Has anyone noticed the high amount of U.S. military deaths?

[imported_Equinox]

McCain said he would feel perfectly comfortable strolling around Baghdad without any armed escort. Of course, he finally took the advice of the Sr. Officer and took an escort "just because". http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4444546
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mccain-iraq-stroll/
And he was pretty much greeted with laughter at such comments.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/28/roberts-cnn-mccain-iraq/

And then predictably he claimed that he never said it, or "didn't mean it that way".

And if you look at the expression on the faces of the troops, they don't look like they believe it's safe either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/world...1d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
But he thinks that mostly things are better.

Somehow, I'm not really convinced. Something about the saying one thing, denying it, seeing proof via a photograph, and then getting those types of reports.

If it is frustrating for those of us here to hear lies like that, how are our troops feeling? That's what is important.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Looks like there is some effort to keep it low key during the 'Sucessfull Surge',
or to try to make that appearance.

We've reached a 50% of the fatality rate that Vietnam averaged out at over it's 10 year span,
but reached that number with only 1/3 of the troop level a few years earlier as well.
Technology and medical improvements have further reduced the fatality rate,
so many more survive now that would have not made it back then.
Not a good sigh for a tinderbox that is set to explode.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
It's wartime. I wouldnt expect anything less in spite of what I actually think. Wartime brings deaths. At least each war we fight we get less and less deaths. One great thing war does is boost along technology.

It does suck though. Especially those of us who have lost loved ones. At least in my experience directly, they died doing what they loved.

ORLY?

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Looks like there is some effort to keep it low key duting the Sucessfull Surge, or tp try to make that appearance.

We've reached a 50% of the fatality rate that Vietnam averaged out at over it's 10 year span, but reached that number with only 1/3 of the troop level a few yeaqrs earlier as well.
Technology and nedical improvements have further reduced the fatality rate, so many more survive now that would have not made it back then.
Not a good sigh for a tinderbox that is set to explode.

blackangst, it is arguably the military that boosts technology, not war. and yes the military can exist without war.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: blackangst1
It's wartime. I wouldnt expect anything less in spite of what I actually think. Wartime brings deaths. At least each war we fight we get less and less deaths. One great thing war does is boost along technology.

It does suck though. Especially those of us who have lost loved ones. At least in my experience directly, they died doing what they loved.

ORLY?

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Looks like there is some effort to keep it low key duting the Sucessfull Surge, or tp try to make that appearance.

We've reached a 50% of the fatality rate that Vietnam averaged out at over it's 10 year span, but reached that number with only 1/3 of the troop level a few yeaqrs earlier as well.
Technology and nedical improvements have further reduced the fatality rate, so many more survive now that would have not made it back then.
Not a good sigh for a tinderbox that is set to explode.

blackangst, it is arguably the military that boosts technology, not war. and yes the military can exist without war.

Oh I dont disagree the military boosts technology; however, war boosts it even more. Necessity drives invention. Have you seen the Futureweapons show on Discovery? A good portion of weapons are coming out of Isreal. Not because they have a huge R&D department, but because the country has effectively been at war for centuries.

Although I agree we can have military without war, I do strongly agree the military's role is 1. To prevent war, and 2. To fight it.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: nullzero
The surge in troops may seem to be actually increasing U.S. solider deaths, rather then making it harder for the insurgents to fight back and restrict their movement. The question is... is this a temporary occurance or a long term result of the new tactic of control and hold areas in baghdad. I think what is happening is the insurgents are now adapted to the U.S. presence and are able to plan attacks now that they know the U.S. routine and response in their towns and home areas.

Surge was too late.. Iraqis already overwhelmingly hated us.. All we did was send more bodies..

This is an unwinnable war.. no matter how much money or how many bodies we throw at it.

 

[alien42]

let us not forget the powell doctrine:

"1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?"

and the answers to those question at the time the hawks started this war:

1. NO
2. NO
3. NO
4. NO
5. NO
6. NO
7. the american people were lied to so this is also a NO
8. NO

its a shame that colin powell was bent over by the administration.

the deaths of soldiers is now 300 over how many people died on 9/11.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: nullzero
The surge in troops may seem to be actually increasing U.S. solider deaths, rather then making it harder for the insurgents to fight back and restrict their movement. The question is... is this a temporary occurance or a long term result of the new tactic of control and hold areas in baghdad. I think what is happening is the insurgents are now adapted to the U.S. presence and are able to plan attacks now that they know the U.S. routine and response in their towns and home areas.

Surge was too late.. Iraqis already overwhelmingly hated us.. All we did was send more bodies..

This is an unwinnable war.. no matter how much money or how many bodies we throw at it.

Most have hated us since Operation Desert Fox. Especially since we didnt follow through.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: nullzero
The surge in troops may seem to be actually increasing U.S. solider deaths, rather then making it harder for the insurgents to fight back and restrict their movement. The question is... is this a temporary occurance or a long term result of the new tactic of control and hold areas in baghdad. I think what is happening is the insurgents are now adapted to the U.S. presence and are able to plan attacks now that they know the U.S. routine and response in their towns and home areas.

Surge was too late.. Iraqis already overwhelmingly hated us.. All we did was send more bodies..

This is an unwinnable war.. no matter how much money or how many bodies we throw at it.

Most have hated us since Operation Desert Fox. Especially since we didnt follow through.

didnt follow through? are you delirious? george bush was intelligent enough to know that going into baghdad would leave a power vacuum, that chaos would ensue and that we should not become an occupying force. while i do wish we would have followed through with supporting the kurds, not going into baghdad was the best decision to make at the time.

*my mistake for reading desert fox as desert storm but my point still stands

 

[nullzero]

Operation Desert Fox was done under clinton in 1998. It was a half assed attempt to destory targets across the country with bombs and cruise missiles that would hurt saddams ability to fight back or stop an uprising from Shites. The problem is we bombed for 4 days gave the opposition groups a bunch of cash and the uprising never materialized because of lack of U.S. support.

 

[GFORCE100]

Originally posted by: nullzero
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

45 U.S. Solider deaths so far for the first 10 days of April, that is over a 4 death per day average, at the current rate we are set to exceed 120 U.S. solider deaths for the month of April! The situation just further slides into chaos in Iraq. When will we pull out...? That is the question on everyones mind.

It's a war the US can't and won't win but even by losing they are in a position to be rewarded access to oil by the Iraqi government as a means of award for abolishing the previous regime. The US economy thrives on oil, take it away or limit its amount thus increase prices, and the economy will suffer.

No Western nation will ever win a war in a country such as Iraq, it can bomb the place flat but will never restore peace. The mentality of people in such countries is incompatible with wertern values.

There's no real justification why soldiers should die out there, they're not protecting the US from invasion as the US isn't being attacked and there never were any WMD's in the first place. Of course the real issue was to start a war so the US Army could replace old equipment with new and get oil. Companies which produce military goods need orders to keep going and paying staff.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: nullzero
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

45 U.S. Solider deaths so far for the first 10 days of April, that is over a 4 death per day average, at the current rate we are set to exceed 120 U.S. solider deaths for the month of April! The situation just further slides into chaos in Iraq. When will we pull out...? That is the question on everyones mind.

While any number is too many the numbers presented should not be construed as the reason to pull out or question as to when we will pull out.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Equinox
Very sad day for a lot of families, and it will get sadder for more of them. One of my friend's sons got back from his Tour of Duty, and thankfully he wasn't physically harmed, but even he has some PTSD. Why aren't we hearing about the deaths on TV more and in the newspapers? Is everyone just numb at this point?

you were given a reason why before.

but to make it perfectly clear....

IT IS NOT AN ELECTION YEAR


Do you understand? It was only an issue when Democrats could promise to their supporters that "IF ELECTED". Now that they are "ELECTED" they don't need those supporters and thereby don't remember the promise.

IOW - they are politicians first and the most important things to politicians is themselves followed by lobbyists. I think we are somewhere down below carbon paper.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
According to antiwar.com there have been 38 deaths so far this month.
link

3.8 per day, well above the 2.2 average since the war started. Not a good trend.

But the surge is working, right?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: nullzero
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

45 U.S. Solider deaths so far for the first 10 days of April, that is over a 4 death per day average, at the current rate we are set to exceed 120 U.S. solider deaths for the month of April! The situation just further slides into chaos in Iraq. When will we pull out...? That is the question on everyones mind.

While any number is too many the numbers presented should not be construed as the reason to pull out or question as to when we will pull out.

No number is the best number we all can aggree on. But unfortunatly, one of the only things we have to judge on the status of the War is the Casualties. We can follow trends of wounded and killed soldiers to get a feeling on how the country is stabilized. Its the same way cities view the murder rate to judge how safe the city is.


The fact that we have increased troops and increased casualties worries me because that tells me we are just providing more targets rather than deterring by force.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
According to antiwar.com there have been 38 deaths so far this month.
link

3.8 per day, well above the 2.2 average since the war started. Not a good trend.

But the surge is working, right?

The idea of the surge was to cut down the overall total death toll in Baghdad so that we can try and establish long term peace.

I suggest you read some history. The bloodiest battle in WW 2 was also the last battle. Do you think anyone looked at the death toll of Okinawa and said "wow we are losing the war guys"?

ONE bad month does not prove anything, especially if it is followed with several good months. Come back in June-July and let's talk about long term trends then.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
According to antiwar.com there have been 38 deaths so far this month.
link

3.8 per day, well above the 2.2 average since the war started. Not a good trend.

But the surge is working, right?

The idea of the surge was to cut down the overall total death toll in Baghdad so that we can try and establish long term peace.

I suggest you read some history. The bloodiest battle in WW 2 was also the last battle. Do you think anyone looked at the death toll of Okinawa and said "wow we are losing the war guys"?

ONE bad month does not prove anything, especially if it is followed with several good months. Come back in June-July and let's talk about long term trends then.

Bad analogy. The death toll of Okinawa caused us to pursue the nuclear option. And Without that option WW2 in the pacific could have sludged on for years with the slow methodical capture of land.

 

[csteggo]

I was wrong in my belief that some think that the war is going well.... I must have misread. What was actually said was 'its going well, but the surge wouldn't have been necessary if islam was actually a religion of peace. for that matter, the war wouldn't have been necessary b/c 9/11 wouldn't have happened.' that was on Anandtech Forum Link by johnnobts to help you find it. And point taken on the getting better comment. When it is 145 degrees in the desert with no water around you. 144 degrees would be better but you are still in a heap of trouble. Getting better is no way to describe this war from what I can tell.

 

[Lemon law]

Once again non Prof John comes in with a smokescreen when he notes---I suggest you read some history. The bloodiest battle in WW 2 was also the last battle. Do you think anyone looked at the death toll of Okinawa and said "wow we are losing the war guys"?

When the situation and the philosophy was quite different---after then sneaky Japs bombed Pearl Harbor and made the eastern Pacific a defacto Japanese lake---it was indeed us or them. And after drinking the initial dreggs of defeat---we were nearing the end of a 3.5 year journey with the defeat of Japan at hand---and Okinawa was just a next to the last bloody stepping stone to Japan itself---which was the holy grail of that part of final victory. Because we had already grasped the other fine trophy with the defeat of Germany and the axis powers. And with US powers--once paltry and perhaps overmatched had then swelled to unimaginable superiority in naval and aerial terms while Japan's power were almost totally diminished. In terms of personnel---we had that in spades also---with no public outcry resulting from our losses in Okinawa---with 99.99% of our military willing to absorb the inevitable losses that a conquest of Japan would entail---with the foreseeable butcher bill orders of magnitude higher than we experienced in Okinawa.

But before that trainwreck everyone foresaw coming occurred, one lone plane with the odd name of the Enola Gay threw all conventional wisdom into a cocked hat as the unexpected happened.

But in Iraq---there is no holy grail goal---we are already in Baghdad---hanging Saddam did nothing.
And no one except the self delusional sees a mini surge as breaking the back of anything.

But in the first four years---the US butcher bill has been a rough constant at 800/yr. There is little doubt that the trend line is now up about 20% or more----nor do I see it coming down anytime soon. We are caught in a shooting gallery with no end in sight---we can't win because there is nothing to win that we have not already won---but we better be prepared to pay ever higher prices to stay in the Iraqi war.-------we have largely worn out any and all welcome.

Iraq does not even remotely resemble Japan or WW2. And smokescreens are still smokescreens.

 

[tomywishbone]

"...I suggest you read some history. The bloodiest battle in WW 2 was also the last battle. Do you think anyone looked at the death toll of Okinawa and said "wow we are losing the war guys"?

I'm pretty sure the Japanesse said exactly that.

Iraq is lost.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Once again non Prof John comes in with a smokescreen when he notes---I suggest you read some history. The bloodiest battle in WW 2 was also the last battle. Do you think anyone looked at the death toll of Okinawa and said "wow we are losing the war guys"?

When the situation and the philosophy was quite different---after then sneaky Japs bombed Pearl Harbor and made the eastern Pacific a defacto Japanese lake---it was indeed us or them. And after drinking the initial dreggs of defeat---we were nearing the end of a 3.5 year journey with the defeat of Japan at hand---and Okinawa was just a next to the last bloody stepping stone to Japan itself---which was the holy grail of that part of final victory. Because we had already grasped the other fine trophy with the defeat of Germany and the axis powers. And with US powers--once paltry and perhaps overmatched had then swelled to unimaginable superiority in naval and aerial terms while Japan's power were almost totally diminished. In terms of personnel---we had that in spades also---with no public outcry resulting from our losses in Okinawa---with 99.99% of our military willing to absorb the inevitable losses that a conquest of Japan would entail---with the foreseeable butcher bill orders of magnitude higher than we experienced in Okinawa.

But before that trainwreck everyone foresaw coming occurred, one lone plane with the odd name of the Enola Gay threw all conventional wisdom into a cocked hat as the unexpected happened.

But in Iraq---there is no holy grail goal---we are already in Baghdad---hanging Saddam did nothing.
And no one except the self delusional sees a mini surge as breaking the back of anything.

But in the first four years---the US butcher bill has been a rough constant at 800/yr. There is little doubt that the trend line is now up about 20% or more----nor do I see it coming down anytime soon. We are caught in a shooting gallery with no end in sight---we can't win because there is nothing to win that we have not already won---but we better be prepared to pay ever higher prices to stay in the Iraqi war.-------we have largely worn out any and all welcome.

Iraq does not even remotely resemble Japan or WW2. And smokescreens are still smokescreens.

Quoted for Truth, accuracy, and an eloquent simplicity

 

[imported_Imp]

Yep, I've noticed the huge jump in the past few months. I just scan the daily 'update' on CNN and one day the toll's at 3120, two days later it jumps to 3150 or so. Those were made up numbers by the way. Guess they or people are getting tired of headlining "X US troops killed today". Come to think of it, aside from major losses (i.e. helicopter crashes), headlines are focusing on the 'state' of the war.

 

[Genx87]

Well the jury is still out if this will overall succeed. However I have my doubts.

But what this does demostrate were the calls to surge the troops from the left in 04 was foolhardy. And people who pointed out all it would do is provide more targets for the enemy correct. It is the same reasoning why sticking 200,000 troops in Afghanistan is a poor idea. It wont cut down on the terrorists hiding in the mountains, only provide more targets for roadside bombs.

The bottom line is we need to start putting more and more into the hands of the Iraqi's. It has been 4 years, they need to show more progress. I dont say we pull out anytime soon, we have to as a nation see this through. But we need to start taking a secondary policing role in this after this surge fails to stop the violence.

 

[dmcowen674]

"Last throes"