looking at military casualties for OIF (http://icasualties.org/oif/), Coalition casualties have actually mounted since those first months of the war. By many reports, civilian death rates have increased over the subsequent years (IBC (http://www2.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr12.php) reports death rate doubled in the second year of the war over the first.)

The truth is, it will still take years to account for all the missing persons, executed bodies, bombed out villagers and other casualties to be accounted for.

We're starting to find bodies dead in the desert. Many wish to blame Saddam Hussein or al-Qaeda. Yet there are killers running around executing police and civilians that seek political power, or revenge, or ethnic cleansing, or just committing crime.

To me, this is what Bush should have been focusing on: stop the killing of the Iraqi people. On Veteran's Day, which is originally Armistice Day, there should have been a call for the cessation of hostilities, and the return to lawfulness.

He could have used the opportunity not to vow ongoing military occupation, which only embitters the common Iraqi, but to offer to the people of Iraq his sympathy and support for their own struggle. We should be seeking to share in the grief of all those of other nations who have stood beside the United States, not just focused on our own efforts. The original Armistice Day was to recognize also that peace is possible with our enemies. And we need to respect the reason why they fight as well.

Veteran's Day is a time to reflect and think about the sacrifices made by the men and women in the armed forces, and those who serve beside them in humanitarian service, and the civilian populations they protect. It is a time to consider how to prevent future sacrifices from being needlessly made.

We demonized the Japanese during World War II when they were willing to commit suicidal attacks to fight us. Yet later we were able to show them respect for their zeal when the fighting was done. It was a necessity to understand their philosophy to work with them to end hostilities. We need to address the reasons why Jihadis are willing to die for their cause. And to diffuse their reasons for anger and hatred. To show respect to them, but also to ensure that the insanity of apocalypse is halted or prevented. To prove it is not needed.

If we even hinted that we'd be leaving at some point, it would help deflate the primary recruiting tool of al-Qaeda.

In actuality, our troops have suffered, but nowhere near as bad as the Iraqi civilians. Whether they "only" lost 27,000 or 30,000 -- that's still an order of magnitude more than the Coalition forces.

Let's see if we can end the conflict before it becomes two orders of magnitude more than our military casualties.

The US and Coalition forces are not responsible for all of these. Only 37.3% were provably attributable to the Coalition according to Iraq Body Count. 9.5% were killed by anti-occupation forces. Civilian deaths involving Coalition and insurgents (caught in the crossfire) combined for another 2.5%.

"Military actions" accounted for another 2.5%. "Terrorist attacks" accounted for 1.3% -- I am sure that number will rise in the next report.

Criminal killings accounted for 35.9%. This number had risen due to the breakdown in the national police. 11% were due to "unknown agents."

The vast majority of Coalition-killed casualties occurred in the first month of the invasion -- 6,616 as far as IBC could account for. Since then, there were three peak months -- Apr 2004 (632), Aug 2004 (197), and Nov 2004 (775). Many others had low numbers killed by Coalition forces, often less than 100 per month.

Yet lawlessness often topped 700, 800, or 900 casualties per month, and was generally a far-greater threat on a consistent basis.

A recent July 2005 figure put deaths in Baghdad (http://iraqmortality.org/secrets-of-the-morgue-baghdads-body-count) morgues at 1,100. IBC's reporting indicates that Baghdad accounts for about 20% of the population, but the Baghdad area accounts for 43% of overall casualties.

So that would indicate a national death rate of over 2,550 per month -- or possibly about 30,600 annually.

In a terrible singular incident, 965 people were trampled to death or drowned, and 810 more were injured in September when a million-person mourning at a mosque (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/01/iraq.main/) turned into a panicked stampede when rumor spread there was going to be a suicide attack. The same mosque had earlier in the day been attacked by mortars, which killed 7 and wounded 36.

The other day I observed there were about 15,000 people killed every year under the regime of Saddam Hussein. At conservative estimates (proven deaths), the present situation is killing people at about that rate.

At the higher end estimates, the death rate could be 30,600 -- twice as high -- or speculatively 53,000 - 63,000 per year -- up to four times the death rate under Saddam Hussein. Yet those estimates are quite possibly inflated and should not be relied upon.

Regardless, under the present conditions, the number of casualties being inflicted on the civilian populace is either as great, or even twice or more than were being caused by the brutal Saddam Hussein.

The Coalition (primarily the US) along with the insurgents, are responsible for the situation of lawlessness. Under the Geneva Convention we should be doing all we can to prevent civilian casualties.

Our costs of the war include our military operations and our reconstruction of property. So far there have been no offered victim's compensation or civil suits for wrongful death. I'm not sure, but I would think that, since the war is long since over, US forces might be able to be held accountable if they were to shoot someone without probable cause.

Certainly US families are starting to file suit against contractors like Halliburton (http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/31/news/international/iraq_halliburton/) and Blackwater Security Consulting (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050109-071251-3780r.htm). Halliburton moved to have it dismissed (http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bf/gov/20050824/20050824halliburton.html). More can be found here (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12010).

Well said Listeneisse!

I thought I did hear about offers of victim compensation though. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

I read the Libertarian Party paper, and I also agree with its general propositions.

It might be that we ask the Iraqi government whether they wish complete removal or partial removal of forces. But we could easily scale down 75-90%, leaving a brigade or two to act as a stability force.

I'm rather sure that the Kurds would have little problem with a US base on their territory.

Otherwise, the positioning of the forces in nearby nations -- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey -- would be a prudent way to remain in the region without exacerbating domestic issues.

I also agree with its assessment the focus should be on enabling Iraq to train and maintain itself.

We can change the final exit from 12 to 18 or 24 months, or even say that we wish to maintain some minimal presence at the invitation of the Iraqi government. But the truth is that we need to work towards force reduction over time, regardless of what those actual figures become.

Once Operation Steel Curtain is concluded, I think we might want to look at declaring success, turning matters more to the Iraqis to lead, and eventually head a few units back home -- without being replaced.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda and local Iraqi Sunni groups (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/13124795.htm) are starting to snipe at each other over money and political control.

Along with the bombings of the Jordanian hotels, al-Qaeda seems to be making significant mistakes in terms of public sentiment and support. The more al-Qaeda pisses off the locals who are fighting alongside or even funding them, the sooner the Iraqis themselves will organize to throw them all out.

While we do stick around, it should be to net more baddies to ensure they do not head to the next hot spot on the map to cause trouble. But it is crucial we do not do things to cause a net growth in al-Qaeda's recruiting by coming off as ham-handed imperialists.

You're right.

U.S. Pays Up for Fatal Iraq Blunders - Over 10,000 claims but families must waive rights (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1093319,00.html). 10,402 cases filed as of Nov 2003.

5,400 (http://electroniciraq.net/news/1347.shtml) cases settled as of January 2004.

The US pays a few thousand dollars to the families of Iraqi victims. Nowhere near what a US court would grant to a US citizen.

Iraqi courts, because of an order issued by the US-led authority in Baghdad in June, are forbidden from hearing cases against American soldiers or any other foreign troops or foreign officials in Iraq.

According to the headline for this article, which reiterates the Guardian article on compensation, there's different rates of compensation: "Afghan $200, Iraqi $600, Indian $1200, French $1 Million, American $10 Million" (http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/1126-Claims.html). This refers to other comparative payouts, such as the Indian chemical accident at Bhopal, or damages for other terrorist activities against US citizens.

According to this story on NPR, $3,500 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1916855) is what one family got for the death of their 12-year old boy. The Scotsman reports $5,000 (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2208712005) was paid for the death of a wife and her four-year-old son.

Under the US "consequence management" system, there is a maximum payout of $2,500 per claim. A dead wife and a dead son are equivalent to two claims; meaning Hassan is in line to receive a total of $5,000 in cash.

In May 2005, this Reuters article stated that of 4,611 analyzed claims, three out of four were dismissed (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0504-04.htm), according to the Dayton Daily News, Oct 2004. Even if you did not accept the flat-fee of $2,500, the average compensation was $4,421.

There's also property damage compensation: Falluja (http://www.irinnews.org/print.asp?ReportID=46441). They needed $500 million to repair the damage. The Iraqis put up $100 million themselves. The US-led coalition was offering $100 million, but was slow to provide it. That leaves them $300 million short.

Marla Ruzicka (http://www.civicworldwide.org/about.htm) was a humanitarian aid worker who had ceaselessly campaigned to get more compensation for victims in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Tragically, she was killed by a bomb on the airport road in Baghdad. She founded Campaign for Innocent Victims In Conflict (CIVIC) (http://www.civicworldwide.org), which seeks to aid war victims, if anyone is interested in supporting her work. In fact, if you want, there is a position open for CIVIC's Executive Director. Resumes were to be submitted by Aug 30, but there's been no announcement since.

_________

Meanwhile, the UK is "Edging towards the exit." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1642635,00.html)

...confirmation by Tony Blair that Britain's 8,500 troops could start withdrawing by the end of 2006... Signalling the start of withdrawal by the end of 2006 falls far short of drawing up a comprehensive exit strategy. But it seems a reasonable place to start.

Iraq's president predicts troops out next year (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1641852,00.html)

The Iraqi president predicted yesterday that Iraqi troops could replace British soldiers in the country by the end of next year, in what is the most optimistic assessment yet of the ability of his own forces to take responsibility for the security of the country.

Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish leader running for re-election next month, said: "We don't want British forces forever in Iraq. Within one year, I think at the end of 2006, Iraqi troops will be ready to replace British forces in the south."

...

The US president, George Bush, has refused to set a timetable for withdrawing 150,000 American troops from the country, saying it would play into the hands of insurgents. However, Iraq's deputy prime minister, Ahmad Chalabi, said on Friday that US troops could begin leaving in significant numbers sometime next year.

So while the US was just a few days before talking about staying the course, the two other major players in the game have decided on their own to plan to move on.

Actually, it'll probably be lower still. Think about this. Our casualties in the American Revolution were around 6000. Our casualties in the Civil War was 600,000 (combined). In Vietnam, 55,000 died over 10 years. Its not necessarily technology that decides a death toll.

Technology however does play a significant factor in deciding the death toll. Case in point stomach wounds. It was, and still is considered to be a very slow, and very painful way to go. However, with the advances in medical treatment we have today, field dressings can be applied to not only stem the bleeding, but allow for it to be halted enough for the damage to be repaired. In 1778 and 1872, it was practically a death sentence to recieve a minnie ball in the gut was it not?

Death tolls are decided by how many people fight. By the tactics they employ. And the technology that they use. Above all, luck. The same applies for all sides.

Alone, each factor is not the be all and end all. But you cannot deny that they all play a major deciding point in the death toll. Take one factor away, and the number can change dramatically.

And for the point, how can you claim that the casualties would be lower still if technology has not progressed to the point where it has today? Without the medical advances and protective technology, as well as armaments that are provided to coalition forces, they would be higher. Perhaps you would care to explain your ideas? I do not see how soldiers of the Victorian era would be able to fare better if they were transplanted into modern day Iraq.

1770s - 1830s, yes. By the 1870s, there had been a tremendous amount of surgery technique developed because of the US Civil War and the European wars, such as the Franco-Prussian War.

The Red Cross was founded in the 1850s. So you had the concept of field hospitals following the armies with surgeons capable of operating on some (not all) gut wounds.

Late in the 1870s (1879 to be precise) came the major invention that helped sterilize equipment: the steam autoclave (http://www.devicelink.com/mpb/archive/98/09/002.html). Papin's digester, a form of pressure cooker for culinary purposes, had already been invented in 1680, but for two centuries no one until Chamberland actually created a device specifically for medical equipment. (An interesting essay on autoclaves, in PDF format (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//138.23.152.128/protocols/autoclave%2520operation.pdf&ei=39Z5Q4aYDLTOYYfW8aAF&sig2=AY9pGqW91j4NA5ImU-R02A).) He was a protegé of Pasteur, and designed the device to Pasteur's specifications.

In the 16th century, there just was insufficient art to experiment with internal organs. By the 17th-18th century, they understood what your anatomy was, but had little to do for an internal organ puncture -- hence the use of rapiers and foils as dueling weapons. A punctured interior organ was as good as death due to internal bleeding and septic infection.

By the mid-19th century, surgery had advanced so that they could indeed sew you up, but you were still likely to die due to septic infection or fever. The use of chemical disinfectants and anasthetics (http://www.civilwarhome.com/medicinehistory.htm) were widespread during the Civil War. That saved a lot of lives because the former kept down the rate of infection and the latter surpressed the body's natural state of shock at surgical operations. There was a 40% chance of surviving surgery.

The concept of the ambulance was also invented in 1792 in France (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blambulance.htm?once=true&iam=mt&terms=+%22ambulance+history%22) and developed into a formal practice in the Civil War.

By the latter half of the 19th century, the miracle of sterilization and other modern surgical techniques made it possible -- though not probable -- that you might survive. The autoclave and Pasteur's entire theory of germs meant that you were likely not getting an infected surgical implement shoved in your guts as you would have gotten even a decade or so before.

By World War One, surgery survival rates had risen to 89% (http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/healthservices/medicalhistory_e.html). This was due to such advances as the 1901 discovery of blood groups (http://nobelprize.org/medicine/educational/landsteiner/readmore.html) to allow safe blood transfusions, the use of X-rays (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blxray.htm) (developed in 1895), and so on.

Blood transfusions (http://www.bloodbook.com/trans-history.html) had been performed successfully by 1818, but the process wasn't really well understood until the 1870s. They combined antiseptics with transfusions after 1867. Milk (1873) and saline infusions (1884) were tried as blood substitutes with varying effects. Saline seemed to keep down adverse reactions better.

By 1901, they had identified A, B, and O. AB came in 1902. By 1907, they realized that transfusions that matched blood type were safer. And in 1914, just at the dawn of World War I, anticoagulents permit medical facilities to do the unthinkable -- store blood!

Of course, different types of injuries had different survival rates, depending on severity of trauma. But by the 1870s, you had a better-than-coin-toss chance of surviving the surgery. You had worse than a coin toss to survive the infection and fever that would set in thereafter.

Another thing... committed forces, weapons and tactics of the day, and intensity of fighting also determine death toll. Consider: Statistical Summary: America's Major Wars (http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm)

In the Civil War, they were still fighting with the post-Napoleonic musket and rifle regiments. Clustered men in close order, firing at near point-blank range until one or the other side was dead. The weapons were far more efficient than the Revolution or the War of 1812.

Thus the ratio of KIA rose from 2.2% in the Revolution and 0.8% in the War of 1812, to 4.8% during the Civil War. While some of this is based in intensity, the more decisive issue was that they had used obsolete tactics with increasingly deadly weapons.

It was an atrocious loss of life. By the end of the war, they decided to use trenches to avoid directly exposing yourself to rifle and cannon fire.

It was not even exceeded by the stupidity of World War One. By the time the US entered the war, the expensive lesson of "do not charge into the machine gun directly" had been learned by the others combatants.

If you look at this link's Casualty table, and compare OIF to other wars, it is nowhere near as severe as Vietnam or Korea yet.

OIF
Enrolled: 1,430,159
KIA: 1,765 (0.1%)
Other Deaths: 504 (0.0%)
WIA: 15,568 (1.1%)
Total: 17,637 (1.2%)
Ratio: 8.8
Duration: 32 months
KIA/Month: 55

The combat has been going on longer than the War of 1812. It has produced about the same amount of dead, but nearly four times the number of wounded. What should be noted is that the actual forces committed to OIF (270,000 in CENTCOM) are in the same range as the total enrolled military of the War of 1812. The majority of troops are not committed to this theatre.

We've had about 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq (120,000 elsewhere in CENTCOM), but more have cycled through since troops have been on rotation. It's hard to get a particular true number for those who served in-country. But let's redo the figures just using the CENTCOM commitment of 270,000 and see what that does to the figures:

OIF
Enrolled: 270,000
KIA: 1,765 (0.7%)
Other Deaths: 504 (0.2%)
WIA: 15,568 (5.8%)
Total: 17,637 (6.5%)
Ratio: 8.8
Duration: 32 months
KIA/Month: 55

Now suddenly the overall casualty numbers are on direct par with WWI and WWII; a little bit less. It is "as tough" as those wars were. But troops are surviving at a far, far higher ratio. Likely due to better armor protection for their vehicles, ballistic tactical vests and helmets. Yet the threat has kept pace with protection.

We're not quite sure the number of those who have been evacuated for other purposes besides combat wounds. One thing not easily tracked are the psychological casualties of war. They are not curable with a patch-up bandage and an easily declared status of Wounded-RTD.

Iraq Casualty Notes (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_notes.htm)

A new US Army study released in July 2004 found that, as in previous wars, soldiers in Iraq are paying an emotional price for the fighting. The study of 6,000 US soldiers showed that nearly one out of every five returning from Iraqi combat experiences anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder. That is almost twice the pre-deployment rate. In Afghanistan, where fighting is less fierce, the study finds that mental health problems are less prevalent. The research performed at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine, suggests that the US military must continue to fight the stigma attached to mental health. This study estimated are that 17 percent of soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan suffered from PTSD, along with anxiety and depression. For Gulf War vets, PTSD rates hover at 9 percent.

We've had about 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq (sometimes much higher), and more have cycled through.

At 17%, that's a number somewhere up to 25,500 troops with mental health issues. That was according to the initial Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) report for the US Army done in 2004.

I'm reading the OIF-II Mental Health Advisory Team (http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mhat_ii/mhat.cfm) report, which reported in Jan 2005:

Fifty-four percent of OIF-ll Soldiers reported their unit morale as low or very low. However, unit morale was significantly higher in OIF-ll compared with OIF-I, when 72% of Soldiers reported low or very low unit morale.

Mental health and well-being improved from OIF-I to OIF-ll, reflected by a lower percentage of Soldiers who screened positive for a MH problem in OIF-ll compared with OIF-I (13% vs. 18%, respectively). Acute or post traumatic stress symptoms remain the top MH concern, affecting at least 10% of OIF-ll Soldiers. Soldiers in transportation and nonmedical combat service support (CSS) National Guard and Reserve units had significantly higher rates of MH problems and lower perceptions of combat readiness and training than Soldiers in other units.

Yeah. I can imagine. You're in an unarmored vehicle, a tanker truck, driving through unhappy places. The Bradleys and Abrams might live. Odds against an RPG don't look too good for you.

Forty percent of Soldiers with MH problems reported receiving professional help during the deployment. This was significantly higher than the 29% of Soldiers with MH problems who received professional help in OIF-I.

The military is trying very hard to break down the "tough guy" attitude that, while great for combat readiness, produces terrible behavioral and mental health conditions post-combat. They've been succeeding, and troops are getting much better information on how to recognize the signs and respond when they are stressing out. The suicide rate dropped back down to CY2003 levels.

Between Mar 2003 to Aug 2005, the Army also had to evacuate 11,705 personnel for disease (http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/medevacstats/200508/oif.htm). It is under this categorization we find the top three reasons for disease evacuations are surgical (5,193), medical (5,154) and psychiatric (1,306).

We can also figure from this the Marines likely had thousands of illness-related evacuations beyond their WIA. If they follow the same ratio compared to the Army as WIAs, the number of evacuated ill could be as high as 7,000 or more.

So there's another 18,000 - 19,000 casualties which are not going to get a purple heart, but should get your care and concern when they come home from the war. They could have suffered from a concussion, or watched a fellow soldier or a civilian die.

While these soldiers were evacuated for their stress, there are tens of thousands of others that are toughing it out, dealing with the stress the best way they know how.

While we've debated what the Commander-in-Chief did or did not do on Veteran's Day, please give a bit of time and thought into what the soldiers are going through, and how you could help.

I read another site where someone "adopted a squad" (http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/05/adopt_a_squad_1.php) and got others to raise funds to buy them better-than-issue Oakley sunglasses and AT&T calling cards.

At the end of my long screed, it came back to me that we need to make sure we keep our minds focused on the faces and the names -- both troops and the civilians they are there to protect -- to keep Veteran's Day from turning into a discourse simply filled with numbers and abstract principles.

"I'm fine, been shot at a few times, a few IED's going off by me, but don't worry!!!" -- SSG Levi

Let's keep hope that the war can end and they can come home some time sooner than it took to fight World War II. That world war, for the US, lasted 44 months. This operation is in its 32nd month. Perhaps by next Christmas?

The body armor worn today is radically superior to anything worn before.

That's why you're far less likely to die when attacked - so the number of wounded would go up.

The standard IBA is totally resistant to rifle fire at close range. It's difficult to get hit at an angle that allows a torso hit.

Only large explosives have a chance at killing you, and that's by tearing off your limbs and head, leaving a largely intact torso.

You can bleed to death, or die of complications, but the old way of being shot in the torso in an ambush is out.

This is also why in face to face street fighting with rifles, the insurgents take 28 to 1 losses - the insurgents don't have access to the same body armor.

Yes, the ballistic tactical vests have saved many lives.

Next, they are issuing ballistic face shields, shin guards and body shields (http://www4.army.mil/news/article.php?story=8077) in riot control kits. Only 68 so far, split between Iraq and Afghanistan. The total plan is only for 438.

If it were up to me, I'd make sure everyone got a ballistic face shield. Whether they wore it and whether it would be in the operative position when they got hit would depend on circumstance, but it would be nice to know my men would be greatly protected from being blinded by shrapnel or killed by small arms fire.

I was reading in one report (on GlobalSecurity), that bombs don't need to tear you apart. There are instances of people simply going into a coma from the blast. Reduced to a vegetative state. They ship you home and let your family decide whether they wish to leave you on life support.

If you want to help equip the locals so they can survive and take over, and we can get our military home, you can donate equipment to the Iraqi and Afghani police (http://home.att.net/~steven.newton1/donate.html). A popular thing to donate is a tactical vest or riot helmet if you can afford it.

They can also use socks and batteries. You might want to email to find out how they are doing.

Those are some good essays Listeneisse. Very informative. Thanks for taking the time for that.

Actually, it'll probably be lower still. Think about this. Our casualties in the American Revolution were around 6000. Our casualties in the Civil War was 600,000 (combined). In Vietnam, 55,000 died over 10 years. Its not necessarily technology that decides a death toll.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW11-16-05.jpg

And for those of you too lazy to click, here's what Tom Tomorrow (http://www.thismodernworld.com/pages/new.html) has to ask:

"When right-wing pundits profess bewilderment at the attention paid to ever-increasing numbers of U.S. war dead...
'More people died in the Civil War -- but you don't see the M.S.M. making a big deal about them!'
'Compared to the total number of people who have ever died, this is a statistical drop in the bucket!'
"...Are they stupid -- or lying?"

Another article points out how 50% of combat deaths are still related to massive blood loss, but one new invention, a new form of medical bandage, has helped reduce bleeding dramatically:

Medical Command claims two of the Army's 10 'greatest inventions' (http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/mercury/05-09/20050811inventions.cfm?m=8&y=2005)

It is unproveable by a single article to know the efficacy of this new type of dressing, but if the Army has been able to help stop 50% of combat casualties, this would be a revolution for the soldier.

One thing to realize is the psychology for survivors. Many times in the past, a soldier who took a terrible wound would die. They suffered but died shortly thereafter.

With improving combat medicine, recall the sort of old 18th-20th century veteran ballads of the plight of amputees, from Barrett's Privateers (http://www.thebilgepumps.com/songs.htm#barretts) (about a British amputee c. 1778), And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda (http://www.zmag.org/Songs/songarchive.htm#THE%20BAND%20PLAYED%20WALTZING%20MATILDA) (about Gallipoli, 1915).

Now you had men who had fought wars and were living, not dying. But living with debilitation, pains and griefs. It took a long time for the military to even recognize their plight. The Civil War veterans in the Grand Army of the Republic were those that first massively organized for their rights, which the state begrudgingly granted.

Antiseptics reduced the necessity for amputation dramatically. Reconstructive surgery saved even more limbs. It still needs to be done. As of Aug 2005, 280 military personnel (http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/medevacstats/200508/oif.htm) treated at Army hospitals required amputations.

That's out of 2,791 evacuated combat WIA evacuations, 2,139 non-combat injury surgical evacuations, and 5,193 disease surgical evacuations -- 10,123 total trauma cases.

Those 280 cases represent 2.76% of such evacuations.

Men and women are keeping their limbs far more often compared to older wars, where disease and infection would require their removal from gangrene or traumatic damage, irreparable at the time.

As for injuries, you'll note that the vast majority of WIA evacuations, 66.2%, are due mostly for explosives -- a combination of IEDs, landmines, grenades, shrapnel and blasts. Your tactical vest might help somewhat, but this sort of force is not stopped simply by a vest -- it will assault your face, your limbs, any exposure of your body. And in cases of massive explosives, again, the concussive blast alone will not be stopped by body armor.

Gunshots account for 15.4% of WIA evacs, and RPGs are next at 8.1%.

Those are your top three causes, due to combat.

Note, however, that combat evacs due to WIA are only 12.3% of all medical evacs.

28.5% were due to non-battle injuries, and 57.4% are due to disease. The latter number includes 6.4% evacuated (1,306) for psychiatric reasons.

So for every WIA, we have twice as many non-battle injuries, and about four cases of disease. On top of that, for every two WIA, we have a case of evacuation for psychiatric reasons.

"Rates of combat stress casualties vary greatly, with higher ratios during lengthy periods of intense combat. In Okinawa 1945, during a peak month of battle, the combat stress casualties among Marine Forces were reported as high as one for every two wounded in action (WIA). Under less lengthy periods, as suggested by data acquired from the Israeli Defense Forces fighting in Lebanon 1982, the ratio of combat stress casualties to WIA in small units can be as high as one to one. In the past, we have generally suffered as many as one battle stress casualty for every three to five WIA in heavy fighting. ... During the 1942-45 period in the European Theater, there was a ratio of one combat stress casualty for every three WIA." -- Combat Stress (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_notes.htm)

So this is more stressful than World War II's European Theater of Operations, and about as stressful as the worst of Okinawa. At least at first glance. But let's look again at these numbers. (See FM 22-51: Leaders' Manual for Combat Stress Control (http://www.vnh.org/FM22-51/01FM2251.html))

The military knows that the best treatment for combat stress is near the front lines. Those who remain close to the fighting are often rehabilitated more readily and recover more fully than those who suddenly are pulled far from their units (separation anxiety and other guilt factors hit the patient). Those soldiers who are evacuated often suffer worse, and are more likely to be unable to ever return to service.

Compare the 1st Armored Division assaulting the Gothic line in Italy had about a 1:1.8 ratio of combat fatigue to wounded casualties. But their division only suffered 250 WIA and 137 combat exhaustion casualties. 50-70% of the combat exhaustion casualties recovered and went back to their units within 3 days, and most of the rest were able to return to duty within a few weeks.

On Okinawa, the 6th Marine Division suffered 2,662 KIA or WIA and 1,289 combat exhaustion casualties. That's 10 times the rate 1st Armored suffered. The shock of combat was so great that few of them returned to their units.

During the ten day battle for the Sugar Loaf hill complex, the Division lost more than 2,662 killed and wounded. Wounded Marine's were treated and if the wound was not debilitating, they were immediately sent back to the lines. Many a Marine simply walked out of aid stations to find their buddies back on the lines. Replacements poured into the line companies, only to find themselves immediately in the thick of a battle, resulting in their becoming a quick casualty. -- SixthMarineDivision.com (http://www.sixthmarinedivision.com/)

This was not the same as treating them for combat fatigue near the front. They were simply patched up and walked back to battle.

This was out of a reinforced division strength of approximately 24,356 men (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter1.htm#b3), or a 10% casualty rate.

Other sources refer to the 2,662 as KIA/WIA, whereas the FM refers to them as WIA. From the numbers I've found, the overall losses for Okinawa's were 1 KIA for every 3 WIA, but because of the exposure to enemy fire and overrunning of their positions at Sugar Loaf, many WIA turned into KIA, being left behind unable to be evacuated. One company was reconstituted with replacements and completely wiped out twice in the battle. I don't have more detailed numbers, but it's fair to say that the Marines probably suffered about 700 KIA and just shy of 2,000 WIA.

So if the US military decided to evacuate soldiers at this rate, it's because they felt they were not going to be able to be recovered near the line, as you might have in other fairly intensive action (i.e., the Gothic line).

The OIF combat fatigue is not the same acute, intense action over 10 days. Okinawa was an entirely different battle. But the Pacific Theater was one the United States' first encounter with such sucidal zealotous elan, especially on Okinawa (http://www.nps.gov/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003135-00/sec4.htm), which exceeded even what we see in Iraq.

Japanese suicide planes and manned explosive rockets attacked the fleet by the thousands. Japanese soldiers strapped antitank demolitions to themselves (they were called "human bullets") or flew one-way commando missions to belly-land their transport aircraft wheels-up on airfields to attack fuel dumps.

The US 6th Marine Division suffered 3,951 casualties and losses due to combat fatigue out of 24,356 troops in 10 days in Okinawa. 16.2% in 10 days.

OIF has suffered 6.5% over 32 months. While the same general ratio of combat fatigue-to-casualties might apply, the intensive rate of casualties are not the same, and are orders of magitude less.

This is not to say the combat stress cases are any less severe, but that they are due to different reasons than combat intensity. More will be due to chronic fatigue, rather than acute. There's better help for them now than they'd have gotten pinned down for days on an exposed hillock in Okinawa. Yet after months of prolonged exposure to sniper fire, explosive ambushes, and general distrust due to the environment, it's well understandable how paranoia, uncontrollable hostility or depression could set in.

We are taking these as "soft" casualties. They're alive and in uniform, but they're unable to fight. For these evacuated troops, it's time to head home.

Much of how they will deal with the rest of their lives will be determined on how they are treated personally, and specifically what professional treatment they get.

I agree with the assessment of the cartoon. Soldiers are putting their lives on the line. They deserve the truth. The United States deserves to have a sincere and sober discussion of the issues. Not one-liner dismissals.

Excuses and waffling over the cause of the war in the first place, casting blame rather than accept responsibility, ill-preparedness at the beginning of the war, questionable financial practices, and strategic blunders like disbanding the Iraqi military simply to have to reconstitute it a few months later, have cost lives, a ballooning of tens of billions of dollars of fully-anticipated-but-dismissed-at-the-outset costs, and have prolonged the mission for a year or more.

While some of you might lambaste me for being critical of the war leadership, do not mistake me as a simple peacenik. My background includes DoD and Intel agency customer services. I have always respected the military, and I have always desired a strong military for the defense of not just the US or Europe, but of the principles globally that prevent barbarism on unprecedented scale.

Yet I believe this requires us to be intellectually honest, willing to face facts, and work for the best of the state, citizens, and soldiers collectively.

Mr. Bush chose to spend his Veteran's Day making a case for continuing the war. Ironically, just a few days later, Iraq and the UK contradicted his strategic viewpoint by announcing it was time to do what he himself rejected -- to consider a timetable for withdrawal from the nation of Iraq.

To the credit of our military, they have fought it to a state of military victory during the initial action, and with significant operations roughly blunted and generally contained the insurgency. However, now it is time to plan strategically for its end. And to examine closely and critically the reason it was even fought in the first place.

No one should be acccused of being a "traitor" looking to see if this was the best use of our people, our talent, our time, and our national treasury. If the causes of the war were substantially incorrect, Mr. Bush deserves to at least admit this and apologize to the nation for misleading us, rather than retreating to increasingly spurious assertions why the war was immanently necessary.

It might have been a necessary war, given the long-term exacerbation of the No Fly Zone and policies of containment, but yet not the way we executed it, not for the reasons ostensibly put forth, and not at that specific time.

Another 6 months would not have materially improved Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. We could even have kept up the low-level intensity strikes against his forces to degrade them as we deployed forces gradually to the theatre. It would have aided us greatly by allowing military operations in Afghanistan to bag the rest of the original Al Qaeda forces we had trapped. Our distraction at that time by OIF pulled off special forces and intelligence units in Afghanistan who were in the midst of hunting down al Qaeda to plan for the new operation.

There could also have been some of the preparations we knew were needed, such as up-armoring vehicles for urban operations, rather than retrofitting them after the loss of life and injury of our troops.

We could have still moved forward with the UNMOVIC regime attempts in Iraq, and gotten proof or dismissal of the concerns cited in the 2002 CIA report. We would probably have been far more likely to have garnered international support after such a conservative and prudent ally-building period.

I'm not simply "armchair generalling" -- because these are not my suggestions, but proposals and objections made at the time which I am simply bringing back to the discussion.

Read about the Armored HMMWV (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/hmmwvua.htm). We were gradually up-armoring them already before the war. The need for armor was well-known because of the Balkans operations. The up-armor kits also included the shockingly-obvious addition of air conditioning so you could button-up and not suffocate. You would have thought that going to war in a desert nation would have made this a priority.

But these systems were only made a priority after we were already well-into OIF, and the complaints of the troops were made directly and bluntly to the administration.

It's not like it was an incredibly sexy thing to do. It doesn't have a great video clip that ends with an explosion. It was just the kind of simple common-sense proposal that keeps soldiers alive.

If you ask me, the Program Manager staff for this sort of basic mercy for the common soldier deserves more recognition than most of the high-budget, high-profile grandiose Discovery Channel future combat systems.

Hence it languished on desks as a low priority before the war as upper-level staff attended to far more important things, like partisanly attacking anyone who might have any sort of disagreement with the operational plan as flawless and utterly necessary then and there.

Mr. Bush did acknowledge his opposition has severe disagreements with his positions. Then he tried to inclusively sweep up anyone who ever was in uniform as his implicit ally in the continued prosecution of the present war. "You hear them and you agree with me, don't you?"

Veteran's Day should not be about him. Nor "us versus them." It should have been for reflection and inclusion. Including the Iraqis. Even recognizing the opposition. And to consider -- how could a lasting peace be achieved? For that is the greatest measure of victory.

As I pointed out earlier, he held his Veteran's Day speech at a logistical supply base. He was implying and openly speaking about plans for a far longer war with no foreseeable end.

I don't necessarily believe he slapped the Veterans in the face. Instead, he rather obviously extended his hands towards their hearts and wallets. It came off as campaigning, not commemoration. Which I felt was unfortunate and a bit droll.

Meanwhile, the present operations seem to be working, more or less. So, quo vadis?

Senate Urges Bush to Outline Iraq Plan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_25)

Apparently the US Senate also thinks its time to start considering when to bring home troops.

(See also Senate pushes for speedier handover in Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051116/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc))
_______

President's ratings hit new low in poll (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051115/ts_usatoday/presidentsratingshitnewlowinpoll)

Bush's job-approval rating sank to a record 37%, down from a previous low of 39% a month ago. The poll finds growing criticism of the president, unease about the nation's direction and opposition to the war in
Iraq.

You can read the USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-11-14-poll.htm) poll yourself.

On the key issue of terrorism, he managed to finally slip from a majority of people approving of his conduct. It is statistically a dead-split, but 49% disapproved of his handling of the issue, while 48% approved.

59% disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs generally, while 37% approve.

Mind you, those were his strongest issues. He fared worse on the economy, the situation in Iraq, and immigration.

In Iraq, the poll showed that 63% disapprove of Mr. Bush's conduct, and only 35% approve.

Mind you, he improved his poll numbers. In September, his ratings had dipped on Iraq to as bad as 67% disapproval / 32% approval.

In his control of federal spending, 71% disapprove.

His credibility -- whether people believe of him as telling the truth -- fell below 50% in September and has remained there.

Worse for the GOP, there is growing sentiment that if George Bush offered his support for a candidate, that 56% of people would be less-likely to vote for the person (34% would be more likely. To 8% it would make no difference.)
_____________

Dick Cheney gets heckled in Knoxville, TN (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051116/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney)

Who let them in here?
______________

HotZone: Iraqi Army "Their Own Drummer" (http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs1473)

There are positive signs, but also warnings about continuing corruption in the Ministry of Defense. We need to make sure that we get rid of that sort of cronyism. It is difficult after decades of the former regime.