Since May 1, the day GW declared the war in Iraq a victory, 23 soldiers have died. That is almost 1 each day. If it keeps on like this, it will be a strange victory. This Washington Post story helps keep some perspective on the Iraq victory.

Is the war over, or is real victory still a long way off? What do those on SP think?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/918152.asp?0sl=-12

As Bush annoucned it was a first battle in a perpetual war for whatever purpose, let's, for the sake of goodness, say US interests - eventually no one really believes in the war on terror anymore. As it is only a step of many to come calling it victory is myopia.

Better get used to it. In the coming years there will be more US soldiers dieing. Unless the US prefer to get rid of Bush Jr. and his goons.

Victory a long way off? Depends on what you consider the objectives are. Iraq is not pacified, protesters and imams are clearly opposed to US presence, I don't think they will calm down soon. "Hopefully" for American families, Polish troops will now share the casuality bill.

Also,

Pentagon officials note that the current casualty rate is not much different from the rate in peacetime trainingWhere does peacetime training take place, home or abroad? And one soldier a day or every two day dying in training, isn't that a little bit much?

On May 10, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld pledged to commit as many troops as necessary to stabilize the country, adding that “anyone who thinks they know how long it’s going to take is fooling themselves.”
Seems like I and Donnie Rumsfeld agree on this. I interpret his ...ahm... very vague and ambiguous describing of "long" as: It's going to take a very, very long time. Hey, Rome wasn't build in a day, how long will it take to reshape a country ? Our American friends won't pack their bags too soon.

Hm, was that really Rumsfeld ? Sounds more like Greenspan. But then, Greenspan wouldn't say "fooling".

Where does peacetime training take place, home or abroad? And one soldier a day or every two day dying in training, isn't that a little bit much? They have a huge army, so, statistically speaking, that isn't too much in peacetime.

Last I checked, more American soldiers died in training than in war.

So it is actually safer to go to war :heh:

I believe that the war in Iraq has nowentered a new state and has not ended as Mr. Bush said
This article is saying pretty much the same
Look this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030527/ts_nm/iraq_attack_dc) and this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nyt/20030526/ts_nyt/iraqis_frustrated_by_shift_favoring_u_s__british_r ule&e=1)
The Iraqies now just don't feel to happy about the presence of the US forces in their country and i fear that we will see more of this in the near future. Not to say that if the US forces decide to apply the ultimatum they gave we will have a whole new war in Iraq

[ May 27, 2003, 14:08: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

The Iraqi's shouldn't be whining like little children. Would they rather have Saddam back in charge ?

I don't think they mind Saddam, I think it's mainly his son Uday, that people are more afraid of.

The Iraqi's shouldn't be whining like little children. Would they rather have Saddam back in charge ? That's the problem with the pandora's box of freedom. People are free to have their own opinions, free to say what the like and what they don't like. They are free to make their own decisions. Occupation and freedom usually don't work well together, no taxation without representation.

Freedom is just "untidy".

I believe a philosopher once said: "It is better to be a feared ruler than a loved one." And in the case of the Iraqis now, I am inclined to agree. It seems that the US soft tactics are not working. At least during Saddams time, fear was the ruler, and it ruled well.

I believe a philosopher once said: "It is better to be a feared ruler than a loved one." Machiavelli, if I am not mistaken. No wonder no one likes him (or at least doesn't want to be connected to him), except Stalin, who obviously was very inspired by him.

Well, his little philosophy does work during times of unrest.

The Iraqi's shouldn't be whining like little children. Would they rather have Saddam back in charge ? That's an amazing thought. Like the colonial perspective on africa and asia back at the end of the 19th century ... "... these pagan savages still live in the stoneage, it's the white man's burden to guide them out of the darkness."

That hybris has a nice charm in it, embracing the sense of mission so astonishing in the US: The iraqis, unable to help themselves got US (or better: Bush Jr's ) help, right out of the sky, unasked and were bombed to freedom with the best intentions :rolleyes: sure :rolleyes: . That would sound splendid for anyone who foolishly believes the US are, or have ever been, interested in human rights and freedom in iraq - are the US in zaire where another genocide is underway? Have they been in Pol Pot's cambodia?

[ May 28, 2003, 00:44: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Yago - I know you like to read history. There is a line of theory that as a work of literature, _The Prince_ is entirely ironic. It goes on that Mac had become so disillusioned with the politics of Italy during the late 15th/early 16th century that he wrote it as a giant satire, mostly as a challenge to the Medici. The essay is by Garret Mattingly: "The Prince: Political Science or Political Satire?" The textbook I found it in was, _Major Problems with the History of the Italian Renaissance_. It may change your opinion of Mac, somewhat.

[ May 29, 2003, 03:32: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Although it may sound strange but Machiavelli was a genius in the political theories his work although is condemned by a lot of people it is secretly followed by them even unconciously.
But here the main problem is that the Iraqies want to be self governed and at first they thought that the US army will come in bring down Saddam Husein and go out but they were gravely mistaken as the facts have shown :rolleyes: .
So now they decided to show their annoyance with the guerillas and the total disregard of the US army orders and ultimatums. This will lead to far more troubles than the US officials think.

At Chandos the red: My opinion of Machiavelli isn't as bad as it sounded first. It's purpose as guidance for "princes" was fulfilled. The best example is Frederick the great of prussia, who actually has written an essay on Machiavelli in his youth, the bottom line of it was something like:" Why you should never do what Machiavelli says you should do". And there's a famous quote of him, something like:"Machiavelli shows the kings and queens how wrong they can be". So, Frederick would have never become "the great" or the "enlightend absolutist", if he wouldn't have learned his Machiavelli so well.

Frederick, a.k.a. as the "enigma", on the other hand has left a lot of interesting thoughts, which are very likely to be influenced by Machiavelli's cynism and irony, like:

"God is always on the side of the strongest army"

" I take first. I will find a educated person later to show that I have the perfect right to do so."

Well, this is a birlliant application of "the end justifies the means", in my view.

The problem with Machiavelli is on the other hand, you need some further studies and knowledge in renaissance and enlightment, to get the not so obvious presented meaning. Which you have, Chandos. And Frederick did, because one of his teachers was Voltaire. So, Machiavelli often gets summarized as:" Do whatever you please, as long you have the power to do so". Which on the other hand justifies the use of Machiavelli as "hm, that's sounds machiavellistic".

As far as casualties go, the body count in Iraq is extremely low.

The following was copied and pasted from a post I made earlier. I've modified the text slightly.

Here are the statistics of U.S. casualities per war. In many cases, these numbers will be far too low. These do not reflect the brave British soldiers that were lost in World War II.

Revolutionary War: 4,435 War of 1812 (vs Canada): 2,260 Mexican War: 13,283 Civil War: 558,052 Spanish-American War: 2,446 World War I: 116,708 World War II: 407,316 Korean War: 33,651 Vietnam War: 58,168 Gulf War (1991): 293
It should be noted that in World War I and II, European civilian and military casualties were massive. :cry:

Blackhawk don't forget that the technology has evolved in order to disengage the people from the unpleasentries of the war. So i do believe that the bodycount of US soldiers in Iraq is a number worth considering.

Blackhawk inspired me to compare the losses of WW2 with any other war. Note: This is killed, not casualties.

Yes, every war seems small compared to WW2

Allied soldiers killed

France and Free French Forces: 210,000
China: 2,050,000
Soviet Union : 13,700,000
United Kingdom: 264,000
United States: 292,000

Soldiers killed in attacked countries:

Yugoslavia: 300,000
Poland: 123,000
Czechoslovakia: 46,000
Greece: 88,300
Finland: 82,000

Axis soldiers killed

Germany: 3,500,000 (includes Austrians and Sudetengermans in German Army)
Hungary: 200,000
Italy (to 1943): 60,000
Japan: 1,300,000
Romania (to 1944): 290,000

Civilians Killed:

France : 350,000
Germany: 1,600,000
Hungary: 290,000
Japan: 672,000
Poland: 5,680,000
Soviet Union : 7,000,000
Yugoslavia: 1,200,000 The list is from:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

I left the small countries out.

So, I don't think, that the Americans plan to get near the Russian losses in WW2, but how many soldiers is many ? What if there's an uprising in Iraq, which kills 1000 Americans and 100'000 Iraqis ?

According to The Times, US losses might come from Afghanistan as well. Taliban forces are known to be regrouping on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan to mount attacks on American troops, with support from Pakistani groups. It seems the Mullah there have been reinforced with fresh new recruits and are fighting a guerilla against US and regular Afghan soldiers.

One can wonder if the war in Iraq is over. In Afghanistan, the war might start again (or maybe it never ended)

Between that, Iraq, training and terrorist attacks, losses could mount this summer.

Thanks for the better statistics. Evidently my stats included those too wounded to fight.

Anyway, as an American, I can assure you that we are ready to take massive casualties. We are fighting for survival against a world that became rather hostile and evil after September 11. We already lost over 3000.

Excuse me Blackhawk but you have it a little mixed up here. USA is not fighting to survive, USA is fighting to dominate and that is totally different.
And one more thing the world was not hostile or evil after 9/11 in fact all the world (except from terrorists) was sympathetic and was pro at first in the declared war of USA against terrorism. But the course of actions followed afterwards made it clear that maybe there are other reasons behind this declared war that have nothing to do with terrorism.

At Blackhack. Sorry, I wasn't intending to say, that statistics killed where somehow better. I just wanted to say, that the statistics are different because of the difference between causalties and killed. I wanted to secure, that it wouldn't seem as I would question the accuracy of your statistics, for someone, espacially non-English speakers, as myself, who may not be aware, that causalties does not mean the same as killed, because of lack of vocabulary, which was the case for me once upon a time, which was rather embarassing for me. I thaught earlier, casualties would be a synonym for "killed".

I fear that we will see more of these reports and more deaths from both sides as thing will most probably will get worse. I have read this (http://www.msnbc.com/news/919850.asp?0dm=N234N#BODY) article and i can't understand what the US soldiers are trying to do.Create more enemies;
We’re not going to risk the lives of one of our soldiers to be culturally sensitive.’
— CAPT. PAUL KUETTNER
An intelligence officer

As for casualties, well, no battle in history has been so lopsided in favor of one group -- 26 Americans dead? While I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of those who are dead, that number is NOTHING compared to the numbers mentioned before. As has been mentioned earlier by several people, some statistics show that over certain time periods, it's safer for a soldier to be in war than a soldier during peacetime!

As for cultural sensitivity, I'm behind that army guy 100%. If I (or anyone iunder my command) were being shot at, I'd run for the nearest and best cover, even if it were a priceless antique holy to the people whose land in which I am in. And I'd make no apoligies for saving my own skin. If the cultural traditions of the country I'm stationed in says I should paint a big honking target on my chest, guess what aspect of their culture I'm going to ignore?

I don't see the need to be deliberately disrespectful towards a culture, but if it's a safety issue, my skin comes first. If I get shot at, I'm going to look everywhere possible for the guy that did it so he doesn't have a second chance. If that offends some people, well, tough luck.

“They are provoking us,” said Fawzi Saud, 46, a teacher whose house was searched Tuesday. “This is a violation of our dignity. They have no right to enter our house and search it. I’m not a soldier, I’m not a policeman, I’m not a party member.”

helicopters had flown low overhead, they said, allowing soldiers to see families sleeping on their roofs to escape the summer heat. The soldiers then entered homes without the men present, addressing wives and daughters. No rooms were left unsearched, the Iraqis said, including bedrooms. All these actions, they complained, violated their sense of what is right.

Foreigners are respected, residents said, if they show respect.

But the Americans, Saud said, are no longer guests.
“They’re going to stay a long time, if they have it their way,” he said. “But the people will refuse. They won’t tolerate it.”

Everyone in the modest room nodded in agreement. “We’re not hostile people,” he explained. “We don’t make any trouble. But if the Americans are hostile to us, we’ll be hostile to them.”
That all sounds very reasonable to me. Now, the Americans are some kind of police-force, they have to play by the rules, like every police-force has to do, even if for Americans, private property is a strange thing, they have to find a way to the necessary things, without violating the basic rules. Even if they were shot at and now searching for hints and clues, they are strangers in a strange land, they have to get used to the fact, they are not allowed to do there, what they may be allowed in their home country. It may not be offensive for Americans or Canadians, if suddenly some people equipped with arms would storm into a house and search it through, but for me, it would be very annoying.

As for the cultural sensitivty thing I can say that it is alot safer to show respect and care in the long run than it is to walk around with a paranoid and aggressive attitude. It must be better to let the hate and anger that the Iraqis feel cool down by treating them gently and respectulful than to drive into ambushes set by Iraqi's who are not only pissed off for the invasion but also pissed off for the so called liberators being insensitive uncultural louts. That is one of the main reason the British has been doing so well with their governing of Basra.

To Yago:
Don't worry, I didn't take it as an insult of any kind. You displayed what is probably better stats. Yago-1, Blackhawk-0 :)

Mithrantir said:
Excuse me Blackhawk but you have it a little mixed up here. USA is not fighting to survive, USA is fighting to dominate and that is totally different.
I assure you, from an American perspective, we are fighting to prevent massive terrorist attacks - ones with biological or nuclear weapons. Iraq was controlled by an dictator. Dictators by their very nature act out of what is best for them, not their people. Democracies, on the other hand, are governments of the people, for the people.

It wasn't a case of "if" Iraq attacked, but "when".

Of course, Iraq was giving money to the suicide-murders in Israel. This reason alone should condemn their government to destruction.

Mithrantir said:
And one more thing the world was not hostile or evil after 9/11 in fact all the world (except from terrorists) was sympathetic and was pro at first in the declared war of USA against terrorism. But the course of actions followed afterwards made it clear that maybe there are other reasons behind this declared war that have nothing to do with terrorism.
It has everything to do with terrorism. It appears now, to Americans, that many nations were for the "concept" of a war on terror, but didn't realize that they would have to get their hands dirty. "Fair weather friends" - that's what they are.

[ May 31, 2003, 08:35: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

The US is not fighting for survival, I'm sure that's what the media say to justify things (war, patriot act, defense budget...) but when I see what the US is doing I wonder: if the objective is to topple dangerous dictators, logic suggests go for N-Korea. Kim Jong-Il threaten America publicly, yet it is Iraq that gets crushed. What is the link between Iraq and Al-Qaida again? Where are the weapons? I'm not sure Bush is winning this "war on terror", I see what the Israeli are doing to prevent terrorist attacks: invade, kill, level houses, occupy... it obviously doesn't work and actually give birth to new breeds of terrorists. Strange how Bush pushes for the end of Israeli occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state when he is doing just the opposite in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When I see the US army going somewhere, I see pipelines, oil, natural gas, bases being constructed at strategic keypoints, failure to accomplish official objectives (Where's Ossama? where's Saddam?), I see money for Lokeed-Martin and Halliburton going into the pocket of well-know characters of the Bush regime, I see the dollar being introduced as the currency in a country which had changed all its belongings to Euro, I see not so happy "liberated" people protesting, I see puppet regimes being installed...

Also, democracy is, in theory, run by the people (or its representatives), but that's theory, in practice our western democracies are run by oligarchs and tycoons and I think they put their interest before that of the people they represent. I believe there are people on SP who don't think "Shrub" is acting for the best of the American people.

When the European powers invaded China, it was because "the Chinese were so many they would conquer the world" or something like that, then the British and French "democracies" waged a defensive war on the other side of the planet, also claiming the "burden of the white man" was to bring civilisation to the savages (ie not-white). All profit made in colonised China were "side-effects".

When the US do a preemptive war (saying if we don't they'll get us) and bring democracy and freedom to people on the other side of the planet, claiming "it's not for the oil", I can't help but see history repeating itself.

The first rule of war propaganda is: the enemy is the attacker, if we don't fight him he will destroy us. And Fox-News is flooding TV-watchers with centuries-old propaganda like this, the US is not waging a war for its survival, it's a war of imperial conquest, securing ressources and geostrategic places.

Oxymore Said:
The US is not fighting for survival, I'm sure that's what the media say to justify things (war, patriot act, defense budget...) but when I see what the US is doing I wonder: if the objective is to topple dangerous dictators, logic suggests go for N-Korea. Kim Jong-Il threaten America publicly, yet it is Iraq that gets crushed. What is the link between Iraq and Al-Qaida again? Where are the weapons? I'm not sure Bush is winning this "war on terror", I see what the Israeli are doing to prevent terrorist attacks: invade, kill, level houses, occupy... it obviously doesn't work and actually give birth to new breeds of terrorists.
Do address you points, one by one:
The media in the United States is not controlled by the government. In fact, the first item in the Bill of Rights expressly states that the government cannot interfere with free speech. The U.S. is not communist. The U.S. is not like most nations on this planet.
- Korea is a danger - that is obvious. However, to spite his public statements, Kim Jong-Il has a sense of honor and, as a result, is not in the same category as Bin Laden, Saddam and Chirac. The nations that are in the gaze of the U.S. right now are Iran and Syria.
- The link between Iraq and Bin Laden? Americans rolled their eyes when we heard Bush try to make this point. I realized it was mainly to make many of the European community happy. In fact, who cares? The U.S. declared a war on terror - not Al Qaeda.
- Israel's treatment of the Palensteinians does not create terrorism. Terrorism mainly works on hate and bigotry which lies right under the surface. The reason that the Nazis were able to capture the hearts of the German people is due to the fact that their was a degree of bigotry under the surface. The Nazi philosophy merely justified their opinions and give them strength.

The same is true in Palenstein. Israel's treatment only gives justification to hate and, due to the ideal of "martyrs", we have suicide-bombers.

Very few Americans - at least those who are adults - do not expect the suicide attacks to end even if Palenstein becomes an independant and free state. Attacks will continue and Israel will close its borders - permenantly. This is unfortunate, but will be the progression of events.

The media in the United States is not controlled by the government. In fact, the first item in the Bill of Rights expressly states that the government cannot interfere with free speech. The U.S. is not communist. The U.S. is not like most nations on this planet. The media are not controlled by governments in western countries but they have close relations with them (or with the opposition), therefore they help governments and political parties to spread their propaganda.

Israel's treatment of the Palensteinians does not create terrorism. Terrorism mainly works on hate and bigotry which lies right under the surface. The reason that the Nazis were able to capture the hearts of the German people is due to the fact that their was a degree of bigotry under the surface. The Nazi philosophy merely justified their opinions and give them strength.

The same is true in Palenstein. Israel's treatment only gives justification to hate and, due to the ideal of "martyrs", we have suicide-bombers.

Very few Americans - at least those who are adults - do not expect the suicide attacks to end even if Palenstein becomes an independant and free state. Attacks will continue and Israel will close its borders - permenantly. This is unfortunate, but will be the progression of events.
Terrorism is created by hate and hate is created by bad treatment, therefore bad treatment creates terrorism. A person becomes suicide bombers when he has nothing to lose. If palestinians had a free state, where they could have a decent living without the continuous fear of the israeli raids, do you think that they would continue the suicide attacks? Just see how things have become more peaceful in Ireland and UK after the beginning of the peace process. Also, this particular hate started 60 years ago,while during the middle ages the arab territories were the safer places for the jews,while one of the favourite sports of the european nobles and knights was the jew hunting. I don't claim that problems will not exist if Palestine becomes a free state but things will be definately better.

As for the nazi Germany, the reasons for the hate were the terms of the Versaille treaty, which hurt the national pride of the Germans more than the defeat and led Germany to an economical crisis

I assure you, from an American perspective, we are fighting to prevent massive terrorist attacks - ones with biological or nuclear weapons. Iraq was controlled by an dictator. Dictators by their very nature act out of what is best for them, not their people. Democracies, on the other hand, are governments of the people, for the people.

It wasn't a case of "if" Iraq attacked, but "when". Do you know where Iraq lies and who was really threatened by the famous WMDs that the US army can't find;
I guess not because there were no WMDs and Iraq lies so far from USA that not even there top technology weapon can breach that distance.
As for the invasion in Iraq i suppose you have never heard your president recently saying that USA invaded Iraq to maintain world peace or to exterminate terrorist organizations, because neither have i and there is a simple reason for that. Mr. Bush is only saying that he wanted to get rid of Saddam Husein and i don't take this as a good enough reason for the enormous budget the US administration spent in order to wage this war.
As for the excuse of the bio and chemical weapons it has faded and even wiped out of the administration brains (and as i see most people too) because it was no real excuse and they knew it.
It has everything to do with terrorism. It appears now, to Americans, that many nations were for the "concept" of a war on terror, but didn't realize that they would have to get their hands dirty. "Fair weather friends" - that's what they are. You are either in a different world or i can't see what this invasion had to do with the war against terrorism. And i can't understand how one can fight terrorism by using terror as a mean.
Korea is a danger - that is obvious. However, to spite his public statements, Kim Jong-Il has a sense of honor and, as a result, is not in the same category as Bin Laden, Saddam and Chirac. The nations that are in the gaze of the U.S. right now are Iran and Syria.
Excuse me!!!!!Chirac is in the same category as Bin Laden. I hope you are joking and i don't want to speak any more.
As for the gaze please be carefull not to be blinded from the sun. :rolleyes:
@Lord Kelin Depaara all the Iraqies wanted was not to search the house untill there was a man of the house inside it is not allowed for the Muslim women to talk or even been seen by foreigners. Is that to much to ask; I think not and if the US soldiers have accepted this request it would be a phantastic diplomatic move too since they would show they care about the people :(

[ June 03, 2003, 13:36: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

Well, the news is not good today, since another 6 Americans were killed in Iraq. Here is a clip from a news story that I found disturbing:

IN RETALIATION, U.S. troops backed by Bradley fighting vehicles swept through Iraqi neighborhoods before dawn Saturday, blasting houses suspected of being insurgent hideouts with machine guns and heavy weapons fire.
“This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them,” said Lt. Col. Steven Russell, commander of the 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment. Russell also said the 11 p.m.-to-4 a.m. curfew, lifted for the start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, had been reimposed Friday night.
The U.S. death toll for the week climbed to 32, including those aboard the Black Hawk. Two other soldiers were killed near Mosul, raising concerns that the insurgency was spreading north.
These kinds of reprisals against "the town" are a big mistake, IMO. A heavy-handed approach will only backfire on them in the long run. While I agree that they need to conduct search and destroy type missions against those who are attacking our guys, it is mistake to believe that the general population is to blame. Soon we will begin to hear that the war can only be won by "winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people." Then it will be all over. America will be like the Russians in Afghanistan, chased out of the country by missile-toting tribesmen.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CB10

[ November 08, 2003, 05:32: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Chandos, I agree that the news is bleak. There have been at least a couple of bright spots, that have largely gone overlooked, such as described here (http://www.msnbc.com/news/990354.asp?0dm=C22DN) .

This is actually a remarkable stance, especially considering some of the Islamic leaders quoted in the article. Doesn't change the death of some American soldier, but this is the most positive response since the Carter administration.

Well i hope that these words will be followed by actions because if not then things will get a whole lot more worse than anticipated.
And he acknowledged shortcomings in past policy, saying the United States and other nations shared blame for the lack of democratic freedoms in the Middle East.
“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,” Bush said Thursday. I think that most Arabs would agree with this statement, but the West must prove its words by acting towards Democracy and peace.
“It is a new vision from the United States now because they focus on democracy. For a long time, they focused on economy and commercial interests. It is historical because the United States is talking about democracy and the interest of the people in these countries.” Well i hope that president Bush really meant this statement because if he tries to use it as a cloack for his own goals, USA will face the greatest distrust and dislike than ever before.

Ah, but Mithrantir, you're confusing the meaning of the word democracy here, understandable given your background. When Bush uses the word, he does not refer to the political sense that we have obtained from Greece, no, these words have changed over time in different geological areas. What he is reffering to is vassals ;)

Bush gave no plan for implementing this new tactic, and thus, chances or he has none and it won't work.

Besides, even though I'm a day late, we should show some thanks to all the troops - for those of us in the U.S., we celebrate Veteran's Day this week.

According to an analyis (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3820826) of Reuters the number of dead americans in Iraq has surpassed the number of dead in the first three years of the Vietnam war. 392 american soldiers died from the end of 1961 until the end of 1964, while 393 soldiers died in Iraq from the beginning of the operation iraqi freedom until now.

I'm posting this here because it doesn't fit anywhere really but may be interesting. This is a blog which is generating discussion at other blogs of varying leanings. The blog linked appears to be conservative to me but I am really not familiar with it enough to state its general position having only come across it today. What's interesting to me is the "Ghosts of Occupations Past" series that the blogger is publishing starting Nov 4, 2003. There are a lot of disimilarities in the comparisons but there are some similarities as well. The assertion is that media coverage is focused on certain types of events and may not necessarily show a complete picture.

What the blogger is doing is showing old news articles from other occupations and allowing a comparison to the news articles today. If you're not familiar with blogs, you can read the comments under each entry. It starts with the Nov 4 entry:

http://www.thecr.blogspot.com/

For the record, I'll say it again before it gets out of control: there are a lot of problems with the comparison. Things are certainly not good in Iraq. Iraq, imo, hangs in the balance. But, I do think that some stories are much more reported than others. The above is just food for thought.

Edit -

More food for thought? Finding old news articles and looking at them is taking off it seems; primarily conservative sites:

Two links to two parts of the 1946 Life Magazine article about how the US occupation of Germany was a failure:

The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm

And another with the 1946 Saturday Evening Post about how the occupation was being botched:

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012288.php

Of course, the sites are what they are, but the copied articles are also what they are. Not sure what to make of them.

Edit part deux - cut out some peripheral garbage.

[ November 14, 2003, 22:17: Message edited by: Laches ]

500 and how many more?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3985863&p1=0

“I think it’s symbolic in the sense that maybe a lot of people who have not paid attention in recent weeks ... will say, ’I thought that we were in much better shape than this,’ and, ’What’s going on?”’ Lawrence J. Korb, vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations and an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, told The Associated Press.

“I don’t think it will lead to demands for withdrawal or anything like that, but I think it will lead people to ask, ’What’s going on,’ and, ’What’s the end game here? When does it end?”’

A good question: "When does it end?"

Bush on Bush, debating Al Gore in 2000:

BUSH: If this were a spending contest, I’d come in second. I readily admit, I’m not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. [There was a question about] deployment. It must be in the national interests. It must be in our vital interest whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we’re going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I’m concerned that we’re overdeployed around the world. You see, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war, and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often

[ January 17, 2004, 20:35: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]