Friday, February 25, 2005
Irresponsible and misleading
is probably the best way to classify stories like this one:
Only several lines later is it noted that the soviets lost, on average, 1,622 soldiers a year. Thats more than the total US casualties (ed. Deaths, not technical casualties, which include wounded, killed and mia) for the entire 23 month US operation. Comparisons such as these are not only irresponsible, but down right dangerous. The ease of comparing the US -led liberation force in Iraq to the brutal occupational force of the Soviet Union is somewhat startling. The Soviet occupation was as bloody and gruesome as it was unprovoked. The UN may have dragged its heels in getting its hands bloody in Iraw, but they certainly didn't condemn the invasion. No matter, as the subject of the article is the "mounting blood cost." It seems that some, if not most, in the MSM don't seem to really grasp the nature of the conflict at hand.
Freedom, liberty and independence seldom come at a small cost. Americans are fighting in Iraq for the freedom and safety of both themselves and the Iraqi people. Let us not forget the battle of Normandy, spanning only two and half months,resulted in more than 37,000 Allied deaths, and over 170,000 missing or wounded. Or the battle of Gettysburg, where two hot summer days claimed the lives 51,000 Americans. The blood cost of these small conflicts, even within the context of a massive, bloody war, is still staggering today. Yet few would question the cause for which the soldiers stormed the french beaches. Loss of human life is tragic, but that is perhaps the most convincing argument in favor of the invasion. Need we be reminded of the barbaric torture and murderous rage employed by Saddam against his own people?
The death of American soldiers should never be taken lightly. But instead of trumpeting their numbers like slain cattle, manipulating heroic death for political profit, perhaps someone in the media should stop and consider the solemn honor and pride that can only be theirs, as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently put it, "to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the alter of freedom."
Cato Institute defense analyst Ted Carpenter said the recent level of U.S. casualties in Iraq resembled Soviet losses in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Both wars pitted forces of an invading superpower against tenacious Muslim insurgents.
Only several lines later is it noted that the soviets lost, on average, 1,622 soldiers a year. Thats more than the total US casualties (ed. Deaths, not technical casualties, which include wounded, killed and mia) for the entire 23 month US operation. Comparisons such as these are not only irresponsible, but down right dangerous. The ease of comparing the US -led liberation force in Iraq to the brutal occupational force of the Soviet Union is somewhat startling. The Soviet occupation was as bloody and gruesome as it was unprovoked. The UN may have dragged its heels in getting its hands bloody in Iraw, but they certainly didn't condemn the invasion. No matter, as the subject of the article is the "mounting blood cost." It seems that some, if not most, in the MSM don't seem to really grasp the nature of the conflict at hand.
Freedom, liberty and independence seldom come at a small cost. Americans are fighting in Iraq for the freedom and safety of both themselves and the Iraqi people. Let us not forget the battle of Normandy, spanning only two and half months,resulted in more than 37,000 Allied deaths, and over 170,000 missing or wounded. Or the battle of Gettysburg, where two hot summer days claimed the lives 51,000 Americans. The blood cost of these small conflicts, even within the context of a massive, bloody war, is still staggering today. Yet few would question the cause for which the soldiers stormed the french beaches. Loss of human life is tragic, but that is perhaps the most convincing argument in favor of the invasion. Need we be reminded of the barbaric torture and murderous rage employed by Saddam against his own people?
The death of American soldiers should never be taken lightly. But instead of trumpeting their numbers like slain cattle, manipulating heroic death for political profit, perhaps someone in the media should stop and consider the solemn honor and pride that can only be theirs, as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently put it, "to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the alter of freedom."
Comments:
Iraq never presented a threat to us and don't pretend that it did.
This is the kind of crap that will bring down the Right Wing. Cry wolf too manyt times and when it reallyh matters no one will answer the call. You people have endangered us more than you know with your willfull ignorance and sheer disengenuousness.
This is the kind of crap that will bring down the Right Wing. Cry wolf too manyt times and when it reallyh matters no one will answer the call. You people have endangered us more than you know with your willfull ignorance and sheer disengenuousness.
# posted by 
: 6:14 PM
: 6:14 PM
What is said in the article is that medical and body armor improvements have increased the survivability of the troops. The 65 deaths per month is half that of the average for the soviets over the entire period that they were in Afghanistan. The average may change over time though as the rate of attacks have steadily increased during our occupation. But I think there's another number here that's really key:
In 10 years of occupation, the Soviet Union had 37,000 wounded.
In the almost two years of US occupation, we've had 11,069 wounded.
If that pace were to be maintained, we'd have total wounded in the ball park of 55,000 before this is over if it turned into a 10 year occupation. So our total for dead or wounded would be roughly 62,400 over a 10 year span where as the soviets had a total of about 52,000.
In 10 years of occupation, the Soviet Union had 37,000 wounded.
In the almost two years of US occupation, we've had 11,069 wounded.
If that pace were to be maintained, we'd have total wounded in the ball park of 55,000 before this is over if it turned into a 10 year occupation. So our total for dead or wounded would be roughly 62,400 over a 10 year span where as the soviets had a total of about 52,000.
# posted by : 6:48 PM
: 6:48 PM
What bothers me is that you talk about "sacrifice", but it's not our own lives we're Sacrificing. We've sacrificed at least 50,000 Iraqi mothers, fathers, and children. Would they have chosen to sacrifice their families for ... well, whatever it is we're creating? In the long run, they didn't get to make that decision. We gave their lives, not ours.
# posted by : 10:41 PM
: 10:41 PM
Thanks for the posts and readership. You know you're having success in the blogosphere when you start getting reactonary criticism in your comments... ;)
Post a Comment
