Sgt. George Alexander became one of the fallen. His death, along with two others, pushed the number of U.S. soldiers to die in Iraq to 2000.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. Army sergeant died of wounds suffered in Iraq, the Pentagon announced Tuesday. The death — along with two others announced Tuesday — brought to 2,000 the number of U.S. military members who have died since the start of the Iraq conflict in 2003. Staff Sgt. George T. Alexander, Jr., 34, of Killeen, Texas, died Saturday at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, of wounds suffered Oct. 17, when a bomb exploded near his vehicle in the central Iraqi city of Samarra, the Defense Department said.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/us_armed_forces

I don't have a lot to say about this tragic occurrence. My opposition to the war my disdain for the politicians that brought it to pass and the corporations and contractors that are growing wealthy from it remains unabated.

However, I did find this remark from a military spokesman a bit puzzling:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Shortly before U.S. military deaths in Iraq reached 2,000 on Tuesday, the chief spokesman for the American-led multinational force called on reporters covering the conflict not to look at the event as a milestone.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, director of the force's combined press center, described the number as an "artificial mark on the wall."

"I ask that when you report on the events, take a moment to think about the effects on the families and those serving in Iraq," Boylan said in an e-mail. "The 2,000 service members killed in Iraq supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom is not a milestone. It is an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals or groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051025/ap_on_.../iraq_us_toll_4

I think Colonel Boylan is full of it.

There is nothing "artificial" about the indisputable fact that 2,000 brave men and women left their families, friends, and communities behind to go off and die in a pointless, protracted war. There is no arguing that nothing has brought Iraq one day closer to becoming a democracy. Not the capture of Saddam Hussein. Not the transfer of power to the interim Iraq government. Not the nationwide elections. Not the ratification of the constitution. The insurgency in Iraq goes on and on.

There is nothing "artificial" in the fact that George Alexander and 1,999 other soldiers went off to die for reasons that to this day remain murky and unclear.

Colonel Boylan arrogantly presumes that those of us who hate this war and argued against it from the start care less about the fallen soldiers and their grieving families. That is a repugnant and oafish statement to make, but what I would expect from someone trying to shill for a failed experiment in gunboat diplomacy and preemptive war.

The question for debate is:

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

Actually I do agree. For those of us who feel that this war was waged for the wrong reasons and was a bad expenditure of American political capital, the toll it takes in human lives is a continuous weight.

Nothing has changed from 1,999 to 2,000 other than the fact that a round number has been reached.

The fact that a lot of people will pay attention to that number and perhaps ponder to scale of tragedy that 2,000 lost lives brings to American families (not mentioning the cost in Iraqi lives for this thread) is more significant.

It is sad how routine the accumulation of American military dead has become.

However I do not hear a feasible exit strategy for American forces in this case. Were a more plausible alternative available than slowly watching the number of American casualties rise, I think there would be a rather loud clamoring for that solution. But we are holding a country together right now and it would probably be cowardly to leave Iraq as it is now.

It might be more cost effective to bribe each of the major factions in Iraq (Shia, Sunni, and Kurd) with outrageously large economic development packages contingent on the fact that Iraq remain a unified country. Then maybe there would be glue to hold these opposing factions into the same loose government.

This is akin to our situation in South Vietnam where no clear handoff was available. I pray that I am wrong about the Provisional Government, but I think it is hard to risk your life for something called a provisional government. I also think the present government has not earned its place in fighting to hold the country together. Without this I am afraid the government will not hold credibility in the eyes of the general Iraqi population.

So yes, 2,000 is an artificial number to get worked up about. I believe it is a very similar number that was reached when Britain ruled IRaq as a mandate in the 1920s.

Yet there is no clear progress in security in Iraq and we get empty hopes instead. This cannot go one indefinitely. 2001 will be no less significant than 2000, 1999, 1500, 78, or 1.

I don't believe that the spokesperson was saying that the deaths were not important or are somehow artificial. I think that what he was trying to convey was that the 2,000th number shouldn't be used by anti-war groups as a measuring stick for pointing out when we should leave Iraq. Perhaps he thought that it would be wrong to debate the merits on numbers and the countless other lives that are affected by this war? I believe that the debate question does not do his position justice, but the spokesperson's argument is also short of merit as asking people to ignore the 2,000 deaths is just the same as anti-war groups playing up the numbers to try and get what they want-the U.S. out of involvement in that nation.

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

Well, let's see. I think I'll ask my husband, who is currently serving in Iraq, if he thinks the 2,000 lives that have been lost should NOT be seen as some sort of milestone. I already know what he'd say. He'd agree with you that Col. Boylan is full of it (though he'd likely use much more colorful words that I couldn't post here).

Okay...so 2,000 servicemen/women have died. Apparently Col. Boylan cares nothing about them and their lives if he's dismissing the acknowledgment of their deaths as part of 'specific agendas and ulterior motives". What specific agenda would that be? To stop people from dying? Sounds like a good agenda to me.

We've reached a pretty significant marker with 2,000 deaths. What do we have to show for it? Luckily (as usual) for the administration, the deaths came at a time when the constitution vote passed - it's something they can hide behind. "Ah, 2,000 service people lost their lives, but look - Iraq has a shiny new constitution....oooooh...ahhhhhh". It's one thing to pass a constitution and it's another thing entirely for it to 'take'.

I don't see how anyone can say that losing 2,000 lives in a war on foreign soil that can hardly be deemed 'necessary' to our survival as a country is NOT a big deal or 'milestone'.

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

I plan to attend a local vigil to mark the 2,000th American killed in Iraq. Since the death occurred after 12 noon, the vigil will take place tomorrow at 6:30 PM. Hundreds of these vigils will be taking place across the country. Anyone interested in attending should check the American Friends Service Committee site or one of the other web sites like MoveOn.org. We will also be honoring the 30,000 to 115,000 Iraqis killed thus far as a result of this unnecessary war.

Of course the 2,000th death is somewhat arbitrary and no more important than the 1st death or the 551st. However, it has been chosen like centennial years are as symbolic to grieve all of those who have been killed (and maimed) and to help generate the political determination to end the death and destruction so that we don't need to mark the 3,000th death.

Interesting...The Colonel's remarks seem to be an attempt at pre-emptive anti-propagandism. Interesting that they chose to send that message somewhat quietly and dispersed it with someone rather low on the food chain. Surely the words were selected in a much nicer office than the Colonel's.

I can't imagine that any soldier over there has not done the math using that 2,000 mark.
"Hmmm...total number of people killed + total severely unjured divided by the total number who served equals my chance of being next"

While it is not an accurate measure it surely is what I would be thinking.

I think the numbers matter a lot. By way of comparison, these first two and a half years in Iraq have netted many more casualties than the first four years we were in Vietnam. Both situations could be considered a policing action I think.

List of Vietnam causalties in PDF format

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?
While I actually agree that it's a milestone - a round number - I just wish that other milestones would be more recognized. The election, constitution, etc... Just today, the president of the Kurdistan region of Iraq was in Washington thanking America for her efforts to free the Kurds. This is momentous; these people have been screwed by the world for generations. The first question out of a reporter's mouth at the press conference - "What did Cheney know about the Plame leak?"

Cindy Sheehan, the Quakers, MoveOn.org and anti-war Stalinists at Code Pink and ANSWER (who organize most of the anti-war protests) claim to honor the troops, but they truly despise the military. That's why 2000 is "artificial" - it's actually being exploited by people who hate the military, and believe that no war is ever just. Cindy Sheehan is gleefully going to get herself arrested at the White House - how again does this honor her son? Click here for some photos of the anti-war protests held this September. Not a lot of troop support on display there.

I'm sure that many of the rational posters here do indeed support our military, so perhaps you could distance yourselves from the looney conspiracists and crackpots - rather than accepting them as strange bedfellows. Seeing Howard Dean and Al Gore repeat some of the crazy lies is just embarassing for mainstream politics. When I was a Democrat, exporting Democracy was one of the core values of the party. How things change...

editing to respond to La Herring Rouge...

Are you suggesting that 56,000 more US soldiers will be killed before we exit Iraq? I seem to remember "tens of thousands" as the consensus casualty figure before we invaded - hasn't panned out yet. And you make this comparison just a few days after an Iraqi police force successfully kept "insurgents" from succeeding in kidnapping western journalists at the Palestine hotel? They can't even take a hotel in an organized attack, but it's a quagmire like Vietnam?

Iraq is just like Vietnam, if we had captured Ho Chi Minh, occupied Hanoi, and the Vietnamese just voted for the second time this year in free elections.

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

2,000 dead is what it is. It's not an artificial mark on a wall. It IS the number of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq. People who view the war from different angles are inevitibly going to use the statistics to their own advantage, and 2,000, being a round number, somehow feels different to some people on a symbolic level.

Obviously, that symbolism isn't good for Boylan's side of the argument, so he would prefer that reporters not focus on it as being a milestone. I can appreciate that, but I can also appreciate the fact that 2,000 soldiers are dead, and there's a movement of people out there who don't want that number to be swept under the rug.

Thankfully, we have a free press.

As far as my own opinion of the matter? I don't view 2,000 as being significantly different than 1,999. I'm not pleased by these figures, nor am I pleased by the number of Iraqis who have perished during this conflict. War is an ugly business, but I view it that way regardless of the number who have perished.

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

I'm going to agree, but add that he needs to take classes on tact.

I expressed my view on the use of "milestone" as a way to describe the number of dead in an older discussion, and I stand by it now. Yet to call it artificial, no matter the argument, dishonors the memories of the men and women who died to end the horrific regime of Saddam Hussein.

The debate now is not to dissimilar from when we were discussing the first 1,000 fatal casualties a year ago.

Again, I see the same question in a question now as I did then. The question is whether or not 2,000 dead is an acceptable price to pay for the goal of a free Iraq. That question will never have a definitive answer, only subjective ones.

Cindy Sheehan and others believe it is not, and will use the toll number to put emphasis on their anti-war message. I, as well as others, will believe it is, and will focus on our messages by putting the toll into perspective.

10,276 GI's died in The Battle of the Bulge in WWII alone. That battle lasted 44 days. That's an average of about 235 soldiers a day. It's been 2 years and 7 months and roughly 2,000 Americans have died. The average in Iraq is about 2 a day.

Now of course one's belief about the motivations for going to war will differ from person to person, and again, that will ultimately make any conclusion subjective, and as long as this particular question is asked, the answers will remain the same.

I'm not suggesting they are the same at all. there ARE similarities but those aren't the subject of this thread. We can talk about propping up governments that don't represent the masses, faked elections (in Vietnam at least) and non-military insurgents in another thread if anyone would like to.
My point in posting the numbers of Vietnam was that there is validity in inquiring about the numbers of casualties in a conflict. I had a college, history professor whose dissertation was on the decay of public support for Vietnam and its statistical link to the casualties in the conflict. The numbers certainly DO matter.
I was not around in the early '60's when our role in Vietnam was just a policing action but did we know then that, in the coming years, so many soldiers would die?

Our government has decided that we should not see the dead being brought home and they are trying to disuade the media from focusing on the numbers. Perhaps they read that historian's dissertation?

Yes. Boylan also said that "The true milestones of the war were "rarely covered or discussed," including the troops who had volunteered to serve, the families of those that have been deployed for a year or more, and the Iraqis who have sought at great risk to restore normalcy to their country. Celebrate the daily milestones, the accomplishments they have secured and look to the future of a free and democratic Iraq and to the day that all of our troops return home to the heroes welcome they deserve."

He doesn't want the dead to be used for political advantage by those who “mourn” soldiers when they are dead but cursed them when they were alive (and still wish ill on the ones living). Sounds reasonable. Frankly, I feel the same way. That doesn't mean that I don't mourn the dead or don't wish we hadn't embarked on this fiasco.

I think you've hit upon the answer, Titus. The consensus is that the 2,000th death is a statistical milestone but is no more significant than the 99th, so the question then becomes "What does this milestone symbolize?" — which people on different sides of the debate will answer 180-degrees differently.

This milestone should also be a good time to step back and put this war into some historical perspective. A nation many predicted could not handle democracy has conducted two successful elections, the insurgency remains far from a civil war, Libya has surrendered its nuclear program, Egypt has held its most open election ever, Syria is being pushed out of Lebanon, the Palestinians are moving closer to statehood, the Saudis are tinkering with elections ...

And we should take time to remember the dire predictions that did not come true. Baghdad was not subjected to 60 days and nights of carpet bombing, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, nor was there "an ecological disaster" worse than the last time nor are there "two million dead".

IMO, every death is always sad, but I think that in historical context our troops in Iraq have accomplished much more and much more skillfully than could be expected against any insurgency. And I look forward to them returning home.

What the troops have accomplished is very good. Among the things they have not accomplished were 1) finding the weapons of mass destruction, 2) finding the uranium that Saddam Hussein allegedly sought quantities of in Niger, and 3) proving that prior to the 2003 invasion, Saddam Hussein's regime posed a clear and present danger to the United States. All that meaning that the troops have not managed to pull President Bush's fat out of the fire.

Thanks to President George W. Bush's insistence that the invasion of Iraq was an integral part of the so-called Global War on "Terror" (have we eliminated fear yet?), Iraq is not only full of foreign soldiers trying to keep the peace, but Iraq has also become the staging ground for terrorists who traveled across Iraq's newly porous borders and at Bush's invitation ("Bring 'em on!") to ambush soldiers, attack soft civilian targets, and kidnap or otherwise intimidate Iraqis who hope and strive for a better society.

You may notice in this post that I have made only passing reference to the troops; the bulk of my message has focused on the Commander-in-Chief. That is because this is where the fault lies. Count me among the "sinister" Quakers and other anti-war factions, but don't assume that we are anti-soldier because we do not support this current President's folly.

We anti-war people might actually be against this war because we are against needless killing of our own people as well as those who do not take up arms in Iraq. How subversive is that? Yeah, some "ulterior motive." How much better for us to say, "Two thousand dead? Yeah, so what! We knew troops would have to die; sorry about that. Send more in!" That's the response of a military commander! How about that, Lt. Colonel Steve Boylan?

So, in response to the question whether 2,000 U.S. military deaths is a milestone or not, if it matters to you that 2,000 fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters will not be home to celebrate birthdays and holidays with their loved ones, it matters. If it doesn't matter, and it is only the cause as set forth by our President that truly matters to you, then it won't matter at all how many U.S. military deaths take place in Iraq.

As the despot Joseph Stalin is reputed to have said: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." Doesn't sound like a pacifist to me.

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

I disagree. Round numbers seem to get people's attention. For example, birthdays 30, 40, 50, etc. ae seen as the big ones. People take note with the car odometer goes over 50,000 or 100,000 miles. Although the difference between 1999 and 2000 is only one, the psychological impact on the American public will be significant. Even news coverage of the 2000th death has increased.

With all the other things that are going to hell in a hand basket for this administration, this is not a good thing.

Edited to add:



That's lumping a lot of people together and painting with a brush so broad you must have special ordered it. Before you lambast the Quakers carlitoswhey, you might look into their history as a recognized, historic peace church. They were also prominent in the fight against slavery. I doubt any organized religious group has had a more positive impact on American society. They don't, like some I could mention, wave their "holiness" in the public square for anyone, who has nothing better to do, to see. Although I'm not a religious person, I can appreciate that what Quakers have done and done quietly. My only complaint about the Quakers is Richard M. Nixon was a member, but hey, every barrel has a bad apple or two. Ironically, our other Quaker President was not a flame throwing liberal, but a lackluster Republican named Herbert Hoover.

I'm going to have to challenge that comment. Only heartless and thoughtless people would ever not care about the families that these Americans have left behind. At the same time, to add some more perspective, it should be reminded that this is a volunteer army. I say that without any sarcasm because it's easy to put to the back of our mind that these Americans chose to enlist, and regardless of their political or philosophical ideology, they knew that there was a chance that they would be placed in combat situations and that their lives would be at risk.

It sounds callous and rather hypocritical coming from myself, as someone who left the military under less than honorable means, yet there's not one day that I don't regret leaving and fufiling a comittment I chose to make, knowing full well the risks involved.

To bring the post a bit back on topic, the whole reason why this concept of a casualty "milestone" is even brought up, in my opinion, is to evoke such a distaste for conflict that it forces a sudden and abrupt withdrawl from Iraq itself. Why else would such a focus be put on the toll?

This is going to turn many people off and not have the desired effect, as it failed to do with the 1,000 tally last year, even with waning support for the war. Why? I believe so, in part because of the lack of a viable solution from the anti-war movement.

If the movement established a feasable exit strategy and brought that to the public's attention rather than a death toll, the war would be over sooner than anyone would have thought because it would force the Bush to get off his lousy bum and actually committ to an actual plan rather than regurgitating "We must stay the course.".

True. We do have an all volunteer army. That does not lessen the fact that 2000 Americans have died for nothing, thousands more have been injured--some severely, thousands of Iraqis have died, we've spent billions of dollars and created a haven for terrorists. And for what? The political debauchery of George W. Bush and his crazed neocon adminstration.

Again, this is all subjective. You believe that they have died for nothing important. I believe that there are millions of Iraqis who, many albiet are in a rough spot, are greatful for the sacrifice Americans have made for them. History will be the closest to an objective judge as we will ever see about that.

I suppose if one watchs FNC, they might come to the conclusion that something good is happening in Iraq. Otherwise, I think the equation is loaded in the other direction.

I really don't understand the logic Bush uses. We must suffer more deaths so that the ones we have already suffered will have meaning. What a grotesquely vicious circle.

I don't know if you've seen any of the Army commercials on TV lately. In most of them you have a gung ho young man or woman chomping at the bits to join the military. The parents ar usually skeptical and one commercial even asks them to check the army out. One guy is talking to his father over a game of pool. He tells his father about all the training he'll get, that he can go to college and that he'll "train around here until they need me." Dummy, they need you now and all that training won't mean a damned thing if you are dead.

PE is right. The death of a soldier is like throwing a stone in the water and watching the ripples. One death impacts no telling how many family members and friends.

Iraq will be known in history as Bush's folly.

Well, I don't watch FNC all that much to be honest, and I don't think Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket, as the media would have people think IMO.

I have made it known that I'm rather frustrated with the Bush administration's handling of the war. Yet it is blatantly obvious that the anti-war movement, as noble as their intentions are, is so removed from reality that instead of forcing Bush to create a viable exit strategy by suggesting one of their own (beyond "Bring the troops home now!"), they hyper-emotionalize the casualty totals and allow Bush to play the neutral-zone trap and say "We must stay the course.".

What is blatantly obvious, if you look at Bush’s poll numbers is that “We must stay the course” argument, regardless of how many times Bush repeats it, is falling on more and more deaf ears. It’s almost like people listen to Bush about as much as Kalija the wooden Indian Hank Williams wrote about listened to the people in the antique store.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/President...04/bush_ja.html

This one’s on job approval,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

The third panel down is about direction of the country.

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

Yep, I agree that 2,000 US deaths in Iraq mean nothing as a milestone. It simply means that 2,000 soldiers sacrificed their lives to promote democracy in Iraq, and that is supposed to protect the homeland.

I'll just leave it at that.

I don't feel any need to "distance" myself from Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists. The concerned citizens you denigrate as "looney conspiracists and crackpots" are sick of the rancid lies the Bush Adminstration used to suck us into this useless war. Some of us don't want America to be a global superpower stomping all over weaker countries and enforcing at gunpoint our idea how others should live. Some of us don't want our country to be a international pariah.

2,000 dead and thousands more wounded, crippled, deafened, blinded and psychotic for life soldiers gave their all for Democracy. Yeah, sure. They gave their all due to the lies of George Bush.

My dear Titus, you can believe if you like that Iraq is being transformed into a Disneyland in the desert, but I'm not buying it. For all the wonderful things you and Bush are exalting you STILL can't drive from the Baghdad airport into the city without risking your life and limbs.

You attempted to put some "perspective" into the 2,000 casualty count.



Gee, so 2,000 dead GI's ain't so bad, huh?

Consider this, Titus. The 2,000 soldiers that died in Iraq since 2003 are more than the soldiers that died in the first four years of Vietnam ( between 1961-1965, just over 1800 died) AND in the last two years of Vietnam (1971-1972, when just over 1600 died).

Let me comment on one other point you made.



It is not the responsibility of the anti-war movement to come up with "a viable solution." What solution would you consider viable Titus? Declare victory and bug out now? A scheduled and measured draw-down in troop numbers? Or are you looking forward to another TEN YEARS of occupying Iraq as the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said recently?

While most politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, and the media are too gutless to speak out strongly against this stupid waste of men and money, the anti-war movement dares to ask questions the Bush Administration would rather not have answered.

Or maybe the reporters are all still fighting the last war, remembering the anti-war glory days of their youth. Seymour Hersh said "quagmire" 3 days after we invaded Afghanistan. It's impossible to ignore that the generation covering the news today largely came of age in the Vietnam era, and many baby boomers will view all wars through that lens. Your college history professor included.


Well, I agree that it's lumping a lot of people together, but it wasn't me that did it. As I mentioned - strange bedfellows. Most of the bigger protests have been called by International ANSWER which is quite frankly a freaky communist group. Every protest they have ever held has more Palestinian flags than American ones.

Here is an invitation I found online. If you're a pacifist - more power to ya. But when you're standing next to a marxist / racist / everything-else-ist, I'm really not interested.


PS - Christian White Males had a little to do with ending slavery too!


And who is "loading" it in the other direction. Yes, Fox is pro-America and pro-Bush for the most part. But look at the rest of the coverage. Here is the AP article on the Iraqi constitution. Note the glee expressed for Iraqi freedom! The detailed coverage! The celebration of democracy!



-----------------------------------------------------



--Cindy Sheehan in quotes--. Feel free not to distance yourself.

I thought only fundamentalist wackos ascribed religious reasons to natural disaster, but it turns out that if Bush would have "listened to God" the hurricane in New Orleans would have turned around...
--If George Bush truly listened to God and read the words of the Christ, Iraq and the devastation in New Orleans would have never happened.

Oops, I mean the hurricane that hit occupied New Orleans...
--George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq...

Here I agree with her - the internet is an excellent anti-fascism tool.
--Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state.

And who would lead the fascist state? Well, who else?
The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush. ...

And of course, the Jews are behind it...you know, staying home from work on 9/11 and all.
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.
And nt, while you're not distancing yourself, be careful who saddles up next to ya!


Last thought on Cindy Sheehan and her noble co-protestors of 2000 deaths.

---------------

What's so insidious about George Bush's lies is how he has used the jedi mind trick to get so many others to spread them for him.

If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
-- John Kerry, USA Today on 2/13/03

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities"
-- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."
-- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
-- Robert Byrd, October 2002

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

This a milestone in so far that any round number is recognizable. If one is in favor of the Iraq War, maybe one considers that number to be not so bad. If one is against the Iraq War, one likely considers any number to be egregious.

In my opinion, the justifications for invasion and occupation were insufficient. Most of those justifications have turned out to be false, too. However, we are there now in Iraq and pulling out would create a power vacuum to be filled with criminals, despots and fanatics. Rule of law must be established. I agree with Shinseki that 300+ thousand troop strength is the only viable way to establish rule of law. It is clear to me that the current "limited troop strength" strategy is not working. The fact that the insurgency has been "in its last gasp" while increasing in deadliness over the past year should be clear indicator.

Thus, here's where I stand on the issue. Increase the troop strength to establish rule of law or pull out. The current strategy is not working and just getting soldiers and civilians killed needlessly. I'll even go so far as to say that the current "limited troop strength" strategy is effectively killing our soldiers.

This is an expensive war and $150 billion/year for the next 10 years adds up to $1.5 trillion (assuming a linear cost scale). That, my friends, will break the bank. We need something, anything, that will shorten the predicted time period. It's easier to turn a ship when you start early than to try to do it at the last minute.

What I think he means by artificial is if you believe in the cause, and in the war and that what we are doing there is right and just, then the number of deaths is not relevent. But if you disagree with the above, then every number is relevent and 2000 just being something to identify with.

In the end though, no one wants to see anyone die and we really should get away from looking at numbers because everyone one of them are important.

There's a poll for everything it seems. Here's one from CNN / USA Today that shows American support for the war up 10 points in a month. Maybe Bush's speeches, Cindy Sheehan, the new Constitution, etc., are having an effect?

carlitoswhey


Americans are a hopeful lot and some of them again reacted to the latest election in Iraq. When they understand that it basically changed nothing and that it may even have increased Sunni resentment, the numbers will again move against the war even without indictments. If there are indictments and the trials develop the motivation for the attack on Wilson (namely the forged Niger uranium documents), support for the war will collapse.

GWB from your article


Just what is the mission? It keeps changing! Is it the elimination of the threat of WMDs which, it is now clear, was grossly exaggerated and perhaps partially fabricated? Is it to decrease terrorism which didn't exist in Iraq and which the invasion and occupation seem to have increased? Is it to establish a democracy in Iraq, which the administration seems to be moving away from? Is it to stand up any kind of stable government that can resist the insurgents and not be dominated by religious Shiias beholden to Iran when events seem to be tearing the country apart with the southern section heavily under Iranian influence?

With the vote on the new Constitution just finished, I’m not surprised. Yet, my guess is that like earlier elections this will be more of mirage than anything of substance. My guess is that within two or three months from now, the numbers will look worse than the ones before this poll. Gallup has been traditionally kind to Bush. I would like to see some sort of average of polls over the next few months.

I don’t think you can make a silk purse out of the sow's ear that is the Iraq war.
This is also a long way from where Bush was when he was really riding high in the polls at the beginning of the war.

The 2000 deaths+possible indictmentws +++ don't bode well for Bush's second term.

I have noted some of the sources you cite here, and I believe that they have included these two. I think to myself - What were they saying when Bush first brought up the idea of democracy in Iraq?




So, first they ridicule the idea of Iraqi democracy, then after it happens they deny it was the goal in the first place. Stalin would be proud.

You of course know of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 - clinton link

Bush speech to UN in 2002



Bush on PBS, early 2003

Or perhaps after three days of fighting phantoms, searching caves and being attacked from all directions it became clear to Mr. Hersh that this was not going to be a triumphant, frontal assault like the first Gulf War. Either way it is not important. I was not talking about journalists. I was talking about the death counts coming home and their effect on the morale in our country. I would happily debate whether or not those numbers can actually have an effect. IF you want to talk about the journalists we can do that in another thread. Right now this discussion is going WAY off topic.

To bring it back:

I think that the numbers of dead IS significant to the people in this country. If it was not our government would not be trying to mitigate the situation.

Those numbers you give are quite misleading, Nighttimer. We had no comitted combat troops in Vietnam until 1965. By 1971, the "Vietnamization" of the war was well under way and the number of troops we had comitted there dropped quite a bit.

So, as callous as it sounds, yeah... it could be plenty worse.





It's not their responsibility? Well they sure seem to know a hell of a whole lot about screaming their lungs out calling for the troops to come home now, you'd think they would have a solution to the problem by now and force Bush to act or risk looking even more inept.

I guess it's easier to clamor for a solution than it is to think of a better one.

As far as a viable solution, I would not mind seeing a reduction in troop presence gradualy over the next two years starting New Years. We'd be there long enough for them to get their stuff straight, and if they didn't, that's not our problem.



I agree that someone has to come out and force the issue of rethinking an exit strategy, but as you pointed out, no one is willing to say anything.

The difference between the sides though, no anti-war group proposes solution, just results. The ones who, at the very least, want to see the war through are battling the administration and the party for a better solution.

It could be worse, of course, even if the death count were 10,000...or 20,000 it "could be worse". But that number is hardly trivial. From a recent article in Maxim magazine, entitled, ‘No End In Sight’.

This war has had a traumatic toll on thousands of families, ended lives, and ruined the quality of life for so many more. One could make the argument that 2,000 is an artificial mark because it doesn't include the irreparably damaged. Now, was U.S. Army Lt. Col. Steve Boylan "full of it", or out of line, IMO...No. He is the Army press spokeperson and it is his job to place a nice perspective on this. What exactly does everyone expect the Army spokesperson to say? He's right. Only and always focusing on the bad hinders morale and isn't fair to families and soldiers out there now. Supporting the troops only when they are dead or one is able to use them for some political agenda is sick, and it seems to happen a lot. Iraq isn't ready to be left alone and we have a responsibility to stay until it is. Protests and complaining will not change that fact.

carletoswhey


I don't deny that our great leader brought up democracy and other goals for the war besides WMD. (People like Wolfowitz may even have perceived this as the real goal.) Nevertheless, they sold the war to Congress and the American people on the basis of the conjunction of WMDs and al Qaeda - both proved to be entirely bogus. The great cause of democracy was only promoted after the first fell of its own weight. Then they proceeded to destroy any chance of stabilizing the country by disbanding the army and imposing Bremmers neo-liberal rules on the economy. If the US had really wanted a democratic Iraq, they would have held early elections, they finally had to be forced into holding one by Sistani.

You totally fail to come to grips with the situation as it now exists in Iraq. As Juan Cole says, "the war is over, Iran won." Do you really think we are going to impose our version of democracy upon Iraq. The Kurds want independence or decentralization with control of their own oil, the Shiia are split with the majority wanting religious government and most of the southern oil, and the Sunni won't accept independence for the Kurds nor religious government nor being cut out of a fair share of the resources. The probable course of events is for civil war whether we go or stay.

Alternatives have been proposed. Juan Cole presented one that was discussed in another thread on AD. Any solution needs to include the fairly rapid removal of routine American troop contact with the Iraqi public and some real assurance (as in a time table) that American forces will eventually be permanently removed. Statements indicating we will be there for ten years are totally counter productive.

Mrs. Pigpen,

Good point about a higher percentage of soldiers surviving their wounds this time around. I am a little lost as to how this revolves into protests and complaining not changing the fact that Iraq isn't ready to go it alone, so I'll ignore that non-sequitur.

The good point made me think about how we have historically treated returning vets with medical needs. We tend to ignore them. They represent a tremendous hidden cost of war, a cost that this country doesn't like to face. I guess it's too expensive, or the group doesn't weald enough political power, or wounded vets are reminders of painful times, or some kind of thing. The end result is that we ignore our vets in need. I suppose someone is going to take me to task on this, and I won't be surprised. It's an important enough subject to get another thread going for it, I just don't care to start one.

The 2,000 deaths mark is likely more significant for this other statistic, the number of wounded vets returning. That's a good point.

edited: The ratio of wounded to dead works out to 7.61:1.00.

Now that I reread my post, the verbiage was a bit awkward at the end. I personally think we have a moral and probably legal obligation to stay the course and finish things in Iraq. So in that vein it is counterproductive to deem 2000 a milestone number which warrants extra protesting and cries of “bring them home”. On the other hand, it enrages me when those enormous sacrifices are trivialized or minimized in any way. 2000 is a hell of a lot, and the ratio of injured enormous (thanks for those stats, btw). If Iraq becomes a peaceful prosperous democracy the future benefits might outweigh the cost (though likely not to the dead, maimed, crippled, blind and their families). I believe those in favor of the war can make this point without trivializing the sacrifice of these soldiers which is exactly what the statement “oh, well, that’s not so bad” comes down to.

Just as an aside regarding Veterans, the VA was short 1 billion this year. It’s a disgrace.

I didn't mean to re-direct us onto journalists, but I do think it's relevant. No one would know the 2000 number (15 hundred-something killed in actual combat) unless the press told them. If you do a lexis-nexus search for "grim milestone" you see that it's wall-to-wall coverage of thie 2000 number. Which influences opinion and creates a 'significant milestone.' Vs, say, the constitution being passed or schools being built. Your point about casualty fatigue is a good one though.


Firstly, thanks for acknowledging that democratic Iraq was a central part of the mission.

Secondly, Juan Cole is wrong (about many things). He is so clueless about Islamic terror that he once blamed 9/11 on the Jenin "massacre." Which happened in April of 2002. Together with arabists at the State Department, people like Juan Cole are a great reason that we had "stability" as our Mid-East goal, propping up some dictatorial regimes at the expense of freedom. Resulting in some of the very conditions we fight against today. Just the other day, Brett Scowcroft (presumably the more acceptable diplomat vs. those afwul 'neo-cons') said that we had "peace for 50 years" in the Middle East before Bush invaded Iraq. Clueless.

Edited to add Juan Cole's endorsement of the Iraq War as a "noble enterprise."

That is a pretty bad argument Titus. It is not the job of the anti-war movement to come up with a solution to the problem, it is their job to bring political pressure to bear on Congress and the White House.

The President has access to top secret military information and access to the best military minds in the country, even when he does act it isn't "his" idea it is the idea of one of his subordinates. You can't honestly expect people in the anti-war movement to draw up detailed plans for getting us out of Iraq, that is just patently ridiculous. Besides if the President won't listen to highly decorated generals that have been trying to tell him how to win then why would he listen to the anit-war movement anyway?

carloteswhey


I didn't acknowledge any such thing. Quite the opposite. I said it was mentioned but not a key part of the sale of the war. I did acknowledge that it may have been the misguided idealistic goal of some advisers like Wolfowitz but this had little to do with why we went to war.

As for Cole, I brought him up for the particular purpose of showing that tentative plans for an exit strategy other than "staying the course" had been advanced. I don't agree with Cole on many points but I respect his opinions.

You quote selectively from his blog on 4/1/03 to draw a false conclusion. Here is a short paragraph from the same blog.

Juan Cole


The US has continued to do exactly the opposite of this and it has lost the war on the political and diplomatic front.

And here is a larger portion of the section you quoted.

Juan Cole


This leaves quite a different impression, doesn't it? Juan Cole went along with the war but tried to inject some realism about the character of the Middle East. The ideologues in charge of US policy didn't listen to him or anyone else that knew the region. Cole has come to terms with the failures of the American occupation but you haven't.

I would be interested in seeing the documentation of Cole's remark regarding Jenin being the cause of 9/11. I wonder if your recollect of that statement is as distorted as you selective quotation of his remarks above?

Of course it's not their job. But if they want to be taken legitimately, it would be a smart move. Without a plan, the anti-war movement (cries of "GET OUT NOW") is little more than the endless political rheteroic that no one takes seriously.

So, yes, I do expect the anti-war movement to have an alternative. No, the guy next door doesn't have the military plans that the government has, but our fine Democratic Senators, Congressmen, and military analyists have a lot more. Yet we have heard no solution from them.

Honestly, if Dems had come up with a workable solution by Nov. 2004, Kerry might have won the election. But they haven't, and they will not win on dissidence alone. No one is happy with war. But what is the alternative? I'd much rather have Bush in charge than someone who will withdraw all our troops immediately. And as long as that remains the alternative, this "debate" will continue to be a facade.

I am not sure if I can disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement. He is fighting in this war, knows the situation, has to lead the troops and make sure that their fighting spirit is high. I can imagine that he reasons that making this number a landmark, can have a negative impact on the moral of his troops: weakening the fighting spirit. Less motivated to fight, and thus in the end possibly weaken the U.S. army from within.

So from a military perspective I can understand his statement, but politically this is of course an important issue and the media should cover the story. The call for withdrawal from Iraq is getting louder in the U.S. and 2.000 soldiers killed in a war which is loosing support, will certainly raise some political commotion.

Besides that the people in the U.S. have the right to know the truth about what's happening in Iraq. Their husbands, children, relatives and friends are fighting in this war and are sacrificing their lives for their country.

So you are saying that the US Military is causing large numbers of civilian deaths every day? On what evidence?


"Win, cut our losses and turn Iraq back over to the Iraqis" - how exactly is this different from what we are doing today? There are over 100 battalions of Iraqi forces trained and operating. Free elections and a parliamentary democracy. Economy improving every month. Infrastructure improving. Every month, more and more is "turned back over to the Iraqis." Just this month, iraqi forces repelled a terrorist attack on the Palestine hotel in Bagdad.

What you (and Cole) are correct about is the Iranian (and Syrian) influence in fostering guerilla war / insurgency / terrorism in Iraq. What you don't note is what these terrorists would be doing if not in Iraq - baking cookies?

The post war plans can be seen here on the DOD site. Win and immediately bail out while civil war erupts was not seriously considered.

We're off topic - I'll PM you on the other thing.

See the peaceful concerned citizens and Quakers "2000 dead soldiers" protest, er, parties here. and here. Very respectful.

How am I supposed to respond to this Carlitoswhey? I am no more responsible for Cindy Sheehan's words than she is for mine. Merely because Sheehan and I agree on the war in Iraq does not mean we are joined at the hip as ideological twins.

Since you are a supporter of the war should I lump you in with similarly dumb remarks made by other warhawks such as Dubya, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O' Reilly or Ann Coulter? This guilt-by-association crap is nonsense.

“Change the channel”- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.

Is that the kind of statement you might want to distance yourself from, CW?

The irrefutable fact is Cindy Sheehan lost her son in President Bush's war. Even if she still supported Bush's policy she would still be one of 2,000 families that had their son or daughter come home in a box.

When Bush, the cheap politcos who pay lip service to the war in Iraq and the wealthy elites start seeing their kids coming back in a box and join the 2000 plus families who have, I might give their pious words serious consideration.

Until that time they should shut up about subjects they know nothing about.

Ummm... I hate to tell you, but unless your child has come home in a box or you've fought- you're no different than the politicians. It's all conjecture for you sir. Frankly, I've been there and as much as I deplore Mr. Bush (for other reasons), I don't feel like the statements of Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter are in any way as ignorant or near-sighted as that of Ms. Sheehan. She's using a dedicated soldier as a martyr after he's gone, which is more dispicable than any other traitorous act in that the poor man cannot now state his own case. I, sir have personally known men that didn't make it home and would pray that if I were in their shoes that my family wouldn't make a mockery of my sacrifice.

The thing is that the view of the war in America is fueled simply by the US Media, and positivity doesn't sell or fuel their agenda. Let's be realistic, we never really hear about the successes or the soldiers whom feel a true sense of accomplishment, which aren't difficult to find. It's just that Peter Jennings doesn't have the camera/mic on those men and women.

2000 dead in Iraq? It's a sad day for every family that had to see their loved ones come home adorned in an American flag. However, we can rest assured that each and every one of them knew that their dedication to the United States Armed Forces could entail the ultimate sacrifice... but a milestone it is not. 1 dead or 1000, my heart pours in the same manner.

I find the point about the improved body armor interesting. Clearly the improved body armor has lead to an increase in severe injuries and a decrease in deaths. Were someone to calculate a gross estimation of the number of dead we WOULD have had in say, Vietnam era equipment, I imagine the government would be rather displeased with people hearing those numbers as well.

I think we have an underlying conflict concerning these numbers and the government's position on them. Clearly the administration has an interest in keeping public support for this war. Their attempts to obfuscate, though, set them up for a variety of judgements:

Is their interest merely political survival? (if so that makes them seem callous)

Is their interest solely for the success of this mission and the benefit to the Middle East?

Is there a hidden agenda a la Big Oil, Haliburton,