Why Is No One Talking About Casualties?

Arianna Huffington ^ | 7 October 2002

[marron]

If oil was the consideration, we would be allied with Saddam. Prior to the Kuwait invasion, we had a defacto alliance with him, and we were invited into the Iraqi oil business.

We gave up some potentially large projects when we sided against him.

Furthermore, if it was about oil, we could easily have negotiated an end to sanctions at any time for a cut of the oil business. If thats what its about.

Keeping Saddam contained helps oil companies, because it helps keep oil prices high. Bringing Iraqi oil onto the market will depress oil prices.

The majors who are investing in, say, Africa or Central Asia would rather see prices stay high. Smaller oil companies might like to see Iraq opened up, its their chance to get in on the ground floor of a new market.

Producers like to see high crude prices. Refiners like low crude prices.

The US oil business isn't a monolithic whole. It is made up of many, many companies whose interests are not identical, and who are constantly looking for an advantage. So, if Iraq stays isolated, or is opened up, its good for some, bad for others. Since our policy is to open up Central Asia, and Siberia, and Africa, it would be better to keep Iraq bottled up.

[Prodigal Son]

Unless he has alternate tunnel exits, the rubble might make escape difficult for he and his *friends*.

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.

[mountaineer]

Do you think that Americans dithered and wrung their hands over potential casualties on Dec. 8, 1941? Right is right, and it has nothing to do with unquestioning loyalty to the president.

[eureka!]

"...shouldn't the people also be told how many present casualties we will have to suffer in order to avoid these future ones?"

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.......

[CIB-173RDABN]

I have another question about casualties. For those of you who oppose our taking military action against Iraq, how many American civilian casualties would it take before you think we should act? 1, 2, 4, 8, 16...1000, 2000 a million? I am curious how many Americans must die first?

[A_perfect_lady]

When this all done, and it turns out her hysterical claims were way wrong, this will be funny to read.

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.

[John H K]

Not explicitly stated but it seems Ariana is yet ANOTHER moron who thinks casualties = deaths.

Casualties include wounded. You'll not find a soul in the media aware of that, though.

[Pagey]

Arianna " I'm an irrelevant human being,but I still try to speak out " Huffington says:Even the smartest of bombs will not be able to discern between Republican guardsmen and Iraqi children.

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

[ffrancone]

I'M CUTE. BUT I CAN'T CAMPAIGN.

HELP TAKE BACK THE SENATE.
IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!

TakeBackCongress.org

A resource for conservatives who want a Republican majority in the Senate

[The FRugitive]

OH ...EYE... EL!!! It's all about OH... EYE... EL!!!

Yep.

[The FRugitive]

If it's urban, man to man fighting, then I think we will take more significant casualties then the 1st Gulf War.

[grania]

In war there are casualties. We are either prepared to accept that or we never fight. If we never fight we might as well surender now.

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.

[The FRugitive]

I wouldn't complain about people picking apart her argument, however whenever we see anyone with an opinion contrary to the administration's, they are dismissed out of hand without any consideration.

I saw this also with a thread about Ron Paul's objections. You know he was dismissed as an "idiot" without any refuting of his points.

Personally I'm undecided about Iraq. I do support it in as far as it would undermine the U.N. in our going in without their "permission" or alternatively the U.N. capitulating to our will, but I'm still somewhat disturbed by the current environment where so many conservatives are blindly agreeing with anything and everything comeing out of the Bush administration.

[Beenliedto]

And Beenliedto, I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not but I'll take you at face value: I'm willing to fight for oil. Our whole economy is built on oil.

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.

[Recon by Fire]

YEP, and casualties also include self inflicted wounds and friendly fire incidents.

I believe there were 35 American friendly fire fatalities in SWA.

[mlo]

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?

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.

[The FRugitive]

I agree.

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.

[The FRugitive]

I agree with that. If it's a just cause then the casualties aren't as relevant.

But I think we need to ask the questions. I don't think you can correlate Japan in WWII with Iraq today.

[Redcloak]

I got about 1 1/2 paragraphs in and couldn't take it anymore.

NOTE TO ARIANNA: We aren't talking about casualties for the same reason we aren't talking about what varieties of MREs the troops prefer. Neither is important at this stage.

One does not begin with hand-wringing over casualties when one considers using their military. It's assumed that there will be casualties; it's a natural part of war. (And since diplomacy is war conducted by other means, it's also a part of "peace".) Blabbering on about casualties at this point in the game is of no value whatsoever.

Though, if one insists upon discussing the matter, there is this to ponder: Which is less appealing to you, Arianna, soldiers killed in battle or civilians killed in terror strikes?

As you ponder this, remember to use a good, quality hand lotion so that you don't get any callouses.

[colorado tanker]

"I was thinking they might avoid Baghdad altogether and just take the country's infrastructure and resources. Seige warfare has worked before, and could work again." Zackly!

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.