Tying Off The Vain
A letter to the editor in the St. Petersburg Times:
A suicidal madnessAfter the first 500 American soldiers died in Iraq, we were told that we had to "finish the job or those deaths will have been in vain."
After 1,000 American soldiers died, we were told we had to "stay the course or those deaths will have been in vain."
Now, nearly 1,900 American soldiers have died, and we are told we "cannot cut and run or those deaths will have been in vain."
Next year, no doubt, after 3,000 American soldiers have died, we will be told that yet more lives must be invested so that those already dead will not have died in vain.
To sum up, the more who die require yet more to die so that those already dead will not have died in vain.
This is not logic, nor is it patriotism. This is suicidal madness.
Rafe Pilgrim, Crystal River
Amy-
We can't leave now. We bought it, to paraphrase General Powell.
eric at August 28, 2005 10:50 PM
Really? We bought it? In that case, if I own it, I have a few changes I want to make to that so-called Constitution they're talking about . . . .
JenL at August 29, 2005 3:40 AM
Which of the statements is wrong, though? Abandon the job, and yes, every one of our dead did so for nothing.
However, when, not if, Iraq's autonomy is returned, then the goal will be reached. Casey Sheehan re-enlisted to do this, did he not?
I have friends who have served over there. They are not ashamed of what they have done; they are ashamed that their country chooses not to report on their efforts. This means that the bulk of Americans form their opinions about Iraq on incomplete information. This may include - probably includes - you who read this.
Radwaste at August 29, 2005 6:21 AM
On the contrary, Rad, I read Miliblog and Iran The Model, to learn about what's going on in the typical soldier's tour of duty, and also from the point of view of a typical Iraqi.
My wife's cousin is just finishing up her second tour of duty there, and another frequent commenter here (Claire, I believe) also has a sister currently serving.
But you're correct in assuming that the public is only getting a very limited view of the situation at this point. This administration has done a terrible job of articulating the mission, and of framing the war as it currently stands.
At any event, we are now obligated to stay until they can defend themselves adequately, and the number of troop casualties (while terrible) is actually LESS than the average number of casualties that we've suffered during our peacetime years. This is another significant stat that's been neglected during the Sheehan grief tour currently underway.
Dmac at August 29, 2005 8:58 AM
Dmac- can you point me to where you are talking about troop casualties being less than in peacetime. I would love to see that analysis...
eric at August 29, 2005 9:59 AM
I regret that I do not have specific links right at this moment, but Jane's Defense Weekly and James Taranto @wwww.opinionjournal.com are good places to start.
The point is that we suffer many annual casualties during routine training exercises, and no one seems to get too worked up over those deaths. Actually, you never hear about them at all, expecially from the MSM. Just a little skewed, one could say.
Dmac at August 29, 2005 11:56 AM
Ah, forget about those sources - I just checked, and Taranto's too old and the Jane's you can't access w/o subscription. Here's a good starting point:
http://www.rosenblog.com/2004/05/29/us_deaths_in_iraq_a_historical_perspective.html
Doesn't answer the question fully, but I'm working on the others.
Dmac at August 29, 2005 12:11 PM
Yes, Dmac, my sister flew back to Iraq last Friday from her two-week r&r. Based on stories from her first-hand experience in Mosul, I completely agree that we are only getting a very limited view of the situation. As much as she wants to be home with her son, she believes strongly that more work must be done before leaving.
Claire at August 29, 2005 12:15 PM
You can't point to any links because it is a ridiculous, absurd statement.
eric at August 29, 2005 12:15 PM
Eric, this one is for you:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011443.php
"Between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.
That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present."
Amy, this is for you:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp
nash at August 29, 2005 12:27 PM
Eric -
You don't seem too interested in actually learning about the situation in any rational manner, you really just want to bloviate away.
Facts are troublesome things, particularly when they create cognitive dissonance.
Dmac at August 29, 2005 12:58 PM
DMAC- I've been busy at work all day- I promise to respond later, most likely tommorrow. Don't worry- we'll still be in Iraq.
It remains an absurd (and irrelevant) statement that our military personel are somehow safer in Iraq than they are in a peacetime situation.
eric at August 29, 2005 5:22 PM
No one here made such a conclusion, did you actually read the earlier comments? The only statements made were in reference to the level of troop casualties in peacetime versus active duty, and the MSM's virtual silence on the matter.
The only "absurd" and "irrelevant" statements you're refuting are the ones you, and you alone, have made.
Dmac at August 29, 2005 6:18 PM
and the number of troop casualties (while terrible) is actually LESS than the average number of casualties that we've suffered during our peacetime years.
Your exact words DMAC.
OK- here's where the bullshit meets the pavement.
(From Nash: Between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.)
Far as I can tell, this comes from the CDC, who monitor such things. Here is the link for roughly the same years:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/alprof.html
So, deaths are broken by the following for those years:
60% accidental
20% natural causes
12% suicides
5% homocides
leaving 3% for other causes.
Among the "accidental" deaths were the 253 (from memory) Marines in Lebanon who were killed in a terrorist strike, the crash of a DC-8 in Newfoundland with about 250 soldiers on board, and those who died in accidents during Gulf War 1.
The key here is there were 94.9 deaths per 100,000 active personel during these years.
Compare this to those serving in Iraq, where the annual death rate is well over 500 per 100,000 personel serving. (1,878 dead Americans over 892 days, with a general 150,000 Americans serving at any given time in Iraq.)
(easily verifiable numbers from www.icasualties.org)
Add to this discussion (when comparing to other wars) our medical advancements that keep the wounded alive, the military advancements that keep our soldiers from storming enemy beaches, and the lack of an organized and more efficient enemy and the numbers begin to make more sense.
But no matter what anyone tries to tell you, the soldiers in Iraq are definitely at far greater risk than those not in Iraq.
eric at August 29, 2005 7:13 PM
Add to this discussion (when comparing to other wars) our medical advancements that keep the wounded alive
Yes, and I have to believe the tens of thousands of wounded soldiers who are now missing limbs or who have suffered other serious injuries would probably take issue with the assertion that they're safer in Iraq than in peacetime.
deja pseu at August 29, 2005 7:31 PM
no one bothers pointing out that the dead ARE DEAD and don't care (anymore, at least) whether or not iraq is a successful mission.
kittie at August 29, 2005 9:02 PM
I'm impressed, Eric. I was going to research this for myself, but you beat me to it. I was quite certain that the discrepancy was due to the comparison of unequal numbers. It smacked of a statement made August 23, 2003 on the Faux News Network ("We distort. You should hide.") by liar par excellence, Brit Hume:
The problem with this, of course, is that Hume is comparing the number of soldiers in Iraq (150,000) to the number of people in California (34,500,000) 1.7/day to 150,000 vs. 6.6/day to 34.5 million.
Don't bother with the math. I've done it already. If we had as many troops in Iraq as the population of California, and the number of deaths remained proportionate, we would be seeing about 385 deaths each day. (And Brit Hume is a lying scumbag.)
Practical Patrick at August 29, 2005 10:46 PM
I wonder - whatever gave any of you the idea that the goal of military service was or is safety? Who says that the goal of US military action is to bring our troops home?
It's not, in either case. Safety is second to accomplishing the mission. However you may (justly) object to the uses of American military force - and here, again, I must point out that Congress is certainly shirking their plain duty - at least be aware that it is not a "nice" world. Military service is not a job one gets hired to do. It's something you swear to do. This is lost on people who are accustomed to getting second and third chances to do things so often that they think having others pick up their slack is a right.
If you'd like to see the typical response of veterans old and new to the loss of their own, count the people blessing MM2(SS) Joseph Allen Ashley , killed aboard the USS San Francisco when it struck an underwater mountain. This knuckledragger's death occurred while maneuvering at sea, not under hostile fire; the business of US submarines is to be in place where they are needed at sea in advance of all other forces. It is inherently dangerous.
I believe I can speak for a great many veterans when I say that service is to be celebrated. It is not cause for whining or claiming special status; the family of Petty Officer Allen has lost a dear one to a "mere" accident. No one was being liberated or allowed to vote or provided the opportunity to choose a Constitution because of MM2(SS) Allen's service. Yet his family can hold their head high; two hundred and fourteen pages of tribute are a damned good clue why.
Now - who has the gall to say that Casey Sheehan died for nothing? I say that whoever is saying so is concentrating on being seen with their mouth open. They certainly aren't allowing the focus to shift to the honorable self and service of Casey Sheehan, one of millions of your neighbors who served and serve with a purpose.
Radwaste at August 30, 2005 5:55 AM
I applaud your final paragraph, Rad!
Claire at August 30, 2005 7:49 AM
Nobody Casey Sheehan died for nothing, nor that military is a cakewalk, nor that those who die accidentally in the line of service should be less honored.
I just pointed out the false statement. Don't you think, Rad, that it somewhat belittles our troops sacrifices to falsely compare apples to oranges? Don't you think, Rad, that the troops who are putting their lives on the line each day deserve the whole truth, and not a bastardized version of it?
eric at August 30, 2005 8:30 AM
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, you claim to be speaking for the troops now? The moral relativism you exhibit is truly astounding.
Please get thee to Camp Crawford at the earliest possible date - they await your powers of righteous indignation and moral pestilence.
Dmac at August 30, 2005 8:58 AM
Who the hell are you talking to, DMAC? Who claims to be speaking for the troops? How long have you had these voices in your head?
eric at August 30, 2005 10:27 AM
Nice comeback, Eric. Quite witty, actually. And remember, you're never alone when you're a schizophrenic, so good luck with that internal dialogue in your head.
Dmac at August 30, 2005 1:51 PM
It is fallacious to compare different categories of fatality in order to set aside military deaths. One must compare the mission to the losses, period.
To claim that veterans do not know this is to insult their intelligence, as well as to exhibit a personal lack of awareness of the real world.
Radwaste at August 30, 2005 1:59 PM
"Don't you think, Rad, that it somewhat belittles our troops sacrifices to falsely compare apples to oranges? Don't you think, Rad, that the troops who are putting their lives on the line each day deserve the whole truth, and not a bastardized version of it?"
OK, so do you actually know anyone serving in the field presently, and have they in turn demanded the seeking of "the whole truth, and not a bastardized version of it?" If you're not speaking for "the troops," then whom are you speaking for? Yourself? Would there not be a widespread outcry from our armed services about the lengthy falsehoods being spread by our government, as you've claimed?
Please provide links and quotations for these servicemen (and servicewomen) who wish to blow the lid off this massive cover - up from our government and the Pentagon.
If not, then it's just your opinion, and nothing more, which you've failed to justify with anything other than your own fevered imagination.
DMac at August 30, 2005 2:02 PM
"Don't you think, Rad, that the troops who are putting their lives on the line each day deserve the whole truth, and not a bastardized version of it?"
Eric, on behalf of my sister, who was just back here in the States on her "r&r" from Mosul, could you please clarify this statement? She's up on the news, on Sheehan's protest, reads blogs, etc. She has internet access over in Iraq...if there's part of the "whole truth" you know about that she doesn't, I'd be interested.
Claire at August 30, 2005 2:27 PM
I think Eric is really just doing his agent Mulder impersonation with his "the truth is out there" act. Really, quite an uncanny likeness.
"A personal lack of awareness of the real world."
An excellent summation.
DMac at August 30, 2005 2:57 PM
The whole truth is that being an American soldier in Iraq is not as safe as being an American soldier in peacetime. That is what we have been discussing.
DMAC- what specifically did I say that has you so off kilter? (PS- If you want to compare me to Mulder, go right ahead. I guess I am just in a "pestilent" mood.)
Claire- Do you think your sister is safer in Iraq? Does your sister feel she and her comrades are safer now in Iraq or were safer before being stationed there?
eric at August 30, 2005 3:45 PM
The only thing I'm trying to get across here is that many facts and figures that are so often cited during this war are indeed relative, and that the MSM has ignored those facts in the service of their main purpose - to get our troops out of Iraq, no matter what the present conditions are at the time.
Reasonable people can argue regarding whether the war is justifiable or not, but some in the anti - war crowd (and yes, the conservative wing as well) have distorted the picture so completely that the general public has no idea regarding what's really going on over there on a daily basis.
But there are some of us who are honestly trying to figure it out on our own, and by discussing the present situation on the ground with the soldiers who are actually serving there (not the reporters who never venture beyond the Green Zone), at least we're attempting to broaden our perspectives apart from the narrow viewpoints we're being currently given.
Dmac at August 30, 2005 4:40 PM
Dmac -- I get that folks like you distrust the "MSM" (though why is completely opaque to me; don't Jody Miller, Robert Novak, and the entire Fox network do a good job of expounding your view of the war?).
But, am I to interpret from your statement that you don't trust the administration's reports of the progress in Iraq, either?
I would agree with that of course; it's just that I get a little more optimistic for the fate of the country when even folks on the right acknowledge that their guy is a mealymouthed little liar.
If that's what you're saying, that is.
Anyhoo.
Frank at August 30, 2005 6:30 PM
Eric, here's a deal, I'll answer your questions if you'll answer mine!
Claire at August 30, 2005 8:03 PM
Claire-
I never claimed any possession of "the whole truth."
But if I were to bloviate, I would say those fighting for us deserve complete and honest disclosure from those who put them in harms way, before, during, and after the conflict. Also, that voting American citizens have a responsibility to debate this conflict honestly, and not pull "sleight of hand" tricks such as Patrick mentioned to advance their position.
The bastardized version of the truth is what got me into this little discussion. I just thought it important to clarify the numbers presented. Patricks example was even more relevant than the one I chose to slather over.
eric at August 30, 2005 8:57 PM
I would say those fighting for us deserve complete and honest disclosure from those who put them in harms way, before, during, and after the conflict.
Eric, I would go so far as to extend that to: every single American citizen has a right to complete and honest disclosure from these war-mongering elitists who were sworn to represent we, the people, and not the military-industrial-entertainment complex.
But I'm funny that way.
Frank at August 30, 2005 9:41 PM
You got my vote Frank. Fuck conciliation. The Truth is Out There.
eric (Spooky) Mulder, fka Moonbat at August 30, 2005 10:08 PM
Re: OK, so do you actually know anyone serving in the field presently, and have they in turn demanded the seeking of "the whole truth, and not a bastardized version of it?" If you're not speaking for "the troops," then whom are you speaking for? Yourself? Would there not be a widespread outcry from our armed services about the lengthy falsehoods being spread by our government, as you've claimed?
Please provide links and quotations for these servicemen (and servicewomen) who wish to blow the lid off this massive cover - up from our government and the Pentagon.
If not, then it's just your opinion, and nothing more, which you've failed to justify with anything other than your own fevered imagination.
Wow. Check your medication. It's not working.
In addition to other misconceptions you have about military service, where do you get the idea that the enlistee gets to either choose his deployment or mouth off against his chain of command while serving? Hey, big news: servicepeople don't get to vote on what they are assigned. They get sent to do what they are told to do. Period.
It seems that you've learned about war whilst sitting in the dark with popcorn in your lap. Nothing I've said is wrong; if you are offended somehow, well, it's all about you. Do you know anyone who is a current or former veteran? Are you one yourself? I am, and I can tell there are several real situations about military service about which you appear to know nothing. That's not your fault, of course.
Radwaste at August 31, 2005 4:54 AM
I believe I was trying to inject a little sarcasm into the debate, Rad.
DMac at August 31, 2005 7:01 AM
Thanks, Eric.
No, I don't think my sister is safe in Iraq. I also don't believe that she or her fellow troops think they are safer in Iraq than if stationed elsewhere. That may be why her ex-husband, also military, choose a (comfy, safer) admin job in Japan?
I don't think my sister or her fellow troops are in the dark regarding information about the war. In fact, I venture to say that they know more than we do, since they actually are or have been there.
Claire at August 31, 2005 7:40 AM
Actually, Rad, since you asked, here's the list of people whom I know are serving currently:
My wife's cousin - serving as a nurse (Army) somewhere near the Kuwait/Iraq border;
My best friend's brother - serving somewhere in the area north of Tikrit (last we heard) - Marines.
Former vets I know:
My Father - in - Law, who served with the Air Force in Vietnam, 1966;
My friend Larry, who served with the Navy in the DaNang area, Vietnam; 1966 - 67;
My friend Steve, who served as an MP in Seoul and also near the Cambodian border, 1967 (not sure exactly about the year, could be 1966).
Former servicemen in my family:
My father, who served in Alaska with the Navy, 1943 - 44;
My Uncle, who served in Europe with the Army during WWII, 1944;
The family tree on both sides goes on for many decades of service before that, from the Civil War to the French and Indian Wars. If you're interested, I can send you the family history, which my mother worked up about a decade ago.
Dmac at August 31, 2005 8:29 AM
Dmac, my sister-in-law is a nurse in Basrah, with the British Army and coalition troops. I believe that's in the south...wonder if she might be serving near or with your wife's cousin?
Claire at August 31, 2005 12:22 PM
Yes, Claire, I believe we tried earlier to find out if our respective relatives could meet by chance at some point, and I don't think they're too far apart at the present time.
Of course, it's already been suggested that the possibility exists that I'm currently under heavy medication, so perhaps I'm in error here. And I also apparently have no realistic idea on just what constitutes military service, so there you go.
My wife's cousin is scheduled to complete her second tour by the end of next month. I don't remember exactly, but isn't your sister's hitch going to be up by November of this year?
Dmac at August 31, 2005 3:11 PM
That's right Dmac (hopefully), both sister and sister-in-law should return home then. Again, my best to your wife's cousin.
Claire at September 1, 2005 5:48 AM
Dmac - many thanks to your family for their service. As you know well from their tales of Vietnam service, being sent in harm's way for little or no reward is not new to the servicemen of any country. I'm sorry your family history and your position was not apparent to me from your earlier posts.
Radwaste at September 1, 2005 2:29 PM
Thanks, Rad. The funny thing about one of my friends who saw action during Vietnam is that he actually likes almost all the war movies from that period, both the good and atrocious ones.
I always ask him why he wants to see Hollywood depictions of what he actually experienced himself, and he just shrugs his shoulders and laughs. Perhaps the unreality of so many of those movies is part of the attraction for him.
Dmac at September 1, 2005 2:48 PM
Claire -
Thank you so much, and of course my best wishes for both your sister and sister - in - law's safe return as well.
Dmac at September 1, 2005 2:52 PM
Note to all: as of today, Joseph Allen Ashley's tribute guestbook is now up to 458 pages.
Radwaste at May 2, 2011 7:33 PM
“We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience” – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Opal Stickles at June 20, 2011 7:02 AM
Leave a comment