Posted on 04/04/2006 3:27:12 PM PDT by jmc1969
The fatality figures in Iraq are perhaps telling a story, which would be that the war focuses progressively on internecine killings. The American death rate for March was 31 fatalities, a gruesome toll (one per day), yet the second lowest since the invasion was launched three years ago. Over approximately the same period, nearly 1,500 Iraqi civilians were killed, according to the American military, a significant increase over recent months.
One asks then: Is the furious resolve of the insurgents altering in focus? Has the enemy reckoned that the problem in hand is not Americans, who will be gone, roughly speaking, tomorrow, but Iraqis whose ethnic identities will remain the same when the grandchildren of both parties will be eyeing each other?
The rate of these killings reduces but is not concomitant with any reduction in U.S. strength. It is brought on by (a) the reduction in U.S. exposure, and (b) insurgent concentration on non-U.S. targets.
But ask then: Is this reduced exposure a part of the U.S. battle plan? We have not in recent months seen any hard U.S. assaults on hard Iraqi targets, in the class of Fallujah in the fall of 2004. Can we assume that such hard enemy nests aren't there, holding out? Or rather that the U.S. army command is less bent on smoking them out?
If there are (one speculates) 15 areas of Iraq in which the insurgents are embedded with special defensive ingenuity, the commanding general can elect to dispatch bombs and artillery, always with some care for collateral damage done to innocent civilians. But that approach, a platonic alternative to sending in a battalion with instructions to root out the offenders, means a diminished exposure of American soldiers to high-cost engagements.
To reason that this is happening is deductive: fewer casualties, fewer engagements. However, fewer engagements should presume an enemy diminished in size and potency. But to say that runs us into the corresponding figure, of 1,500 Iraqi civilian deaths. Somebody is killing those people, and the whole idea of the U.S. enterprise was to shield the Iraqi population not only from the depredations of Saddam Hussein, but also from successor killers. Manifestly this has not happened, if the killing proceeds at so high a rate.
I have myself concluded that our Iraqi mission has failed.
There is no comparison between the casualties of WWII and Iraq, a fact Mr. Buckley well knows.
Did the Revolutionary War lasted to long for you?
"The American casualties for March [in Iraq] was 31."
This amounts to one per day. My son who currently is serving in Afghanistan says we (American military) are now loosing about 3 or 4 a week in Afghanistan. He doesn't think this is being reported in the US, and as a mother who pays attention to these things, I haven't noticed it being reported either.
Some of you may have read the thread I posted titled "Front Line Views on Iraq/Afghanistan War Situation" on 3/12/06. I now have enough useful communications to post a Front Line Views #2, which I plan to do this Thursday night or Friday day.
Yeah, you're smarter than Buckley.
With all due respect to you, WFB's poop has more credibility, whether you like it or not.
Of course this is just my opinion, I'm sure you'll not like it from me either.
Mr. Buckley is talking foolishness. Plain and simple. We are in a war, a world war....people are going to die. That doesn't show success or lack of success because of such.
Furthermore in this world war with terrorism our one true ally will be the values of freedom and self-worth. To suggest either of those are not in the interest of the United States is completely wrong.
one can't drive from Baghdad to the airport without an armed guard.
Bullsh*t! - millions of of Iraqi's move around freely throughout Iraq each day sans ANY armed guards next to them. That some Iraqi's are being killed for a variety of reasons outside of this war itself, does not reflect whatsoever on the amazing success of which our forces have helped to create within Iraq since 2003.
Nor do those Iraqi's that are being killed because of this war/ and our efforts amount to any sensible criteria that we are losing. These Iraqi's are dying to build a new Iraq...a war very much worth fighting for.
That Americans don't move/travel throughout sections of Iraq without being armed simply reinforces the reality that we are at war with an enemy that wants to kill us. Nothing more...nothing less.
Plenty like Mr. Buckley from thousands of miles away want to try and tell others of what is happening on the ground within Iraq...when they simply have no clue to what is actually going on, especially so in the bigger picture...which is usually very hard to see from a far (a fact that a man of Mr. Buckley's intellect should be well aware of).
Regards,
Before Iraq, he was the "Great William F. Buckley," a sort of demigod around here.
Now, because he dares disagree with the party line about Iraq, he's ostracized as an "idiot"? Heck no. He was an intellectual conservative when they simply didn't exist. He deserves more respect than he's been shown on this board. You may not agree with him, but he's not "lost his marbles." At least have the intellectual honesty to admit that reasonable minds can differ about whether Iraq is working or not.
"I think I can survive one disagreement with such a figure every few decades."
Exactly. The dumb klucks on this thread are too much to bear. They simply don't understand much. They're the kind of folks who think political activism consists of spamming your friends with pics of bald eagles, American flags, and silhouettes of President Bush praying.
I wasn't comparing the casualties of WWII with the casualties in Iraq. I was comparing a one month battle of WWII that took 7,000 US military lives, with the 31 killed in Iraq during the month of March 2006. The former is a gruesome event, the latter is not.
I'm wish you on Iraq, just not on Buckley.
Uh, I mean "with you on Iraq."
The number of military deaths during peacetime (1980-1999) was 32,349. Of these, 563 were classified as hostile. So that's 32,349 non-hostile deaths over twenty years. It's an average of 1617 per year.
The total number of US Military deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom (March 19, 2003 to present) is 2247 (over a three year period) That averages to 749 per year. Less than half the peacetime rate. Also, of those 2247, only 1758 are classified as hostile.
Dude, Buckley isn't even paying enough situation to know about our great operation in Tal Afar, operation Swarmer, and several dozen smaller operations that you can read about if you go to Bill Roggio's site. According to him there hasn't been operations in months (that he has heard of) so we must be getting more casulties because we are sitting back in our bases and not on the offensive.
And, he doesn't even know that most of the Iraqis deaths aren't insurgents killing Iraqis. Most are from crime and militias.
So, yes when it comes to Iraq I know one hell of alot more the Buckley. I would make a bet that he couldn't name three Iraqi political leaders.
With all due respect, your son is wrong. We are not losing 3 or 4 U.S. soldiers a week in Stan - This is simply not the case (nor, if we were, would that reflect anything in particular...in that if this WOT is worth it to fight, we have to fight it).
Bah, I meant to say less casulties.
Buckley joined the army in 1944 and was commissioned a 2nd Lt.
Less that 2000 KIA's.......1839 to be exact!!
Then the conservative intellectual movement is dead, and its now a reactionary movement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.