I don't think troop deaths should figure into war discussions.

[Martin]

As far as professional armies are concenred, the impression I have (and fell free to correct me if reality is different) is that most soldiers would much rather go to a dangerous, action-filled place than stay in their home base. After all, young men have been joining armies in search of adventure since the dawn of civilization, why would today's young people be any different? Various quotes from the news only confirm this - you pretty much only hear how eager marines are to assault Fallujah etc.

So if the poeple on the ground are willing to take on the risk, why would the number of dead matter to us, people arguing about the war? Perhaps its better for us to stick to other issues, there's plenty of them.

 

[conjur]

Because the ones killed since late March (approaching 200) could have been avoided if the ideologues in charge in the administration had listened to opposing views and actually *thought* about how to do the war, logistically speaking. We'd have had enough troops on the ground as well as protecting them with enough armored vehicles and body armor and could have either prevented this insurgency or quelled it rather quickly w/o much loss of life.

 

[HappyPuppy]

It was my experience, albeit long ago, that most volunteer and professional soldiers would rather be in their base camps not having to put their lives on the line. They are WILLING to do what is necessary, but not necessarily EAGER to do so. Once they have been placed in a combat situation and their mission has been defined they will willingly and eagerly follow their orders knowing or believeing that they are the line between the "enemy" and their home.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
It was my experience, albeit long ago, that most volunteer and professional soldiers would rather be in their base camps not having to put their lives on the line. They are WILLING to do what is necessary, but not necessarily EAGER to do so. Once they have been placed in a combat situation and their mission has been defined they will willingly and eagerly follow their orders knowing or believeing that they are the line between the "enemy" and their home.

I hope that makes sense.

I concur...nothing beats garrison But as you stated, once the orders come down, you have to change gears and get ready to go to work, which makes it look like they are more eager than they truly are. Moreover, after training and training and training before a major deployment, you get so sick of going through the motions over and over and over and over that you are ?eager? to deploy?to stop training and start doing

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

..but I concur with my right honorable Canadian neighbor on this one--most talk of 'troops deaths' is to further one's agenda, more often than not.

 

[Jhhnn]

'Scuse me, but War means dead people, paraplegia, amputations, blindness, life-changing disfigurement and crippling afflictions of various kinds. I recognize that it would be convenient for many to gloss over these points, to sanitize the whole thing from their snug homes and smug viewpoints.

And that, of course, is why the perpetrators of this war won't even allow photos of the coffins, let alone of the guys who'll never be the same again, going through multiple operations and extensive rehab efforts to make the best of what they have left...

So, yeh, it matters. Write a letter to their families, tell those folks that it shouldn't figure in. Tell it to the mothers of shot up Iraqi children, while you're at it.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as professional armies are concenred, the impression I have (and fell free to correct me if reality is different) is that most soldiers would much rather go to a dangerous, action-filled place than stay in their home base.

That's until they get into a close combat city fight and see their friends dying around them.
Then they start appreciating their life......but some might need to face death before beeing able to.

The way I see it, the problem lies in that the leaders tell the war is over, and try to hide the dead soldiers. Accept and appreciate that some are willing to sacrifice their lives for your politics instead, honor the dead, do not try to hide them because it might make your scheme more difficult.

Instead of hiding them bring them to the front pages: "Our policy demands the greatest sacrifice of all, these men and women gave their lives. They did that to make the world a better and safer place to live. As your president I take full responsibility for these sacrifices."

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
'Scuse me, but War means dead people, paraplegia, amputations, blindness, life-changing disfigurement and crippling afflictions of various kinds. I recognize that it would be convenient for many to gloss over these points, to sanitize the whole thing from their snug homes and smug viewpoints.

And that, of course, is why the perpetrators of this war won't even allow photos of the coffins, let alone of the guys who'll never be the same again, going through multiple operations and extensive rehab efforts to make the best of what they have left...

So, yeh, it matters. Write a letter to their families, tell those folks that it shouldn't figure in. Tell it to the mothers of shot up Iraqi children, while you're at it.

I think there exists a singular problem with your approach. The more the public knows about war, the less eager they are to engage in war. It's a common tactic in engagement : bring the war to a personal level, and you'll destroy the will to continue. The problem with allowing such an invasion is that the public really has no idea, period.
The public, in general, doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and would rather bury its collective heads in the sand. The general populace has no idea what it takes to run a campaign. Some individuals may think they do, but since they lack training, experience, and accurate information, any success would be dumb luck. For that reason alone, it is better the public knows less information, and that includes number of deaths.
Notice how hard it is to find figures for the wounded. The media is quick to pounce on the death toll and MIA's. Those two figures promote the worst nightmares for individuals in the general population. The wounded are able to return to the States, although a large number require life long medical care. At the very least, family members can rest easy knowing loved ones are coming home alive.
If you have problems with the current campaign, the problem doesn't lie with the military. Granted, the military is hardly a vision of morality and efficiency, but the ultimate responsibility for "perpetrating" this war, as you call it, is the US public. The military can protest or refuse orders as much as it can, but in the end, it will be forced to follow the commander-in-chief. Well, short of a military coup. As for Bush, he may have worked hard to get this war started, but ultimately, his power comes from the general population. Threaten his presidency with impeachment and he'd cool down pretty fast. Threaten Congress with the equivelent and you'll get the same reaction.
If the US general population had been less timid in shoving collective heads in the sand hoping someone else would do the work for their personal causes then there wouldn't be such a large mess right now. At the very least a more cunning leader would have been elected seeing as how he would have had to fool over a few hundred million individual voters instead of a few million sheep. At least a cunning leader can defend against disaster since he would have a vested interest. A fool catering to multiple interests is very inefficient in getting anything done and eventually brings disaster.

 

[arsbanned]

It really depends on the war. The Iraq war being based on lies about WMDs and the quest for oil and money, I don't think there should be ANY casualties at all. Let Bush send his family over there if he wants the Iraqis to "BRING IT ON" so badly.
So yeah, we need to talk about numbers of dead, because every one of them could and should have been avoided.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Sahakiel-

The public, in general, doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and would rather bury its collective heads in the sand.

That is, to some extent, quite true. Despotic and corrupt leaderships throughout human history have depended on it. Put a different way, it's referred to as the "avoidance of cognitive dissonance"- a phenomenon first described among the villagers of Dachau. Being good citizens of the Reich, they didn't question, they trusted, they didn't want to and truly didn't know what went on in the camp just outside of town. When forced to look, the mayor promptly went home and killed himself.

Democracy isn't based on the principles of propaganda as laid out by Goebbels, or on the rather astute observations of Goering as he awaited his execution at Nuremberg. Citizens in a Democracy carry a much greater burden, if they intend to keep living in a Democracy. They have to pay attention, and speak up when required, and hold true to their responsibilities. Basically, we have to use our rights or lose them to the ever present forces of oppression. To sanitize war, to glorify it, to excuse it when not forced upon us is to bend to tyranny.

So I applaud the people who took the forbidden pictures of flag draped coffins, who describe the ordeal of blinded servicemen, who publish pictures of Iraqi children with multiple amputations- It's the real face of war. Is this what we want, is it what we bargained for when we succumbed to the fearmongering and bloodlust evoked by our leaders in the wake of 9/11? If it is, God help us all, because that same leadership will bring even more of it if re-elected.

 

[dmcowen674]

"I don't think troop deaths should figure into war discussions."

Why not? The Country will not turn their backs on the troops like Vietnam.

They won't even turn their backs on the Fearless Liar that sent the troops there to begin with.

 

[totalcommand]

If you keep troop deaths out of war discussion, you dehumanize the whole debate, which would be perfect if you're talking about animals. If you value human life, it should figure into any discussion where human life is taken.