I read today about a "milestone" in Iraq. More soldiers have died in combat since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations than died before.
Some folks are spinning this as a sign of further Bush lies, that major combat is still ongoing, that he lied when he said it was over.
I really shouldn't have to say this, since it's evident to anyone without an ax to grind, but the fact that it took roughly 6 months (May 1 to Oct 29) to equal the combat deaths suffered in 6 weeks of combat (Mar 20-May 1) is a fair indication that major combat is, in fact, over.
Posted by Rich at October 29, 2003 6:16 PM | TrackBackAnd lets not forget that once "major combat" was called finished, the rules of enguagement changed considerably. Had they not, I am willing to bet that there would have been even fewer deaths among coalition members.
We aren't training our military to become UN peacekeeprs are we?
Posted by: radtec on October 30, 2003 12:52 PMThis just in...
Between July 14 and November 9, 1996 over 25,000 people died in the United States of various causes.
Since then, there have been over 750,000 deaths in the United States.
When will this madness end???? Pull out of the US at once. Canada is bigger, and can hold most all of us. Mexico can handle the overflow.
note: I made up the numbers...I have no idea the real figures but you get the point
Posted by: Barry on October 30, 2003 3:50 PMBarry, maybe you should take your fun statistics and recite them at the funeral of a fallen soldier. I'm sure it would put everything in perspective for the family.
As for "rules of engagement", I wonder who's brilliant policy it was let the Iraq army fade away, and to let Saddam get away in the process. Even if we catch him, clearly we will kill him.
Trouble is, then there's no trial. Worse, there's no "political leader" in Iraq who can officially surrender and end the hostilities. Indeed, this is a very different kind of war. Minor little difference, too, in the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Japan and Germany.
Posted by: skb on November 3, 2003 7:59 PMBarry, maybe you should take your fun statistics and recite them at the funeral of a fallen soldier. I'm sure it would put everything in perspective for the family.
As for "rules of engagement", I wonder who's brilliant policy it was let the Iraq army fade away, and to let Saddam get away in the process. Even if we catch him, clearly we will kill him.
Trouble is, then there's no trial. Worse, there's no "political leader" in Iraq who can officially surrender and end the hostilities. Indeed, this is a very different kind of war. Minor little difference, too, in the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Japan and Germany.
Posted by: skb on November 3, 2003 7:59 PMskb.....I'm almost certain that the 'falling away of the Iraqi army' is discussed in great detail at an Iraqi bloggers site, Healing Iraq. I wondered about how all of these intricate and complicated issues played out also, but if I'm reading your vibes right...it isn't the fault of the US, it was in motion by the Iraqi's themselves before we arrived. Check out his blog and I think you'll see what a lot of folks have forgotten; Iraqi's weren't just sitting stagnant like a pool of bad water. They had their own internal shifts going on and had implimented plans of their own to bring about some very important changes which we are now seeing.
Posted by: radtec on November 4, 2003 2:01 PM