[Illbay]

Sorry, that's a nonsensical premise. Especially in light of the way this thing occurred, with a very vulnerable aircraft fired upon quite unexpectedly.

Yes, we have to accept that there might be casualties, but it isn't necessary to EXPECT them, nor is it a sign of anything like "the military doing its job."

Rather, it's a sign of the ENEMY doing its job.

[Capitalist Eric]

I would suggest reading the entire article, before commenting...

Course, were you a vet, you'd already understand the implacable truth of the authors' observations.

FReegards,

[fourdeuce82d]

it isn't necessary to EXPECT them

at the risk of sounding like a certain ex-president, i think it depends on what the definition of "expect" is. I would want my fire department, EMS guys, and police force to "expect" fires, car crashes, robberies, etc..

I wouldn't want these things, but I would expect them as part of living in a (reasonably) free society.

I want our military to prosecute this and other conflicts aggressively; I think if we do so we will suffer casualties.

anyway, maybe we're picking at nits- I think the overall thrust of the article, that the press is getting their knickers in a twist, is a good one.

[r9etb]

Yes, we have to accept that there might be casualties, but it isn't necessary to EXPECT them, nor is it a sign of anything like "the military doing its job."

OTOH, a major reason that OBL attacked in the first place was the widespread belief that the U.S. was afraid to take casualties. He figured it would be more of the Clintonian same, and that we'd pull out after a few guys got killed.

The fact that we've taken casualties, and kept on blasting away (NB the Pentagon's report that half of those wounded are back in the fray) sends a very loud message to would-be bad guys.

That's Peters's major point.

[jlogajan]

I'll have to disagree with you here. In a situation like this you can't really know who your enemies are (or where they are) until you are fired upon by them. That usually kills a few of yours. But then you wipe them out. That's just the nature of war. So yeah, taking casulties is sort of a functional necessity to prosecute the war.

[New Zealander]

Obviously no one but the enemy is going to agree that casualties are good, but of course casualties are a sign of the military doing their job - how could you say otherwise?

Commanders have to make the D to put their soldiers into harms way, weighing casualties against gain - that is their job. The soldiers themselves have the job of trying to achieve the objectives given them. That they try to preserve their lives while doing this is more of a natural expectation that a part of their job description - just look at a few citations for posthumous VC's or Medals Of Honour etc. to see that preservation of life isn't even a constant or job requirement.