Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

    There is only one item in this article with which I mildly disagree:

    `` There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans of
    confident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circles
    before the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able to
    establish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and that
    instead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidly
    anti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and never
    thereafter be seriously challenged. ''

    But... What about me? What about my comment that it was a bad idea to
    invade a country where civilians are armed to the teeth? As an NRA
    member, I know very well that it is a bad idea, and I was not shy to
    communicate it. But no one listened to the poor old Ignoramus!
    Everyone thought that they were genius patriots and that Ignoramus
    was, well, an ignorant traitor. Now I am in the unfortunate role of a
    Cassandra, which American servicemen are getting killed in Iraq for no
    good reason.

    Article follows:
    ================================================== ====================

    WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 (UPI) -- The "death by a thousand cuts"
    guerrilla attacks afflicting U.S. forces in Iraq are not the work of
    a centralized network of Saddam Hussein loyalists. Would that they
    were.
    Until now, aggressive U.S. counter-insurgency tactics in
    Iraq have been focused on precisely that assumption. And as a
    result, U.S. forces have had remarkable success in targeting,
    capturing and killing senior figures in Saddam's hierarchy. More
    than half the "playing deck of cards" of most wanted men has been
    apprehended -- one way or another -- since Baghdad fell four and a
    half months ago.
    But in the grimly familiar pattern of counter-insurgency
    colonial-type wars of pacification, the more battles the Bush
    administration has won on the ground, the more it has plunged
    towards losing the overall conflict.
    That is because the political strategy and the politically
    determined intelligence evaluations imposed on the highly
    professional, but appallingly undermanned and ill-equipped, U.S.
    forces in Iraq were entirely wrong to begin with.
    The hands-on policymakers in the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense were convinced that 25 million Iraqis loathed Saddam and
    would embrace the U.S. Army as their liberators. These policymakers
    also ruled out the possibility of serious guerrilla activity
    inflicting significant casualties on U.S. forces as defeatist and
    not worth even considering. No provisional planning was made for any
    such eventuality.
    Remarkably, the Pentagon civilian planners did not even make
    realistic provisions for restoring power, water and other vital
    services to Baghdad and other cities in advance. A succession of
    statements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggests that even
    when the chaotic results of this blas&233; approach became
    manifest, the Pentagon planners did not care anyway.
    And neither the Pentagon planners nor their neo-conservative
    cheering section in the U.S. media dreamed for a minute that serious
    terrorist or guerrilla opposition to the U.S. forces could or would
    be able to enjoy any serious constituency or reservoir of support
    among the Iraqi people.
    There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans of
    confident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circles
    before the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able to
    establish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and that
    instead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidly
    anti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and never
    thereafter be seriously challenged.
    But the continued steady stream of fatal attacks on U.S.
    troops, the serious sabotage already crippling Iraq's oil pipeline
    network, and the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in
    Baghdad this week can only be understood within the context of these
    unanticipated realities.
    Already, U.S. pundits are trying to use released preliminary
    forensic findings to revive their tattered old claim that the
    guerrilla attacks are almost all the work of Saddam loyalists. The
    fact that old Iraqi army munitions appear to have been used to make
    the monster bomb that demolished the U.N. compound and killed the
    U.N. envoy has been presented as "evidence" of that.
    It would be no surprise certainly if veterans of Saddam's
    old Republican Guard were involved, nor should it be unexpected that
    among the vast piles of munitions that Saddam was believed to have
    secreted away, some of them should turn up in terror attacks.
    But raw intelligence from U.S. field forces, and the
    intelligence assessments of major Middle Eastern, Western European
    and South Asian governments all point to a very different and
    coherent picture:
    Thousands of activists and supporters of al-Qaida and many
    other Sunni Muslim jihadist groups have already streamed across the
    open, undefended borders of Iraq from Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The
    Iraqi Shiites are now not merely organized but in detailed, open
    communication with supporters and sympathizers to the east in
    neighboring Iran. And, most of all, Iraqis themselves have already
    thrown their support in the hundreds of thousands to the rapidly
    organizing Sunni and Shiite indigenous forces in Baghdad, the south
    and the holy city of Najaf.
    Therefore, far from "draining the swamp" of Iraqi extremism,
    as proponents of the March-April war claimed it would do, U.S.
    success in toppling Saddam has only succeeded in creating the very
    Frankenstein monster it was supposed to destroy. The Pentagon
    policymakers have only succeeded in opening a bottomless pit from
    which the most virulent anti-American and -- as the attack on the UN
    compound showed -- anti-Western forces can now flourish and breed.
    Far from stabilizing the Middle East, this development poses
    a threat to traditional regimes in the region many orders of
    magnitude worse than anything Saddam did.
    Saudi Arabia and Jordan will be under immediate threat. The
    anti-government student protest movement in Iran is likely to be
    distracted and even superceded by the return of virulent, Islamist
    anti-American sentiments. And, far from knocking the fight out of
    Palestinian Islamist terror onslaughts against Israeli civilians,
    the growing success of the guerrilla war in Iraq has only emboldened
    them, as this week's bombing of a crowded Jerusalem bus the same day
    as the destruction of the U.N. compound amply testified.
    Ironically, contrary to the received Conventional Wisdom of
    successive U.S. governments over the past quarter of a century, a
    fiercely anti-U.S. former president of Iran may have had the best
    and most realistic constructive advice for U.S. policymakers this
    week. On Friday, former Iranian President Ali-Akbar Hashemi
    Rafsanjani called on the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq and
    let the United Nations take over.
    Rafsanjani's advice will certainly not be heeded, of course.
    For the moment, U.S. forces will stay in Iraq, and the list of U.S.
    troops killed there will grow inexorably longer with no end or even
    improvement in sight. And America will be cast more than ever in the
    role of the Great Satan in the eyes of scores of millions of
    mainstream Muslims. One does not have to own a crystal ball to be
    confident of that.


  • #2
    Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

    On 23 Aug 2003 01:21:04 GMT, Ignoramus25883
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    There is only one item in this article with which I mildly disagree:`` There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans ofconfident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circlesbefore the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able toestablish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and thatinstead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidlyanti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and neverthereafter be seriously challenged. ''But... What about me? What about my comment that it was a bad idea toinvade a country where civilians are armed to the teeth? As an NRAmember, I know very well that it is a bad idea, and I was not shy tocommunicate it. But no one listened to the poor old Ignoramus!
    My advice is to "don't worry about it." People often don't listen to
    others either.

    Anything to say about this, Tim? :-)
    Everyone thought that they were genius patriots and that Ignoramuswas, well, an ignorant traitor. Now I am in the unfortunate role of aCassandra, which American servicemen are getting killed in Iraq for nogood reason.
    Um, have often felt that way myself, but AFIK the main reference only
    technically refers to females and not males.

    "However, Cassandra was a prophetess. In Greek legend the daughter of
    Priam and Hecuba, gifted with the power of prophecy; but Apollo, whose
    advances she had refused, brought it to pass that no one would believe
    her predictions, although the were invariably correct. She appears in
    Shakespeare's _ Troilus and Cressida_."

    .....Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, first published 1870,
    Eighth [revised] edition 1963, page 180.

    If a Christian, have a look at Luke 7:30-35.

    erniegalts
    Article follows:========================================== ============================ WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 (UPI) -- The "death by a thousand cuts"guerrilla attacks afflicting U.S. forces in Iraq are not the work ofa centralized network of Saddam Hussein loyalists. Would that theywere. Until now, aggressive U.S. counter-insurgency tactics inIraq have been focused on precisely that assumption. And as aresult, U.S. forces have had remarkable success in targeting,capturing and killing senior figures in Saddam's hierarchy. Morethan half the "playing deck of cards" of most wanted men has beenapprehended -- one way or another -- since Baghdad fell four and ahalf months ago. But in the grimly familiar pattern of counter-insurgencycolonial-type wars of pacification, the more battles the Bushadministration has won on the ground, the more it has plungedtowards losing the overall conflict. That is because the political strategy and the politicallydetermined intelligence evaluations imposed on the highlyprofessional, but appallingly undermanned and ill-equipped, U.S.forces in Iraq were entirely wrong to begin with. The hands-on policymakers in the Office of the Secretary ofDefense were convinced that 25 million Iraqis loathed Saddam andwould embrace the U.S. Army as their liberators. These policymakersalso ruled out the possibility of serious guerrilla activityinflicting significant casualties on U.S. forces as defeatist andnot worth even considering. No provisional planning was made for anysuch eventuality. Remarkably, the Pentagon civilian planners did not even makerealistic provisions for restoring power, water and other vitalservices to Baghdad and other cities in advance. A succession ofstatements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggests that evenwhen the chaotic results of this blas&233; approach becamemanifest, the Pentagon planners did not care anyway. And neither the Pentagon planners nor their neo-conservativecheering section in the U.S. media dreamed for a minute that seriousterrorist or guerrilla opposition to the U.S. forces could or wouldbe able to enjoy any serious constituency or reservoir of supportamong the Iraqi people. There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans ofconfident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circlesbefore the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able toestablish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and thatinstead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidlyanti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and neverthereafter be seriously challenged. But the continued steady stream of fatal attacks on U.S.troops, the serious sabotage already crippling Iraq's oil pipelinenetwork, and the bombing of the United Nations headquarters inBaghdad this week can only be understood within the context of theseunanticipated realities. Already, U.S. pundits are trying to use released preliminaryforensic findings to revive their tattered old claim that theguerrilla attacks are almost all the work of Saddam loyalists. Thefact that old Iraqi army munitions appear to have been used to makethe monster bomb that demolished the U.N. compound and killed theU.N. envoy has been presented as "evidence" of that. It would be no surprise certainly if veterans of Saddam'sold Republican Guard were involved, nor should it be unexpected thatamong the vast piles of munitions that Saddam was believed to havesecreted away, some of them should turn up in terror attacks. But raw intelligence from U.S. field forces, and theintelligence assessments of major Middle Eastern, Western Europeanand South Asian governments all point to a very different andcoherent picture: Thousands of activists and supporters of al-Qaida and manyother Sunni Muslim jihadist groups have already streamed across theopen, undefended borders of Iraq from Saudi Arabia and Jordan. TheIraqi Shiites are now not merely organized but in detailed, opencommunication with supporters and sympathizers to the east inneighboring Iran. And, most of all, Iraqis themselves have alreadythrown their support in the hundreds of thousands to the rapidlyorganizing Sunni and Shiite indigenous forces in Baghdad, the southand the holy city of Najaf. Therefore, far from "draining the swamp" of Iraqi extremism,as proponents of the March-April war claimed it would do, U.S.success in toppling Saddam has only succeeded in creating the veryFrankenstein monster it was supposed to destroy. The Pentagonpolicymakers have only succeeded in opening a bottomless pit fromwhich the most virulent anti-American and -- as the attack on the UNcompound showed -- anti-Western forces can now flourish and breed. Far from stabilizing the Middle East, this development posesa threat to traditional regimes in the region many orders ofmagnitude worse than anything Saddam did. Saudi Arabia and Jordan will be under immediate threat. Theanti-government student protest movement in Iran is likely to bedistracted and even superceded by the return of virulent, Islamistanti-American sentiments. And, far from knocking the fight out ofPalestinian Islamist terror onslaughts against Israeli civilians,the growing success of the guerrilla war in Iraq has only emboldenedthem, as this week's bombing of a crowded Jerusalem bus the same dayas the destruction of the U.N. compound amply testified. Ironically, contrary to the received Conventional Wisdom ofsuccessive U.S. governments over the past quarter of a century, afiercely anti-U.S. former president of Iran may have had the bestand most realistic constructive advice for U.S. policymakers thisweek. On Friday, former Iranian President Ali-Akbar HashemiRafsanjani called on the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq andlet the United Nations take over. Rafsanjani's advice will certainly not be heeded, of course.For the moment, U.S. forces will stay in Iraq, and the list of U.S.troops killed there will grow inexorably longer with no end or evenimprovement in sight. And America will be cast more than ever in therole of the Great Satan in the eyes of scores of millions ofmainstream Muslims. One does not have to own a crystal ball to beconfident of that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

      On 23 Aug 2003 02:44:28 GMT, Ignoramus25883
      <[email protected]> wrote:
      In article <220820031838129590%[email protected]>, Tim May wrote:
      In article <[email protected]>, Ignoramus25883<[email protected] > wrote:
      There is only one item in this article with which I mildly disagree: `` There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans of confident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circles before the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able to establish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and that instead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidly anti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and never thereafter be seriously challenged. '' But... What about me? What about my comment that it was a bad idea to invade a country where civilians are armed to the teeth? As an NRA member, I know very well that it is a bad idea, and I was not shy to communicate it. But no one listened to the poor old Ignoramus! Everyone thought that they were genius patriots and that Ignoramus was, well, an ignorant traitor. Now I am in the unfortunate role of a Cassandra, which American servicemen are getting killed in Iraq for no good reason.
      And me, and others, even George Bush, Sr. (recall the 1998 book quote I posted here, which I'll post again at the end, as a reminder).
      Okay, so we see a rush of intelligent people trying to establish thatthey, too, warned others about the dangers of this invasion. Andobviously your predictions are well remembered. I just wanted toembellish my own role a little, as that UPI article gave me a perfectchance.The stupid sheople "patriots" who thought themselves to be experts inRealpolitik and salivated at the thought of stolen Iraqi oil, areslowly realizing that something is not quite right. Expect them toblame Bush who "misinformed" them. But make no mistake, they wereintentionally blind to his obvious lies.Even some pro-gun people forgot why the founding fathers intended usto be armed to the teeth, and decided that invading a country withmuch more brutal people who are armed to the teeth with great personalweapons (RPG-7 and AK-47), was a great idea.
      and including (despite Iraq's generally secular population) no small
      number of people more than willing to glorify themselves and secure
      eternal buddy status with Allah by blowing themselves up along with as
      many "oppressors" as possible. People so disposed as notoriously hard
      to stop. Israel's experiences with them - even after turning their
      entire country into a ****ty, repressive armed camp where fear is
      constant, torture sanctioned, and freedom basically nonexistant -
      should be ample evidence of that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

        In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (leon skunkers) wrote:
        On 23 Aug 2003 02:44:28 GMT, Ignoramus25883<[email protected] > wrote:
        In article <220820031838129590%[email protected]>, Tim May wrote:
        In article <[email protected]>, Ignoramus25883<[email protected] > wrote:> There is only one item in this article with which I mildly disagree:>> `` There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans of> confident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circles> before the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able to> establish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and that> instead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidly> anti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and never> thereafter be seriously challenged. ''>> But... What about me? What about my comment that it was a bad idea to> invade a country where civilians are armed to the teeth? As an NRA> member, I know very well that it is a bad idea, and I was not shy to> communicate it. But no one listened to the poor old Ignoramus!> Everyone thought that they were genius patriots and that Ignoramus> was, well, an ignorant traitor. Now I am in the unfortunate role of a> Cassandra, which American servicemen are getting killed in Iraq for no> good reason. And me, and others, even George Bush, Sr. (recall the 1998 book quote I posted here, which I'll post again at the end, as a reminder).
        Okay, so we see a rush of intelligent people trying to establish thatthey, too, warned others about the dangers of this invasion. Andobviously your predictions are well remembered. I just wanted toembellish my own role a little, as that UPI article gave me a perfectchance.The stupid sheople "patriots" who thought themselves to be experts inRealpolitik and salivated at the thought of stolen Iraqi oil, areslowly realizing that something is not quite right. Expect them toblame Bush who "misinformed" them. But make no mistake, they wereintentionally blind to his obvious lies.Even some pro-gun people forgot why the founding fathers intended usto be armed to the teeth, and decided that invading a country withmuch more brutal people who are armed to the teeth with great personalweapons (RPG-7 and AK-47), was a great idea.
        and including (despite Iraq's generally secular population) no small number of people more than willing to glorify themselves and secure eternal buddy status with Allah by blowing themselves up along with as many "oppressors" as possible. People so disposed as notoriously hard to stop. Israel's experiences with them - even after turning their entire country into a ****ty, repressive armed camp where fear is constant, torture sanctioned, and freedom basically nonexistant - should be ample evidence of that.
        yep... we should have let them live in their own **** and not try to go
        in and steal their oil...

        i

        Comment


        • #5
          Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

          Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they
          invaded?





          Comment


          • #6
            Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

            No..I was referring to Greylock's post...I agree with your views...



            Ignoramus24807 wrote in message ...
            In article <[email protected]>, Clete wrote:
            Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?
            What are you trying to say? That I should cheerfully accept anymilitary misadventure?i

            Comment


            • #7
              Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq


              "Clete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:[email protected]
              Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?
              Gunner has stated he would...

              Dan


              Comment


              • #8
                Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

                I just wondered how many of the people who are supporting the military
                action would still support it if there was a Democrat in the
                Whitehouse and not a Republican.

                Jeff

                On 23 Aug 2003 19:55:33 GMT, Ignoramus24807
                <[email protected]> wrote:
                In article <[email protected]>, Clete wrote:
                Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?
                What are you trying to say? That I should cheerfully accept anymilitary misadventure?i

                Comment


                • #9
                  Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

                  I have no idea, I hate democrats because they want to take away my
                  guns. I actually voted for that turd Bush.

                  i

                  In article <[email protected]>, jeff s wrote:
                  I just wondered how many of the people who are supporting the military action would still support it if there was a Democrat in the Whitehouse and not a Republican. Jeff On 23 Aug 2003 19:55:33 GMT, Ignoramus24807<[email protected] > wrote:
                  In article <[email protected]>, Clete wrote:
                  Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?
                  What are you trying to say? That I should cheerfully accept anymilitary misadventure?i

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

                    In article <[email protected]>, Dan
                    <[email protected]> wrote:
                    "Clete" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
                    Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?
                    Gunner has stated he would...
                    Well, there's a certain subbreed of "homo militaricus.'

                    These are the people who shout "Hoo-rahhh!" at random intervals.

                    And they talk, in seeming seriousness, about how when their kind ends
                    up in their version of the Pearly Gates, that some honor brigade of
                    past soldiers will snap to attention, raise their swords and muskets
                    and shoult "Yes, Sir!" as they pass.

                    And they say "My country, right or wrong."

                    And the call other people "Son."

                    I am chortling to see the latest disgrace of the American imperialist
                    state and the foolish cannon fodder material now dying on a daily
                    basis.

                    Maybe someday the Constitution and limited government will become
                    fashionable again and we won't have people posturing as "Gunner" and
                    saying he'll stomp anyone who questions Our Supreme Commander, Whose
                    Boots Must Be Licked by Patriots!

                    "Hoooo-rahhhhh!"


                    --Tim May

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

                      Gunner probably has a lot of fond memories from his youth that he
                      spent in the military, hence his attitude.

                      i

                      In article <230820031753440613%[email protected]>, Tim May wrote:
                      In article <[email protected]>, Dan<[email protected]> wrote:
                      "Clete" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
                      Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?
                      Gunner has stated he would...
                      Well, there's a certain subbreed of "homo militaricus.' These are the people who shout "Hoo-rahhh!" at random intervals. And they talk, in seeming seriousness, about how when their kind ends up in their version of the Pearly Gates, that some honor brigade of past soldiers will snap to attention, raise their swords and muskets and shoult "Yes, Sir!" as they pass. And they say "My country, right or wrong." And the call other people "Son." I am chortling to see the latest disgrace of the American imperialist state and the foolish cannon fodder material now dying on a daily basis. Maybe someday the Constitution and limited government will become fashionable again and we won't have people posturing as "Gunner" and saying he'll stomp anyone who questions Our Supreme Commander, Whose Boots Must Be Licked by Patriots! "Hoooo-rahhhhh!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

                        In article <[email protected]>,
                        [email protected] says...
                        "erniegalts" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
                        On 24 Aug 2003 04:10:07 GMT, Ignoramus24807 <[email protected]> wrote:
                        Gunner probably has a lot of fond memories from his youth that hespent in the military, hence his attitude.i
                        Very probably. Lots of people who fought in the Pacific in WW2 apparently talked about it for decades afterwards. Must have been quite an adventure for someone from the central or northern states to be shipped there. For some the duty might have been much as is depicted in the movie "South Pacific". As people age, they tend to remember the good and suppress and/or repress the bad. They tend to forget or minimize the danger, the boredom, the discomfort, etc. Have met people with fond memories of both world wars. Must admit haven't met that many with fond memories of Korea or Vietnam, though. Some claim that Iraq is starting to look a lot like Vietnam. See my earlier post . Can't wait for Tim's comments on it. :-)
                        Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of operations either. Vietnam...B.S.
                        IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on
                        American highways. I've also never met *anyone* who says we lost the war
                        in Vietnam to a superior military force. In fact, I've met a few who say
                        we never lost. We just found a better use for the troops and withdrew
                        them from that theater of operations. Care to make any predictions on
                        our exit strategy for Iraq?

                        Later,
                        Joe

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

                          Joe Kultgen said for all posterity...
                          [email protected] says...
                          Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of operations either. Vietnam...B.S.
                          IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on American highways.
                          Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents.
                          This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think.

                          I imagine that only a small minority of the population is aware of
                          this statistic.



                          Casey

                          "It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

                            Casey <[email protected]> writes:
                            Joe Kultgen said for all posterity...
                            [email protected] says...
                            Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of operations either. Vietnam...B.S.
                            IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on American highways.
                            Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents. This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think.
                            Actually, there has been a lot of variation. The "fatalities per mile
                            driven" has been decreasing steadily for quite a long time. It is now
                            less than 1/3 of what it was in 1957!

                            The fatalities per year peaked at about 55,000 per year in 1972, and
                            1973, and then declined sharply. (Can you say "gas lines" and
                            "national 55 mph speed limit?") It is now, indeed near 40,000
                            fatalities per year, as it was 40 years ago, but with many more miles
                            driven!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Commentary: Death by 1,000 cuts in Iraq

                              Doug Anderson said for all posterity...
                              Casey <[email protected]> writes:
                              Joe Kultgen said for all posterity...
                              [email protected] says... > > Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around > 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the > same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and > other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the > rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of > operations either. Vietnam...B.S. > > IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on American highways.
                              Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents. This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think.
                              Actually, there has been a lot of variation. The "fatalities per mile driven" has been decreasing steadily for quite a long time. It is now less than 1/3 of what it was in 1957!
                              Yes, I know. The aggregate number of deaths has remained fairly
                              constant even though the number of drivers has steadily increased.
                              I was just remarking on the magnitude of the total number in
                              relation to combat casualties.
                              The fatalities per year peaked at about 55,000 per year in 1972, and 1973, and then declined sharply. (Can you say "gas lines" and "national 55 mph speed limit?") It is now, indeed near 40,000 fatalities per year, as it was 40 years ago, but with many more miles driven!
                              True. As I said above, I was just pointing out that (roughly)
                              40,000 die from something that most people don't give a lot of
                              thought to.


                              Casey

                              "It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X