IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!
Posted on 10/07/2002 11:28:59 AM PDT by Asmodeus
Sitting on a desk somewhere in the Pentagon is a computer printout listing projected American casualties for a range of Iraq invasion scenarios. Unfortunately, these vital figures are the only numbers that haven't been part of the war debate.
We've heard all kinds of estimates about how much the war is going to cost -- including Ari Fleischer's ultra-macho Bullet to Saddam's Head discount special -- how many troops will be deployed, how much the price of oil may go up, and the over-under on how long our forces will have to remain in Iraq. We've been given headcounts of Iraq's fractious Kurds and Shiites, reference numbers for security council resolutions defied, and been frequently reminded that Saddam has remained in power for 34 years, 11 of them since the last time we tried to send him and his mustache packing.
But no one in the Bush administration is talking about how many of our soldiers will be sent home in body bags. And not a single reporter has stood up at a press conference -- or at one of the president's countless fundraising appearances -- and asked, "Mr. President, how many young Americans are going to die?"
Will the deaths number in the hundreds, as was the case in Desert Storm and as would be again if Saddam collapsed like a cheap umbrella? Or will they be closer to the 10,000 to 50,000 some experts have predicted? And is Saddam the clear and present danger that would justify asking our sons and daughters to give up their lives for their country?
The question of casualties is all the more important given the weight attached to polls showing that over 70 percent of Americans support an invasion of Iraq. This purported groundswell of public opinion is being dropped like an old-fashioned "dumb" bomb to kill dissent on both sides of the political aisle.
Let's set aside for a moment the ludicrousness of basing our national security policy on the shoot-from-the-lip responses of a person who has been interrupted in the middle of dinner -- or a soapy shower or helping the kids with their homework -- and asked by a pollster, "Do you support the president's policy on Iraq?"
The fact is the number of Americans in favor of going to war with Iraq plummets -- down to only 39 percent in the latest Zogby poll -- when the prospect of "thousands of American casualties" is added to the question.
And such a bloody outcome is very likely given the kind of urban warfare it's going to take to oust Saddam. Forget about the caves of Tora Bora or the open desert cakewalk of the last Gulf War. Baghdad is a densely populated city of 4 million people -- roughly the same size as Los Angeles. Picture our troops having to battle their way down Hollywood Boulevard in search of a lone madman.
"We have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad," says Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former commander in chief of the military's central command. "All our advantages of command and control, technology, mobility, all of those things are in part given up and you are working with corporals and sergeants and young men fighting street to street. It looks like the last 15 minutes of 'Saving Private Ryan'." Or every frame of "Black Hawk Down."
The high number of casualties that would result from gaining control of a heavily defended Baghdad is the main reason Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, and the president's father pulled up short of the capital city the last time we took on Saddam. And remember that Saddam is a master of that ruthless strategy of defense known as "the human shield." Even the smartest of bombs will not be able to discern between Republican guardsmen and Iraqi children. That will be the dangerous business of Army rangers, Marine expeditionary units, and other special forces.
And unlike the Gulf War, which was primarily about the liberation of Kuwait, this war is about the elimination of Saddam. We've heard again and again that this ruthless despot will do anything, no matter how reckless or costly, to preserve his own regime. And we also know that he has been amassing stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, hideous high-body-count instruments disdained by the civilized world. You don't have to be George Tenet to connect these dots. Saddam will use whatever weapons he can in the impending fight to the finish. If he's going down, he's taking as many of us with him as he can.
"The likelihood is very good that he could use weapons of mass destruction," Gen. John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in September. "It could get very messy...The casualties, in my judgment, could be very high."
We are told by the proponents of invading Iraq that it's a bold step necessary to prevent future casualties. But in order to make an informed decision on the war, shouldn't the people also be told how many present casualties we will have to suffer in order to avoid these future ones?
He probably does have the escape tunnels and I totally agree with you- we should take all his palaces out. To do that though, we will need to do it totally by surprise. If we telegraph that punch he will be sure to fill every one of those palaces full of children and old people before the bombs come. Were I the military commander, once the decision had been made but before the President announced it- I would bomb the palaces. And all this would be before the big logistic buildup, before the hoardes of reporters arrived. I'd bomb the palaces and then go on about the business of the logistical buildup.
Tough to say Arianna. Could just be a 5 or 6 sniper victims. Could be tens of thousands--beyond those at WTC on 9-11 Oh, these are US civilian causualties if we let Saddam go on as Clinton did. You really are a disappointment. Stick to things you can opine on, like BJs and lying about it.......
Yeah. I'm waiting till Bush gets re-elected in 2004 and then I'm getting Molly Ivins "Shrub: The Short Political Life of George W. Bush." What a twit she is.
Yes, of course you're right Huffi, and when and if he drops poisonous gas on his own population,he won't be descerning who is an American Military Citizen or Iraqi Citizen EITHER.Ms. Libertarian herself had to include the word Republican in her reference the his elite units too.She's as relevant as Bill Maher thinks he is.LOL
Yep.
Who is the "we" who are going to fight the war? I wonder how many people would support this if their loved ones had to fight it?
My personal preference is closed borders to keep the lunatics out of this country.
Nope, not being sarcastic. It's about oil, and that's not on its face a bad thing.
But that's not what we're being told... one more time, we're being lied to, for whatever reason.
I believe there were 35 American friendly fire fatalities in SWA.
The "we" is the country. That was obvious.
My personal preference is closed borders to keep the lunatics out of this country.
That isn't the issue. The question is, should we allow the probability of casualties to prevent us from fighting a war? This is a general question not just applied to the current case.
Oil is enough of a reason.
I thought you were a libertarian KDD?
Personally I don't think oil is enough of a reason. We don't have a God given right to cheap oil.
Oil is not worth the cost in lost liberty at home. We need to utilize our domestic supplies, including drilling the living **** out of Alaska.
When I hear these tiresome predictions of mass casualties in street fighting for Baghdad I just want to scream. It's like the predictions of mass German casualties taking the Maginot Line.
Why take Baghdad in that manner? Take the country in a maneuver war and lay siege to Baghdad. Turn out the lights, turn off the water. Insertion of a unit to take out a key central governmental center would be fun, if it is defensible and easily supplied by air. Stir frequently and bake with air strikes until done.
It wouldn't surprise me to see large scale defections by units and commanders seeking to avoid war crimes trials. Indeed, I wouldn't give 50-50 odds that by the time the advance reached Baghdad, Saddam would retain a loyal force large enough to defend the city.
I have a feeling all this talk is being fueled by lefties wanting to scare mom and grandma - and by some clever folks at DOD and the White House doing a little disinformation/strategery.
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.